Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 43

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

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Renaming Fox MLB back to MLB on Fox

Someone's asked on the talk page of Fox Major League Baseball about reverting back to the commonly used version (Major League Baseball on Fox). If you want, you can do so there.Z.I. Barbour (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Jerry Layne

An IP is edit-warring to add UNDUE material to the article. I'm at 3RR, so I'd greatly appreciate it if someone else would step in and deal with this POV-pushing. Lepricavark (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Who is the player on the far right?

Hi guys -

I noticed that this image - the file name of which indicates that it's Foxx, Ruth, Gehrig and Mickey Cochrane - is sometimes captioned on WP and off WP as Foxx, Ruth, Gehrig and Al Simmons. Cochrane and Simmons apparently did look somewhat alike, but which one is correct? I notice that the image appears on the WP pages of both Simmons and Cochrane, so one of those is erroneous. To make it a little more confusing, both players were on the Athletics in the 1930s, but both had moved on to Detroit before December 1936 when this image is said to have been created. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's Al Simmons. Cochrane's ears are more pointy, while Simmons's ears are round as in the picture. Their noses are also quite different – Cochrane's is flatter, while in the picture we can see a thinner and upper nose. Eyebrows also look like Simmons's. Also that chin is Simmons's. They are quite different when you look more into them and that is most certainly Simmons in the photo. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a very similar photo on the BHOF website; they also identify the "fourth guy" as Simmons. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I was thinking of moving the file to the appropriate name and just didn't want to create more confusion unless I was sure. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

New book, via Chronicle of Higher Education

"Kansas Baseball, 1858-1941 by Mark E. Eberle (University Press of Kansas; 400 pages; $45 hardcover, $27.95 paperback). A history of the sport in the state, with special attention to teams of immigrants, women, American Indians, African-Americans, and Mexican-Americans." (via Chronicle of Higher Education) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

NL and AL infoboxes

From the Wikipedia article on sports conferences:

Major League Baseball does not use the word "conference." Instead, it is divided into two separate leagues which are identical to the conferences listed above in all but name (which, although their operations have been integrated via the Commissioner of Baseball in modern times, were originally separately managed organizations with an intense rivalry). These are the American League (AL) and National League (NL), with 15 teams each.

For that reason, I considered replacing the Infoboxes used on their respective articles with the one used for conferences and divisions. Should I do it? Z.I. Barbour (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah, because the articles cover the entire history of the leagues, each of which had over a century of independent legal personality. There's very few differences between the infoboxes anyway. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

MLB rivalry input requested

Input is requested at Talk:Major_League_Baseball_rivalries#Blue_Jays.E2.80.93Rangers_rivalry.3F. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Eric Hull

Former MLB pitcher Eric Hull's article was the target of IP vandalism earlier this month. I have now removed the vandalism, but only after it was in place for two weeks. I've added the page to my watchlist and would appreciate it if a few others would do the same as this is not the first time this page has been targeted by vandals. Also, please feel free to double check that I got all of the vandalism cleaned up. Lepricavark (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Images on season articles

Do we usually include images on specific season articles? I added some images to 2016 Detroit Tigers season and I'm wondering whether or not they are an improvement. Lepricavark (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Images are always a good idea. Spanneraol (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Designated for assignment vs. released

At Chris Young (pitcher)‎ there is some warring going on between the article stating that he has been released (supported by http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/#month=6&year=2017) and stating that he has been designated for assignment (supported by http://m.mlb.com/news/article/238495140/royals-designate-chris-young-who-enjoyed-ride/). I don't exactly know what the difference is or what the article should say. Right now the lead says one thing and the body says another.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If a player is DFAd, the team has seven days to trade, waive, or release the player. I had seen that Young was released, but this appears unclear in this case. Younger players are less likely to be outright released. Older players like Young may get released more quickly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he was released. Sometimes DFA and release happen very quickly after each other. His bio page on mlb.com says he was released so i'd go with that. Spanneraol (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

User:Nemov keeps adding this photo to New Braves Spring Training Stadium. Am I alone in thinking the photo is worthless? It shows nothing but an empty field with some bushes and trees, with nothing to make it unique or identifying, not even a sign. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If that is actually a picture of the current state of stadium's future site, then it is definitely relevant. If it is just some random field, however, then obviously it is not relevant. --Torsodog^Talk 04:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, there is a discussion at the Aaron Judge talk page about this revert, taking place here at the second entry (titled "Review"). --2604:2000:E016:A700:FD1B:13B:B4E4:F221 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Horizontal scrollbar

I'm viewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball full screen (on a desktop PC with Firefox) at a resolution of 1680x1050 but am still getting a horizontal scrollbar. Why does this page need to be so wide? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wasting My Time?

Am I wasting my time submitting an article importance reassessment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Assessment? I just noticed that no one had even edited it since August of last year and that there are still 4 other articles sitting on there for reassessment. So does anyone still reassess articles importance on that page or am I wasting my time?--Taffe316 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably yea.. might be better off mentioning it here... the activity in this project has really dropped from a few years ago I have noticed. Spanneraol (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I reassessed it for you as high importance ("Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of Baseball, but not necessarily outside it."). For the record, I wouldn't have seen it at the reassessment page. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Spitball

Talk:Spitter (river) -> Spitter. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"Hitting an RBI" (List of Major League Baseball single-game runs batted in leaders)

This IP insists that using the phrase "hitting … RBIs" is inaccurate and is changing the terminology approved during the FLC process. Is the phrase correct? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely never heard that language, and I've been watching baseball for my entire life. "Hitting a run batted in" has some obvious redundant language in there, which is probably why it is not common. It is much more common to say "batted in a run", "collected/recorded an RBI", "was credited with an RBI", etc. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that an RBI isn't something that a player hits, and that a different phrase (such as those listed) is desirable. isaacl (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying "hitting" makes me think that RBI's come from collecting a base hit, which is just flat out wrong (batters collect RBI's from bases loaded walks, bases loaded HBP's, grounding out with a runner on 3rd, sacrifice fly, etc...). "Collect" or "record" would be preferable. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:28, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Draft for assessment

Could someone look atDraft:Dallas Carroll currently submitted to AfC? If suitable move to mainspace and if not, comment on it's talkpage or via the AFCH tool if you have it. Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny enough, he is, as of 30 seconds ago. I'll review it. Btw, #2 of WP:NBASE.. "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball..." Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Oopsie, I may of mispoke, he signed for a minor league team, so no go. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox teams

this change to Will Venable added some spring training affiliations and minor league affiliations. Is that standard?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No.. Only teams where he played in regular season MLB games are included. Spanneraol (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice contains the consensus advice for persons who have played in Major League Baseball. isaacl (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in categories

Categories where teams have changed their name seem very inconsistent. For example Category:Tampa Bay Rays seasons and Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays seasons are separate categories, but Category:Miami Marlins seasons includes the seasons of the Florida Marlins, with Category:Florida Marlins seasons left as a redirect. Which approach is correct? --Jameboy (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The Marlins one is incorrect. Whomever changed it made a mistake. The teams are supposed to have separate categories for name changes. Spanneraol (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So I guess the following, for example, are also wrong?:

Category:Chicago Cubs seasons includes the seasons of the Chicago White Stockings, Colts and Orphans
Category:Houston Astros seasons includes the seasons of the Houston Colt .45s
Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim seasons includes the seasons of the California Angels and Anaheim Angels
Category:Los Angeles Dodgers seasons includes the seasons of the Brooklyn Grays, Atlantics, Bridegrooms, Superbas, Trolley Dodgers, Robins and Dodgers.

Just a few for starters. --Jameboy (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Transaction ref for Detwiler release

Apparently Ross Detwiler has been released by the Iowa Cubs after signing a minor league deal on June 6. I can't find any ref though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Pacific Coast League transactions page should do. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to use that link to permanently point to July 2017. I am not sure how WP:V will work on that ref in 2 years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. At least not one that I am aware of. When I use the MiLB transactions pages as sources I will add |page=July 2017 (for example) to the citation, but there isn't a way to change the link to go directly to the correct page like there is for the MLB transactions pages. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 00:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just link to his milb bio page [1] the transactions are listed there also. Spanneraol (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The MLB/MiLB bio page should be an external link contained in {{baseballstats}}. External links should not also be used as inline references. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree; if a site contained under the external links section is a reasonable source for cited information, and it is expected that an inline reference be provided, then I believe using it is adequate. isaacl (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Per Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article". This is not one of those rare exceptions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. We use baseball reference links all the time for stat referencing and thats included in the external links. Spanneraol (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's different enough to, say, use a team season page on B/R to cite the player's season stats, although still not desirable. I don't agree with using the full profile link as an inline citation under any circumstances and I believe WP:EL agrees with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that guideline means "don't use an external link inline", as opposed to "don't use as an inline citation's source a link that also happens to be listed under the external links section". Echoedmyron (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That matches my understanding; the first point in the "Important points to remember" (which repeats what is in bold in the lead section) is that the the page does not provide guidance for the use of inline citations. isaacl (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not my understanding of it at all. We have {{baseballstats}} to put various links as external links, and that link tells us not to use them as inline citations. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Top importance assessments

The following are rated as "Top importance" to the baseball project:

2015 Major League Baseball season • 2016 American League Championship Series • 2016 American League Wild Card Game • 2016 in baseball • 2016 Major League Baseball season • 2016 National League Championship Series • 2016 National League Division Series • 2016 National League Wild Card Game • 2016 World Series • 2017 in baseball • 2017 Major League Baseball All-Star Game • 2017 Major League Baseball season • 2017 NCAA Division I baseball season • 2017 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament

I don't believe that individual games, series or seasons should ever be considered Top importance as they are not as fundamental to the topic as the real core articles such as Hit (baseball) or World Series. If there are no objections, I will demote those on the above list to "High" (probably "Mid" for the college ones). --Jameboy (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The college ones have mostly been low importance for this parent project. In fact, the season pages are usually marked low importance even for the college sub project. I've restored them to that level. Billcasey905 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I've demoted the remainder to High-importance. Incidentally, I count 18 individuals rated Top-importance for baseball:
Hank Aaron • Barry Bonds • Roberto Clemente • Ty Cobb • Joe DiMaggio • Lou Gehrig • Ban Johnson • Walter Johnson • Mickey Mantle • Christy Mathewson • Willie Mays • Branch Rickey • Jackie Robinson • Babe Ruth • Ichiro Suzuki • Honus Wagner • Ted Williams • Cy Young
Does that group seem about right? Are all of these "core" to the topic of baseball? Would be interested to hear what people think. --Jameboy (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Confused by policy re. world series championships

See Talk:George_Kontos#2014_world_series. I can't find the discussion that led to this consensus. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe these are the discussions you are looking for: [2] [3]. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies needs help!

I am monitoring from my mobile device and I noticed some reverts on the Phillies article that seemed odd. I noticed that the article has some weird duplication going on. Since at least May it looks like there have been two reference sections, two roster sections, two EL sections and maybe others. I don't know if I'll get back to my computer tonight, but if someone is bored tonight it might be worth a look so that this doesn't carry on longer than necessary. I can't clean up this kind of a mess from my smartphone. Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Seriouslt...Leiter Jr is looking terrible tonight. only (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell at a quick glance, the Phillies article is transcluding the last 4 sections of Philadelphia_Baseball_Wall_of_Fame so we're seeing the external links for the Wall of Fame page in the middle of the article and the Phillies article links in its normal spot. If someone who's good with transclusion things can take a look at it, it'd be helpful. only (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Mendoza

Jessica Mendoza gets a decent amount of vandalism overall, especially during the baseball season. I just reverted a series of edits from this afternoon (by a user who has only edited her): adding in an unsourced weight (then increasing it), plus adding some questionable sources (a messageboard for one). Unlike a lot of vandalism, they actually referenced what they were saying, but also cherrypicked quotes and sources which are quite negative and don't represent the wider reception I've seen to her announcing.

I'm relatively new and don't really understand page protection, but maybe this is a case for it? I wasn't aware until now that this wikiproject existed, so I posted an earlier note on this at wikiproject:women's sports. I've now added Mendoza's article to this wikiproject, and figured I would bring the issue to your attention. Any assistance y'all can provide with this is greatly appreciated.Cleancutkid (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sporting News Fireman of the Year

We have someone, I won't name names, who has been removing this award from the highlights section of recipients' infoboxes. Not sure why, but it's happening.

Is it not supposed to be in the infobox, and if not why not?Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

As you may recall from your participation in previous discussions, the list of highlights that have been agreed upon by consensus is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, Rolaids Relief Man is on the list. As the award had a different name in the 60s, it should be in the infobox under its original name, I would presume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.105.124 (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I would not presume anything without having a discussion here first. Would anyone else like to weigh in? isaacl (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sporting News Reliever/Fireman of the Year Award and Rolaids Relief Man Award are two separate awards. I would not include the Sporting News award first without gaining a project-wide consensus for it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If you include that one, you would need to include all the other Sporting News awards.. and then the Baseball America awards... etc... only official MLB awards should really be included. Spanneraol (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, so they are different awards. I kinda agree with Spanneraol's point... kinda. I don't really agree with the idea of a rigid standard when it comes to infoboxes. I understand not including Sporting News or Baseball America awards if you're talking about someone like Derek Jeter, but if it's a pitcher from the 60s whose only accomplishment in his 5 year career is that he won this one award once, I see no reason NOT to have it in there.Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Unbreakable records

Can I get some responses at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_records_considered_unbreakable#Consecutive_complete_game_shutouts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Holds

There should be a page on explaining hold in baseball in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Baseball_terminology page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4100:6859:5879:4526:636B:3B1F (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It exists. Hold (baseball). Spanneraol (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: Division titles & tie-breakers

Just curious, for the team infoboxes that have won League pennants pre-1969, we link to tie-breaker games or tie-breaker series (when necessary), instead of the team's regular season. Should we do the same for Division titles of teams that have won those via tie-breaker games? Example: At the New York Yankees infobox. Should we link to 1978 American League East tie-breaker game, instead of 1978 New York Yankees season? Note that these tie-breakers are regular season games. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Coming late to the party

One of the things that really bothers me this time of year is when editors that have never visited a teams page all year show up and start doing incomplete game logs, no links to box scores, etc. for Divisional games. They completely ignore and disregard the efforts of season-long editors. Am I alone in my anger toward these young whippersnappers invading obviously well-taken care of Team articles? I know. What can you say...anyone can edit. But it sure is rude! ―Buster7 ☎ 04:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, i can relate to that as well.. just let them do their thing and then fix it later. Spanneraol (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I wanna yell, "Stay off my lawn" but I doubt they will understand! ―Buster7 ☎ 18:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

They're just trying to help. Careful not to fall into an WP:OWN trap. oknazevad (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I would wait for the postseason excitement to ebb, and then make Good Faith edits citing previous article consensus.Orsoni (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Transactions

I was looking at 2017 Los Angeles Dodgers season and I wonder if the Transactions sections should include roster moves made for each round of the playoffs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've really been treating those transaction logs as referring to the regular season. They dont really do "transactions" as such during the post-season.. it's more about just setting the roster for each round. The guys that are left off the active roster arent really optioned to the minors. Anything important that happens, like Seager being removed from the NLCS roster, can be mentioned in the appropriate post-season section. Spanneraol (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should document all post season roster changes as transactions in the season articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

They aren't transactions though. I agree with Spanneraol.--Torsodog^Talk 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 World Series

Please read Talk:2017 World Series#Ceremonial First Pitch and voice your opinions about the ceremonial first pitch of World Series games and WP:PYRAMID. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm completely drained after last night's game... this series has been nuts.. i'm sure people without a vested interest are enjoying it.. but it's soul crushing on my end... oh well.. back home for hopefully two more games. Hope to make it through it without a complete breakdown. Spanneraol (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Obviously the Astros are a good team if they were able to beat the Yankees. :) I just wish it ended earlier because I'm knackered today. I can only imagine how people living on the East Coast are feeling about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable alumni on MiLB team articles

See Burlington Bees#Notable_alumni and Spokane Indians#Notable_alumni, for example. I've repaired DAB links in quite a few of these sections over the past few months. To me, the criteria for inclusion in such lists seems a little arbitrary, and the formatting is not totally consistent with SOP. I don't favor outright removal of these sections, but I think they could stand to be cleaned up a little bit. However, I also feel this is something that the community of baseball editors should discuss to determine exactly how these sections should be structured. Pinging Skilgis1900, who seems to be the one adding these sections. Lepricavark (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Baseball This article defines "notability" as one MLB game among other criteria. I don't list each player who played in one MLB game. I always list players who are in the Hall of Fame under such heading. I list players under 'notable alumni" under the criteria of appearing in an all-Star game or who had 10 or more years of full MLB service. Other players, who had shorter careers, I may list if they were league leaders, noteworthy public figures, were impactful players or who were deceased while playing. I greatly appreciate the diligence and efforts of Lepricavark (talk) and of everyone who has interest in contributing to baseball history. I'm happy to contribute in any way and will gladly format differently if given direction. I apologize for the DAB. -Skilgis1900. Skilgis1900

I think these sections would benefit from being grouped under one "Notable alumni" (or some other title) heading, rather than there being "Hall of Famers" and "Notable alumni" sections. The bolding seems a little jarring to the reader. I also feel like there should either be a brief explanation of what makes each player "notable" (like "4 x MLB All-Star; 1989 AL RBI Leader") after every player or after no players. My preference would be not at all for a cleaner list. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Inagree with leaving off accomplishments. The accomplishments are not from the player's time withthe team, so are a bit misleading. Likewise, I don't like splitting out the hall of famers, because no one is in the Hall of Fame for what they did while in the minors (literally; it takes 10 years of major league service to evenbe eligible). I know bare lists are looked down upon by some, but this case it works better.

Ultimately, though, I just don't like the lists at all. That a hall of famer spent half a season with a Single-A team while rising to the majors isn't that particularly notable, especially since which Single-A team is determined purely by factors outside the player's control. Or for that matter, the actual Single-A club, as player personnel decisions are made by the front office of the parent MLB club. oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's views. I view any player lists as serving two functions: to note both the team's player history and the individual player's career. That players played at whatever level is part of their career, just as some MLB players continue to develop at the MLB level. To entirely ignore any players who ever played would be ignoring the integral part of the team's history and I feel baseball history needs to be noted. In regerds to headings, one heading could be worded simply "Notable Franchise alumni." Player criteria for the list could be noted there in a sentence and players listed below that.Skilgis1900 (talk)

FWIW, a long, long time ago when I wrote the Calgary Cannons article, I was faced with this problem and decided to arbitrarily cut-off inclusion by name at players who went on to play parts of 10 Major League seasons. The result was a nice, manageable list. Reso lute 22:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Brisbane Bandits

A recent edit to Brisbane Bandits by a new editor has added details of the current roster, but without any formatting, and therefore the section is totally unreadable. I've commented it out for the time being. Would someone please take a look, determine whether this is legit info (it looks like it, but this isn't my area) and put it into a useful form? Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

They should use our existing roster format for things like that.. listing it the way they are is useless. Spanneraol (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

minor league free agents

The list of minor league free agents is out. [4]. I started on it but don't have time to go through the whole list right now so if others want to take a crack at it, go right ahead. I've done the D'backs, Braves, Orioles and Dodgers. Spanneraol (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Tris Speaker hit total

In his inbox, his hit total is listed at 3,515, although on 2 other spots on the page is listed at 3,514. MLB lists his hit total at 3,515, but the Hall Of Fame site, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Reference, Retrosheet, Fangraphs, The Baseball Nexus, Baseball Prospectus,Fenway Fanatics.com, Find A Grave, The Baseball Cube, ESPN,and the Official Website of Tris Speaker to name a few list his hit total at 3,514. Me and someone else tried reverting to 3,514 but was reverted back within the hour in the last 6 months.It should be 3,514 for the sake of consistency because 80% of the sources claim the 3,514 figure.See what you can do and thank you for your time. Have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Re:Curt Flood article addition revert

On November 16,2017 at 21:17 I made an addition to Curt Flood's wiki page where it says Aftermath and Post Baseball Life. After his major-league stats, I added,which is correct:( An excellent center fielder, Flood posted a .987 fielding percentage in his major league career).I cited Baseball Reference and Retrosheet in the sources section, but I don't know how to reference it. The reverting editor who took my addition out said it was not sourced. Baseball Reference and Retrosheet are very reliable sources and he said the entry was wrong.I know my entry was 100% correct and that could be backed up. See what can be done and maybe it should be modified slightly. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

To me the issue is using the term "excellent" which is very much a POV statement.. you'd need to have a source saying that the .987 fielding percentage qualifies as excellent.. i don't think BR says that. Spanneraol (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

So if I just enter (Flood posted a .987 fielding percentage in his major league career.) would that be acceptable with the sources I cited?2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe so. Spanneraol (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you make the entry in the location I specified and source it? I am afraid the reverting editor will delete it again. I have had problems with him before. Thank you for your time and have a good evening.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Good morning. One last request.Can you do something about the Tris Speaker issue? Just change the inbox hit total to 3,514 to give the article consistency(2 spots on the page say 3,514) and multisource it. Other than MLB, all other sources claim the 3,514 figure. A couple of years ago, that figure was in the inbox. See what you can do.Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe you are right on Speaker.. All sources other than mlb.com have the 3,514 number.. including the Hall of Fame... and i have noticed in the past that MLB's website is sometimes prone to errors. Spanneraol (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Heart & Hustle Award

Can I get eyes and opinions on this page? Are there 30 team "winners" or just 30 nominees for one award winner? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe every team nominates one player and the winner is chosen from among those nominees. Spanneraol (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Baseball

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Aggiefan47 and sockpuppetry

Just a quick summary here - User:Aggiefan47 was indef blocked in late October for being disruptive and unwilling to discuss and collaborate. This morning I noticed edits to Carlos Beltrán which were in-line with what Aggiefan47 was doing before they were blocked. I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into a couple IPs here if anyone notices other IPs that edit with Aggiefan's usual pattern. Things to look out for are adding/removing spacing from infobox fields, unnecessarily re-organizing infobox fields, disambiguating runs batted in by piping run batted in (and then removing it from other pages), adding "px" in image size fields (i.e. 250 -> 250px which does nothing), capitalizing the "b" in birth date templates, moving medal templates outside of the infobox, etc. Basically doing one thing on one page, and then turning around and removing it from another, often within the hour. If you see anything like this please add the IP to the sock report, or post it here if you're unsure. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Team season problem?

Hello, I'm new to this WikiProject, but I've noticed that in several articles relating to teams in a particular season, there is no pipe link to the team article. It just seems to be a bit strange and inconvenient. Example of this issue can be found here in the 2018 Baltimore Orioles season article. Example of what should be done can be displayed in the 2018 Los Angeles Angels season article. Epicandrew1220 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

They were originally linked in the lead but someone went through and removed all the links because they were part of the bold title... if you want to go through and add them like the Angels season then go ahead. Spanneraol (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spanneraol:Should I expand the lead or just link them in the bold? Appreciate the response! Epicandrew1220 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDAVOID seems most applicable here. Frankly, it seems overkill to bold the title here, and something like "The Baltimore Orioles in 2018 ..." would be appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Followup: if you guys would like to help fix this issues across the 100's of articles that we would have to go through, that would be incredible. MOS:BOLDAVOID and lack of link to the main team article in season articles are the two issues I'm spotting. Thanks! Epicandrew1220 (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Angels' article seems OK. What was done to the Orioles' article just looks weird and unseemly in the first sentence of an article. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ontario Amateur Softball Association

Hello, baseball enthusiasts! I have been fixing up this article, and I would like to ask if the list of people who have been nominated for an award is appropriate, or should be removed. I don't know much about sports organizations.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say they should be removed. Spanneraol (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That was my thought too. I will do it.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrator requested move

I'm sure that one of you is an admin, but I can't remember who. Could you please move Tampa Yankees to Tampa Tarpons since the team has been renamed. I've already moved the previous Tarpons team article to Tampa Tarpons (1957–1988), now the Yankees article needs to be moved to Tampa Tarpons. I figured this would be easier than going through WP:RM. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If needed an uncontroversial technidal request can be filled at WP:RM easily without need for a discussion. This would be pretty uncontroversial per WP:NAMECHANGES. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Put it up there as uncontroversial technical. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Filled the technical. Also reverted the improper cut-and-paste move performed by Jamesmiko. That is never allowed as it breaks attribution which is legally required under the terms of Wikipedia's licenses. oknazevad (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Now we just got to make sure, once the move is properly performed, that links point to the proper version of the Tarpons. oknazevad (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer review request for Alan Wiggins

Bagumba gave me an excellent GA review for the Wiggins article a couple of years ago and I've decided to see if I can get it to FA. I posted a peer review request here if anyone is interested in commenting. FAC is not really something I've done before, so I'd welcome any kind of feedback. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Question on Minor League Seasons

Hello all,

Obviously season recaps of minor league teams are not notable. However, is it acceptable to include minor league seasons within the season recaps of their major league affiliates? I haven't seen this, but wasn't sure if there was some established precedent. South Nashua (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The records and coaching staffs are included on most pages and i have bare bones stats stuff on the Dodgers pages that i've been doing.. take a look at 2017 Los Angeles Dodgers season#Farm system. Spanneraol (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spanneraol:Do you think there would be an issue if sections like that were expanded to give a paragraph or two of detail? South Nashua (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends, i didn't want it to overpower the page which should be primarily about the major league team. If the couple of paragraphs is about the whole minor league system and not a paragraph or two on each farm team maybe. You can always try something and see if anyone objects. Spanneraol (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Inwould agree with that. A quick couple of paragraphs would make sense. Probably a good thing to include would be any changes to affiliations leading into that season. oknazevad (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Use WP:BALASPS as the guiding principle: "... strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It should only be a small portion of the page relative to major league happenings.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I'll see what I can do. It's frustrating, as I'd love to see fully professional minor league teams get their own season articles, comparable to what you'd find with college teams (which, let's face it, are defacto minor league teams that are just very popular) and lower level fully professional soccer teams (which I believe meet notability requirements for that particular sport). South Nashua (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball assistant hitting coaches ?

With the proliferation of "assistant hitting coaches" in MLB, should we designate a separate category for them? I think I've been sticking them in Category:Major League Baseball hitting coaches with the "fully tenured" hitting coaches. Probably also relevant to consider how to categorize the "quality control" coaches and whatever else we've seen the past few years. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I dont think the "assistant" hitting coaches need their own category.. they are still technically hitting coaches. The other miscellaneous coaches can just go in the all encompassing coaches categories. Spanneraol (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

There's a discussion relevant to this WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Batting average about whether to split Batting average into separate cricket and baseball articles. If interested, join the conversation there. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change use of bold in introduction to season articles

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDAVOID to change the use of "bold" lettering in the introduction to season articles. As this affects a protocol that has been in use by the Baseball project and other professional sports projects, please feel free to add your view at the discussion so that a consensus can hopefully be reached one way or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that we reached a consensus around two months back at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_43#Team_season_problem?. Zoom (talk page) 00:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Alan Wiggins FAC

I have nominated Alan Wiggins at FAC. I appreciate any feedback that anyone can offer. Thanks again. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Baseball Cube

I don't know why, but the Cube parameter in Template:Baseballstats no longer works properly. I clicked the TBC link on several of our baseball player pages, and each time I got an error message. Lepricavark (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

TBC has apparently changed how it stores player bios. Instead of using their name in the URL, they now use an ID number. It looks like all player articles will need to have the stats link template updated to reflect these changes. NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. This will take a while. Lepricavark (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

MLB Postseason articles and templates

I've been developing this for a while now, but we should consider merging all of our Postseason articles into a singular Article for each year (Starting in either 1969, or 1995). Here's the example I developed recently.

Also, as mentioned before, to keep with consistency amongst other WikiProjects, those Postseason brackets will be converted to templates, it would help to combat vandalism, and reduces the number of bytes in a given article.

These are my plans for the Postseason articles; it could work, but I want to know your opinion on the matter. – Piranha249 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are suggesting.. you want to get rid of all the individual articles for the various playoff series and combine them onto this one page? That seems like it would be a bit unwieldy. Spanneraol (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I'm saying! – Piranha249 (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for that.. it would make an awfully busy page. Why do you want to do that? Spanneraol (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

changes to baseball composition

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/juiced-baseballs/

There's been a statistically detectable increase in MLB home runs in recent years. These guys X-rayed some MLB baseballs and found the composition has changed in ways that could make them travel further when hit. Baseball isn't my thing so I'm posting the link here in case someone wants to use it. I thought it was interesting. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Newark Little Giants

Hi, is the article Newark Little Giants considered to pass notability? Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There’s no sources. Anyone know if it’s a hoax? JOJ ^Hutton 20:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The team existed [5]. It may be worth re-directing to the league article or combining with other Newark teams if it cant support its own article. Spanneraol (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Williams Jerez article

Hello. I am currently writing an article for Red Sox 40-man roster pitcher Williams Jerez in my sandbox. Since he has not played in the majors yet, I realize the article would not qualify for immediate notability under the project's guidelines. Would it be okay to create the article now, or should I wait until (if) he makes the Red Sox roster? Thank you. Tdorante10 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would support it.--TM 21:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Closers category?

Would you support creating and populating a Category:Closers (baseball)?--TM 21:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No. There's too much grey area there. Surely we'd agree on players like Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Rollie Fingers, etc., but what about somebody who serves as a closer for a few months, and then never again? Or what about a relief pitcher who gets one save? We categorize by positions; closer is a role. We wouldn't look to make Category:Middle relievers. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Closer is a modern baseball term that is already being misapplied in popular culture to pitchers who players before the origination of the word. More importantly, it is often an opinion of the duties of a member of a certain pitching staff....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

baseball

baseball is having a procedural review of its FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baseball/archive2 due to the discovery of socking at its FAC. All input welcome Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Baseball for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.

If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Baseball franchise questions

I have questions regarding where franchises can or can not exist depending on which league or level in either the mlb, MiLB or independent baseball, maybe collegiate. I would appreciate if someone answered these questions who is/are not part of WikiProject Ice Hockey.

The Astros transferred from the NL to the AL. Are the NL Astros and the AL Astros the same franchise? How about Minor League Baseball and independent baseball.

1. An MiLB franchise at a different developmental level replaces another MiLB franchise also at a different developmental level and assumes the name of the previous MiLB franchise, the same process that occurs in minor pro hockey. Is it possible for an MiLB franchise to move up or down developmental levels or no? It is possible for an MiLB franchise to switch leagues at the same developmental level and continue as the same franchise- referring to the Lake County Captains and the Bowling Green Hot Rods.

2. Now is an independent baseball franchise allowed to move to the MiLB as the same franchise or no? Let’s use the Gary SouthShore RailCats as an example, are they allowed to move to the MiLB as the same franchise? Independent baseball has seen a number of leagues come and go. The RailCats played in two leagues, the Northern League and the American Association. Are the RailCats of the Northern League and the RailCats of the American Association the same franchise?

3. Suppose a billionaire owns either an MiLB franchise or an Independent baseball franchise and he wants to join the MLB expansion, are they allowed to move their MiLB franchise or independent baseball franchise to the MLB?

4. Can you incorporate a sports franchise as a company? If so than if you want to switch leagues, would they continue as the same franchise cause they were incorporated as a company. The New York Giants legal name is New York Football Giants Inc.

Section by 72.82.255.100 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 36#MiLB Team Histories and Teams Relocating or Joining and Possible Folding or Moving Up and Down Levels- Affiliated Baseball. The answers are all the same as last time these questions were raised. isaacl (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I already know you can’t do this in hockey. I said I want someone not from WikiProject Ice Hockey to respond. Anyways, I’m asking if a franchise is transferable though it has to stay in the same bubble. I’ll give different questions out: Who issues MiLB franchises, can franchises really be transferable from AL to NL or NL to AL, are franchises transferable from MiLB to MLB if the commissioner of baseball is the one that approves the creation of both MLB and MiLB franchises, can MiLB franchises be transferable from one level to another if it is the MiLB itself that grants franchises and not its leagues, will the MiLB allow an owner to transfer its independent league franchise to the MiLB or do they have to get a new franchise.72.82.255.100 (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Currently the AL and NL are both part of MLB so transferring from one to the other just means changing schedules and dealing with the DH... no change in franchise... No franchises have transferred from the minor leagues since the early 1900s and I dont see that ever happening again so its moot... Also i dont believe the commissioner of baseball has anything to do with minor league franchises... which are determined by many factors such as what the MLB affiliate wants to do with them and the city issues.... independent league franchises never transfer to Milb.. If a team in the same city takes on a name of a former indy league team its still a new franchise.. How we have handled this with regards to minor league teams on this wiki is a bit scattershot in the past as to if we stick with the affiliate or the city... Spanneraol (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion I linked to had nothing to do with hockey. Franchises are granted by the organizations for each league (MLB at this point being an organization governing both the NL and AL). As described in the previous discussion, leaving a league involves ending a business agreement with the associated organization. Entering a different league involves starting a new business agreement with another organization. A franchise right with one organization has no meaning for the other one; if I have a franchise right with Wendy's, I can't transfer it to McDonald's. I can end my franchise right with Wendy's, and obtain a new one with McDonald's. isaacl (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson Day

Jackie Robinson Day, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that article was GA. Anyone want to help me keep it that way? @Spanneraol:, that's your team's guy. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That article looks like it needs some work.. I might be able to spend some time on it this weekend... I need to take a photo of the statue at Dodger Stadium.. I was just there last weekend too but didnt think about it. Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That'd be great. I'll help out. Hopefully others will too. I started adding some about the Baseball color line. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LAYOUT

There's a new editor going around, User:Stonecold415, making lots of itty bitty sections on baseball biographies. MOS:LAYOUT discusses how sections should not be too long or too short. I've tried engaging with this editor on their talk page, but have gotten no response. I'm hoping that bringing this to the attention of the community may draw a response from the editor. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with having different sections for each team someone played with... as long as the editor plans to expand those sections into meaningful content.. just having "player x signed with team on x date and was released on x date" doesnt really help much. And of course those bios on the minor league pages shouldnt be sectionalized as it just gets too busy. Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally there should be a section for each team, but that can be a problem if, say, the player is only in the majors for that team for a week or two. Then there isn't much more to write than "player x signed/was claimed off waivers, batted y, released on date z." – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Trayce Thompson just provided another good example of this MOS problem. See this edit, made by User:Kingryan227. Thompson was a Yankee for two days and did not appear in a game for any NYY affiliate. There does not need to be a subsection for his tenure in pinstripes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yea i caught him trying to add a Braves section to Adrian Gonzalez awhile back and he was never really with them. The guy should actually play for the team to have its own section. Spanneraol (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That trade to the Braves was bookkeeping. It was about manipulating the luxury tax. 20:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVIL: "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative ... and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Sometimes new users need to be blocked to get them to acknowledge talk page concerns. Maybe they dont even know they have messgaes?—Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, small sections can detract from legibility by magnifying the abruptness. An editor should be able to seamlessly weave the transitions of a player's career without having to rely on section headers. There are many examples of players whose careers have petered out among several teams over their final few seasons. Henry Blanco article is an example of what I believe are too many section headers. You can delve through the article history to see how it was edited prior to the addition of section headers.Orsoni (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Henry Blanco is a great example of oversectioning. In that case, a section per team is counterproductive, unless the sections are significantly expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tyler Austin

Please engage with User:SunCrow and I in a discussion at Talk:Tyler_Austin#Article_length. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What are folks views on Portal:Baseball? It doesn't appear to have been maintained or updated in recent years, and much of the activity there has been to revert vandals who have targeted it. Do folks think the baseball portal is useful? Did people even know it existed? Even if the broader RfC fails, should Portal:Baseball be deleted? Alternatively, would anyone want to volunteer to update and maintain it? Cbl62 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I find it to be pretty much useless. Spanneraol (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

World Series entries reverts

Hello and good day. A few days ago I made additions to these particular World Series: 1925 World Series, Games 1-7, 1930 World Series, games 1-4, 1931 World Series, games 1-7, 1933 World Series, Games 1-5, 1934 World Series, games 3-7, 1940 World Series, Games 1-6, and the 1942 World Series, games 2-4.They were reverted by User: Dorsetonian because there were no citations and the tone of the additions. Can you, based on what I entered, improve the entries and keep within Wikipedia standards? These games(36 in all) have nothing there and there should be notes about each game.I have also made other additions to playoff and World Series games with no sources that maybe should be checked on. I used The Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia Ninth Edition copyright 1993 as my source. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your additions look fine for the most part.. except one bit where you described something as "the most controversial" play which definitely needs a source. You should just look at some other pages and see sources are cited on wikipedia and then re-enter your edits with proper sourcing. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NPOV can be found in tons of baseball articles. I have lost count how many times I've removed things like 'good', 'poor', 'worse', etc....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI - related discussions here: 1, 2 and 3. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in WPBASE articles

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few dozen high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag.

Taking the first item as an example, the problem is in the ==Women's soccer== section (a little bit of the wikitext for the table should be highlighted in the editing window, underneath the preview). The current version in the preview looks like it's all connected as one table. In the upcoming version, it looks like two separate tables. If you're satisfied with the appearance in the new rendering, then you're done.

This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. For the first article in this list, the highlighting indicates that the problem is in the infobox. I don't see a significant difference, so I'd probably leave it alone.

You might notice that the same article is listed six times. That means that there are six separate errors in it. The &lintid will highlight a different bit of wikitext for each link.

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An additional tip about pages that are listed multiple times. Once any of the errors are fixed, the error highlighting will very likely not be valid for the other errors on the page since the page size might have changed -- new lint ids will be generated when the page is reparsed. So, my recommendation is to fix all errors on a page at once. SSastry (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

BR Bullpen

I have a quick question: should we be linking to BR bullpen profiles on player biography articles? I noticed just such a link at Mike Koplove, and I suspect there are plenty more. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so; not much point in linking to another wiki without editorial control. (We already provide guidance that the BR bullpen is not a reliable source.) isaacl (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't for the reasons Isaac1 points out....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #1 is most relevant: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.—Bagumba (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all for the clarification. Lepricavark (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

TFD discussion

There's a discussion at templates for deletion that may interest editors at this project. oknazevad (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

For a fuller definition of the discussion, the question is whether or not to delete many of the templates which list Major League stadiums (no minor league stadium templates are under discussion, just major league). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Notable Games

Participants may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#RFC on the use of notable games sections AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Denny McLain Career Statistics additions request

Hello and good day. Go to McLains stats line. Please add the following; Hits(H) 1646, Runs(R) 778, Earned runs (ER) 711. Source: Baseball Reference pitching data for Denny McLain. Thank you for your time and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Was added.I managed to figure it out. All have a good evening.2601:581:8500:949C:EC96:D668:7EFF:2FD9 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Under Armour All-America Baseball Game

Does anyone know how to find the roster with jersey numbers for the 2017 Under Armour All-America Baseball Game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 Major League Baseball draft

The 2018 Major League Baseball draft page currently indicates that Shea Patterson was drafted 1169th out of 1024 picks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That should read 1,204, not 1,024. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Andruw Jones

Some random IP keeps adding hits to Andruw Jones stats in the infobox. Only triple crown stats get added per consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice. But this person doesn't care. Help with this would be appreciated.--Yankees10 23:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Also having a similar issue at Juan Pierre's article. This time it involves the adding of the hits leader in the highlight section. Which again was agreed to be only for triple crown stats.--Yankees10 01:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I convinced him to stop edit waring on the Pierre article and to discuss on the talk page.. You should engage with him there. Spanneraol (talk)

FWIW, I don't really see any harm in including hits in the infobox stats section. I know what the consensus is, but it has never been strictly enforced across all player articles. Lepricavark (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't add it but i dont care enough about it to revert if someone else does.. at least for players that have a lot of hits.. if its just a handful on some scrub i'd probably remove it. Spanneraol (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For Pierre, the edit warring was over adding the fact that he led NL in hits; it was not about adding his hit total.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding including stats, as I said in the thread I started on the Andruw Jones's talk page, it depends if a case can be made that including the stat is essential for a concise summary of his key accomplishments. Regarding career highlights, there are a lot of league leader titles that could be included, and that's what the group of interested editors voted to include. It may be a compromise, in some sense, but it's intended to avoid further prolonged arguments by codifying agreement. That being said, reviewing the discussion, no one raised including the hit leader. I'm not sure if that's because people considered it and rejected raising it, or they just didn't think of it, as batting average champion is the far more common stat used. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Because random IP's and new editors are always adding them.--Yankees10 05:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Lepricavark:, *@Yankees10:, I'm pretty sure its always the same guy, his IP keeps on changing but always starts with "26". I've dealt with him a couple of times where he adds non-notable info or stats and then freaks out at myself or another editor for removing it. My guess is it's someone sock puppeting after his account was blocked from editing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Joey Votto

Can someone keep an eye out? An editor is persistent in adding DH as a primary position for infobox purposes and is characterizing 2018 as Votto’s tenth season (I don’t think that’s right). I am inadvertently over 3RR. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Made the disruptive edit after receiving final warning from ClueBot. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Miguel Cabrera revert

Hello and good day. Go to his article. Go to 2018. Where it says....He finished the season with a .301 average...several days ago I changed to .299 because it was not in the inline sources indicated because his last game wasn't counted. The sources there now should be changed to Baseball Reference, MLB, and ESPN. These sources should be used, all three have his batting average at .299. My attempted edit wasn't accepted and this is cut and dried, can someone do this for me using the sources I mentioned and sourcing it? I tried contacting the reverting editor but he hasn"t responded. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:F94A:A139:7F5B:817B (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Brett Gardner 10/5

Brett Gardner recently (within last 2 days) got his 10/5 rights. He should be added to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_who_spent_their_entire_career_with_one_franchise (I have no fucking idea how to edit that) probably his user page and some related yankee pages need to be updated too. I'm not good at wikipedia but I <3 Brett Gardener and I know there are talented ppl out there who will help recognize him. Go Yanks.

Nm I got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogibeera (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Mo Vaughn revert

Good day. Today 7/5 at 11:16 and 11:27, I made additions to the article regarding his career statistics and hitting three home runs on 9/24/1996, but was reverted soon after because I did not cite my sources. Don't know how to. Go to his page and edit history and see my additions. Can someone put back my additions using Baseball Reference for career statistics as a source and Retrosheet best performances home runs as a source for his 1996 3 home run game. Would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:A5F3:1525:5D99:1249 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia:Citing Sources article, it explains it entirely. At the top of the edit box (on a PC) there is a button with an arrow next to it called "cite". Click at the end of your statement, which you want to cite and click that button, then click the "template" drop down and pick cite web and fill in the URL where you sourced the information, date retrieved (today) and the name of the website. It should add the template then. If you need any more help please ask me; if you still cannot do it put the link on my talk page along with all the changes you want to make and I will do them if you need me to. IWI (chat) 00:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverts on Joe DiMaggio, Joe Cronin, Ted Williams, Vida Blue stats lines.

Hello and good evening. The above stats lines from the above articles that I put in the first 3 mentioned above (I added to Vida Blue stats line) were deleted by user Yankees10 today, he says that stats lines according to Wikipedia:Projects are not allowed. Is this true? If it is, I will stop doing that no problem. What is the consensus on this? Allowed or disallowed? No big deal, I will stop, but can I just add statistics in general word form, in a regular paragraph? Let me know. Thank you and I appreciate your time.2601:581:8500:949C:29AD:44E0:620B:7E12 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Although there are no firm rules as per the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, statistics are frowned upon because they require constant editing to keep them up to date and, too many statistics can detract from the readability of an article however, statistics weigh heavily in the baseball world so, I think a case could be made for statistic charts in Wikipedia articles on retired players, if a general concensus can be reached here on the Project Talk Page. I wouldn't make changes on major Hall of Fame articles without reaching a concensus here as, those articles usually have several editors working on them. The relevant page is at: WP:NOTSTATS.Orsoni (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying and accept that and will refrain from adding on stats lines to high profile players in the future, but Vida Blue's stats line has been in that article since August 2008, and just because I added a few extra stats to his line doesn't mean it should have been deleted. That was someone elses work, not mine. That stats line (Vida Blue) with my additions should be put back. Thank you and have a good evening.2601:581:8500:949C:4491:11CC:787F:F8CE (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is trying to say that your edits led to the removal of the section. The section was deleted because - no matter how long it had been there - some people feel like it just didn’t serve the purposes associated with an encyclopedia. If you wanted to know a player’s life story, you wouldnt go to Baseball Reference expecting to find prose in the middle of all the season statistics... but they do provide links to places like the BR Bullpen and the SABR BioProject (both of which, like us, deal heavily in prose). In the same way, if someone wants to know how many hit batsmen a middle reliever had in some random season, coming to WP wouldn’t be the best choice, but we do provide a link to each player’s article to their BR page, so even those people will ultimately get what they need. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

1959 Los Angeles Dodgers season page (World Series section)

Hello and good day. Go to that page, then World Series Game 1. It looks like the linescore was misstyped and doesn't align with the others, extra characters are there that shouldn't be and doesn't match the linescores below it. Just think that should be corrected. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:2DEB:FC57:6056:8B85 (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It was vandalism.. which i have now reverted. Spanneraol (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of color in baseball articles

I have noticed that some baseball articles seem to use color for the sake of using color.

A good example of how to use color is for navboxes, e.g. in Matt Harvey#External links. If you are looking for articles related to the Cincinnati Reds, your eyes are drawn to the red navbox, whereas if you are interested in the New York Mets you will notice the blue navboxes with orange trim. This seems to make sense.

A bad example (in my opinion) of color use is in tables such as at Great American Ball Park#Milestones and notable moments. The color seems purely decorative and distracts from the content. I am trying to understand the background and the reasoning behind colour use here - is it necessary or would a "plain" table be better? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jameboy: I do agree with you. I have seen some editors going through team and stadium articles adding these colors to tables. I would much prefer they didn't do it, but hadn't mustered the time or energy to try to revert them to standard plain tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If colours are used (and generally I also think it is unnecessary), for legibility purposes it would better to just use them for slightly thicker borders, as is done with NHL teams. The Ice Hockey WikiProject had a discussion a few years ago where this was roughly agreed upon. (For whatever reason, the issue with hockey-related articles drew the attention of some editors for whom accessibility is a large concern, which helped override the concerns of those who like having colourful backgrounds.) I think I brought it up here before but it did not attain consensus. (I'm pretty sure the Montreal Expos article used to have borders with colours before, but it seems to have been changed.) isaacl (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

1978 New York Yankees Season omissions

Hello and good evening. Go to that page, then starters by position. I believe Mickey Rivers was omitted, he was the regular center fielder that season, and Cliff Johnson was the regular DH along with Jim Spencer. Roy White was a back up left fielder that year, was omitted. I would add myself, but I need your help on this. Thank you and have a good night and a good week.2601:581:8000:21B0:9D42:441E:3EF3:B09A (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. All those players are mentioned in the 1978 New York Yankees season article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like they were left out of the Starters by position section though. I haven't double-checked all of them, but Rivers started 135 games, all of them in CF per BR. I'm not sure what the criteria are for inclusion in this section, but it seems like an oversight. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Consider changing injured icon for Template:Player?

I posed a question at Template talk:Player#Use of image with hover text for DL, but I figured I'd advertise it here. Basically, the template uses File:Injury icon 2.svg to indicate a player on the DL, but that alone is not sufficiently clear. Hover text was added, as was alt-text, and perhaps more significantly, Template:MLB roster includes the icon in its legend. I'd suggest replacing the icon with the straightforward "DL" (perhaps as DL) but a number of pages use {{Player}} without {{MLB roster}} (e.g., 1977 Dallas Cowboys season#Roster). As an outsider, I just figured I'd raise it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Cohen (television personality)

Move discussion affecting baseball player Andy Cohen (baseball) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

1961 Cincinnati Reds season page and 1965 Minnesota Twins season page.

Good day. On the 1961 Reds page, go where it says other batters and move that where it says Pitching-starting pitchers, then move Pitching-starting pitchers above box that says Joey Jay as first entry.The titles are misplaced and I am afraid I will botch that section. I can fill in the players. 1965 Twins page-won't let me enter Dick Stigman in the other pitchers category. I added to this page a few days ago but won't let me add that. Thanks for your help and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There was just a template error on the Reds page, the data wasnt actually out of place... There is nothing on the Twins page that should prevent you from adding data. Just make sure you dont mess up the template markers. Spanneraol (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:2018 World Series

Earlier this month I tried to sumbit a draft into the mainspace and was rejected. I need some help to get citations in before we have it re-submitted. –Piranha 249 22:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Major League Baseball spring training navboxes

I'm proposing that we merge Template:Stadiums of the Cactus League and Template:Stadiums of the Grapefruit League to create a Spring Training navbox, since I believe that the topic of MLB Spring training is small enough that only one navbox is required. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 28#Major League Baseball spring training navboxes. Not sure if there is a specific baseball project page where I should list this or if mentioning here on the main project talk page is sufficient? --Jameboy (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

1936 New York Giants season edit block.

Hello and good day. Over the last month, I have been expanding certain team pages that have no players or pitchers listed or partially listed. On several occasions, I have been blocked from making an addition of a pitcher or position player. Go to the 1936 New York Giants page, go to the relief pitchers, you can"t add Dick Coffman to that section, it is deemed an unconstructive edit, he was a legitimate entry. Tried adding Firpo Marberry, was rejected. Other team pages have all pitchers and position players, even if they got up once or pitched a fraction of an inning. Any way to override this, or just delete it, is what I did, but I don"t know why in certain instances my additions are disallowed. Just curious to know. Have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand... who rejected you? I don't see any of your edits being reverted on that page. Spanneraol (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Try entering Dick Coffman and Firpo Marberry and their stats (from Baseball Reference team page) in the relief pitchers section and see what happens. An automated notice appears saying that it is a unconstructive edit. I then have to delete it.I also told you this in a previous talk about the Minnesota Twins addition. This has happened 5 or 6 times in the last month.See what the problem is.Thanks.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Without knowing exactly what you typed, we probably can't recreate your edit. It's possible you've entered something that an edit filter is kicking out. Also, have you tried entering the same information from a registered screen name? - BilCat (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you see this message? From your filter log, tt seems it mistook your addition of Dick Coffman as an "Addition of bad words or other vandalism". There is a link in that message to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives, where you can report false positives. Sorry for the inconvenience.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2018

You are invited to comment on a requested page move at Talk:List of Major League Baseball record holders#Requested move 29 August 2018. --Jameboy (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE to Ty Cobb, Cap Anson, Tris Speaker, Baseball color line, etc.

I'm hesitant to revert everything added by Howieanson (talk · contribs), but the problems are fairly obvious given a cursory look at the edit history and edit summaries. Mr. Rosenberg liberally cites and quotes from his own books, and it's not clear whether they merit this much prominent mention. Liberally dropping his name into the articles doesn't look good, either. I've left a note at his talk page, and welcome thoughts from others. Thus far the only edit I've reverted was this [6], though a lot of the contributions do look like WP:OR and self promotion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I second this. I have concerns about these books and their noteworthiness; I don't know what that publisher is about. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I believe the editor is the same one who is discussed in this 2007 New York Times article "Author Says Yankees Are Missing Something"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 05:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  - Yes, Bagumba. That was eleven years ago, and chronicles a single incident of research re: a relatively esoteric bit of baseball history. It does not establish the credibility of the books written since--that would probably be helped if his work was cited by others. In the absence of proof that his scholarship is noteworthy, a lot of the edits look like original research; this much self-citing is rare in articles here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    - I was only trying to establish context, I haven't established an opinion on the edits in question yet. Apologies if that was unclear.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    - I've informed the editor about WP's WP:COI policy. Aside from concerns with WP:INTEXT attribution to themselves and citing their own book, are there any other known issues with the accuracy of the content itself? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    - I reverted this editor's addition to Ty Cobb. There is a problem around the Project involving editors who appear to be promoting their own books. I've run into it on two previous occasions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      - I've cut more from the Cobb article, leaving some of the original research and its conclusions while removing the multiple self-references to the author's book. I'll look at some of the other articles, too. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      - By the way, Mr. Rosenberg has stated that his books are self-published: [7]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      - My thanks to WilliamJE and JamesBWatson for their reversions to the Cobb piece. Other articles I've mentioned require similar vetting--the lede of Cap Anson, for instance, relies heavily on Mr. Rosenberg's research re: Anson's racism. I've been very conservative in reverting, pending further input from others. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been periodically going through Mr. Rosenberg's contributions and weeding out some of the more obvious original research and copious self-references. For them that's interested, I haven't yet gotten to John McGraw--the 'dirty play' section liberally draws from Rosenberg's personal research. He repeatedly mentions (plugs) his own self-published findings. See also Baltimore Orioles (1882–99) for more of same. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit Filter/False Positives entries

Hello and good day. I am the person whose entries on Baseball Season pages were filtered out because it was thought to be invalid or unconstructive. They turned out to be "false positives" and I had to go to the above section to be entered. Dick Coffman, Dick Stigman, and Dick Schofield were rejected at first but then were entered by going to that section. Every time I enter a player with the first name of "Dick" it gets filtered out. Maybe my account has been "bugged"? As you can see, all 3 mentioned entries were legitimate and correct, I don't see why this is happening at all. I don't want to go to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives any more, they see a problem here with the user (me) and I wonder if there is a solution to the problem, maybe Wikipedia should be contacted about my problem. Other Baseball Season pages have player entries with first name of "Dick" and there is no problem with it. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2012, never entered anything inappropriate or incorrect and I know everything is entered correctly. Can you help me? Thank you for your concern and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is actually register and get yourself a member name.. anonymous IP editors are the only ones who have this problem. Spanneraol (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course you are free to continue editing anonymously as well. However, realize that the filters are to combat those anonymous editors who maliciously add "dick" frequently. Your reporting the false positives help to improve those filters. I can understand how this might be frustrating if you are editing constructively. As mentioned, an alternative is to use a registered account, which comes with other benefits as well. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Triple-A

Regarding this edit: in the sentence "In 1974, he hit 23 home runs and drove in 83 runs for the Expos' Triple-A affiliate, the Memphis Blues," should it be "Triple-A" or "triple-A"? isaacl (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely "Triple-A". We typically follow professional baseball's capitalization of "Triple-A", "Double-A", and variants of "Class A". NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Grammatically, it isn't a title, but a contraction of AAA, so when used as an adjective as in the quoted sentence, my inclination would be not to use an initial uppercase. I appreciate, though, the distinction may be more fine than desirable. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Although they derive from "AAA", "AA" and so on, the actual terms are indeed "Triple-A", "Double-A" and so forth, as seen here, so using the capital is correct. oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a page with all-caps, so it's not too revealing regarding capitalization. Plus the tiers are titles on that page, so it would be appropriate to have an initial uppercase letter, just like at the start of a sentence. isaacl (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

My point, though, is that the actual name of the classification is "Triple-A", not "AAA", though the latter is also used as an abbreviation. oknazevad (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with calling it "Class AAA". That's my personal preference. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Personal preferences notwithstanding, the point is that when using the "Triple-A" construction, as opposed to "AAA", the "T" in "Triple" is capitalized as a proper noun. oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, we shouldn't edit articles as if they were written for an article in a sports magazine, rather we should edit them as encyclopedia articles for readers who may have a very limited knowledge of baseball. I would suggest that we avoid colloquial terms such as Triple-A, that may have no meaning to readers who are not familiar with the game. I would use "minor league baseball" but, that's just me. Imagine what it must be like to follow an article on Gaelic football if you have no knowledge of the game.Orsoni (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Just saying minor league baseball is imprecise.. When talking about the promotion of a player within the minors we would need to use Triple-A.. it's not really a colloquial term, it's the formal designation for that level. Spanneraol (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I realize I'm probably nitpicking but, imagine reading an article on a Gaelic football player that stated that he performed well at the Double-Q level. Someone not versed in the sport would have no idea as to whether Double-Q was the highest level. However, they would understand if the article stated that, he performed well at the highest level of minor league Gaelic football. I know that it's a bit wordy but, I simply feel that, as encyclopedia articles, they should cater to the lowest common denominator reader (those with a complete lack of knowledge of the subject}.Orsoni (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think for articles that are more of an overview in nature it could be useful to define a term like Triple-A on first use ("Triple-A, the highest level of Minor League Baseball"). I think it would be cumbersome in every player article, though, and would prefer just linking to the Triple-A article. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, for the mid-range levels it would be really cumbersom to describe the differences between rookie league, class A and Class-A Advanced in each article... if they want to understand they can click on the link.. that's what they are for. Spanneraol (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball teams by season navigational boxes

This concerns the Category:Major League Baseball teams by season navigational boxes templates, e.g. Template:1925 MLB season by team. The teams are shown only as the name of the city, with two teams in the same city distinguished by the fact that they play in different leagues. In the 1925 template, Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and St. Louis all have a team in each league. This is fine for those who know about baseball and can easily distinguish between the National League Chicago team (Cubs) and American League Chicago team (White Sox), for example. But for those not for familiar with the subject it could be confusing. Therefore I propose that the full name of every team be included in these navboxes. --Jameboy (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think thats really necessary.. and it would make those boxes a bit messier... in the old days the franchises were distinguished as being the Boston American league franchise or the Boston National league franchise.. People can click on the links if they get confused. Spanneraol (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

POV-pushing

An editor has repeatedly inserted WP:UNDUE, negative content at Doug Eddings and Mark Ripperger. I don't wish to violate 3RR in my efforts to keep umpire-bashing off Wikipedia, so I would appreciate some assistance. Lepricavark (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring editor has been blocked. In the future, warn the editor about the WP:EW policy first. Hopefully, they cease; in the worst case, it expedites blocking them, as we typically don't block someone who might not have known the rules.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe Marty article deletion

Hello and good day. Go to that article, fourth paragraph, where it says The restaurant/bar & grill has been restored... mentions waitress, should be deleted and cleaned up, to me not up to Wikipedia standards. To me is irrelevant and should be deleted or filled in with other pertinent facts and data.Thank you for your time.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Deleted, but you could have been bold and deleted it also. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

1969 Minnesota Twins season page, relief pitchers section.

Hello and good day. Go to above mentioned page, relief pitchers section. Charles Walters. His redirect does not go to the proper wiki page, goes to a director and soccer player. Fix so it goes to baseball player's wiki page. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

MLB tiebreakers

Staxringold, Wizardman, Kuyabribri and I got MLB tiebreakers recognized as a Good Topic back in 2013. Today's baseball has determined there are two new entries. We're gonna have to get them promoted to Good Article status to maintain the Good Topic. I forget how quickly that's expected to be done. Help is appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well i thik the games need to be played before that much can be done to write about them. Spanneraol (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We can write some background, and the games are tomorrow so soon enough there will be game content to include. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Tal's Hill remerger proposal

The article for Tal's Hill, a former feature of Minute Maid Park (the hill was removed in 2016), was merged into the Minute Maid Park article in 2007, however a user recreated the article last year. He currently opposes remerger. The discussion is here. 73.32.38.72 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Division standings templates

User:GoodDay has made a series of edits to division standings templates to change them to display, for example, NL West instead of National League West in the header. I feel in the interest of clarity for a broader audience, it would better to keep the full division name. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Spanneraol (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I made them that way, to match with all the other post-1969 MLB season articles which displayed an abbreviation of the division names. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I was about to say I do realize that (in spite of the instructions in the template), the abbreviated name has been used in some season templates. I didn't remember exactly which ones or how extensively. Also I had not anticipated either that someone would convert older standings templates to use the {{MLB standings}} template, as I didn't see much advantage in doing so. Nonetheless, my suggestion would be to make them all use the full name. isaacl (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I also made the changes I did, as it's easier to change a few out of place, rather then over 40. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say to use the abbreviation. Presumably, AL or NL would have already been introduced in the any transcluding articles' prose already, so there's no need to repeat the verbose form in the template again.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did think about this. Currently as I recall they are used in the team season articles and the MLB season article, within their own section. As typical best practice is to use the full term in the first use of a section, and given how the templates can be included in any article with any context, I lean towards having the full name. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move: Syracuse Chiefs -> Syracuse Mets

You are invited to comment on the requested move of Syracuse Chiefs -> Syracuse Mets at Talk:Syracuse Chiefs#Requested move 16 October 2018. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

MLB postseason results

Similar to NFL playoff results, this article will be a catch-all for MLB postseason series, instead of having all of them in separate articles. I want to know you're opinion, because one article should make everything easier from here on out. –Piranha 249 01:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing here... what articles are you proposing that this would replace? Spanneraol (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not personally a fan of having results duplicated across different pages as it means more pages to remember to update. I realize, though, that there are already MLB list articles that group results in different ways. isaacl (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would take Major League Baseball division winners and covert it to show the wild card teams, pennant winners, and WS champ all on one row for each year. The would given an annual snapshot view, which could be useful.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hall of Fame Commissioners

I’ve been re-directed here to ask about fixing the gap between the Hall of Fame infoboxes for all the Commissioners-Landis, Chandler, Frick, Kuhn and Selig. How can I fix that? --Coingeek (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Coingeek: Like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --Izno Repeat (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What Player Has Paid for Image Changing

According to this article there is a baseball player who has engaged an UPE to make sure there is a skinny image of him. Facts from the article, which I am going to presume magefor sake of the argument as true and fact checked by the author:

A one-time overweight player
An image that a newbie editor tried with-in the last three years to change that a more savvy editor later made stick
The player had high career earnings

I dismiss as somewhat ludicrous that 30-50 socks would be needed for this - that would draw too much attention. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Barkeep49. I have zero clue, but just wanted to add that while this type of edit is fairly unproblematic, from the company's website it's fairly clear that they have no qualms about using Wikipedia for promotion, and if we can find this article it will probably lead to others. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting. I have no idea of who it could be, or how we could narrow it down. Maybe we should elevate this to WP:AN. They might have ideas on what to do. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have manually checked about 40 players who are all active or recently retired and haven't found anyone whose picture changed in the last 3 years that would fit this criteria. I also spent time I wouldn't have normally spent on Wikipedia doing this because I don't want to run down rabbit holes of things that may or may not be true when I could be doing things guarenteed to be productive (e.g. article creation or NPP). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if my half-joking suggestion has roped in some folks. I looks like a nearly impossible task and is also likely to come up with some false positives. I hadn't realized that "fat baseball players" was a thing until I googled it and got The Fattest Baseball Players To Appear In The Postseason. If there are this many fat, high-quality players, we're going to have to do a lot of checking, and then how can we be sure the player fits the article mentioned? In any case, I just checked one, David Ortiz. A photo of a younger, fairly slim, Ortiz was added to the article about 3 years ago after another photo was deleted as a copyright violation. I have no way of viewing the deleted photo, but am pretty sure that he would appear heavier than in this one. But how to verify that the change was made by paid editors?

If just the 1st article I checked could be the player (but is unlikely to be further confirmed), I've probably sent folks on a fool's errand. Sorry. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I had already checked Ortiz as he was an obvious candidate (I'm trying to avoid naming the players I've checked because I don't wish to perpetuate fat shaming). The editor who replaced the image has only edited Ortiz's article but those edits go back to 2007 and so I think it highly unlikely to be a case of UPE just SPA. I will also say I had done all this checking without having seen your message at the noticeboard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait.. you can get paid for editing wikipedia? How do i sign up? LOL.. Spanneraol (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My first thought was actually CC Sabathia since he was skinny in 2014 before putting it back on. The current pic is from July 18 though so I don't even know if it's worth it bother checking the history on that. Of course, any regulars know you can't just post any random image on here, skinny or not. Can't think of too many others. Wizardman 14:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Dead links to The Baseball Cube

Earlier this year, The Baseball Cube web site changed its URL scheme, breaking ~~somewhere around 2,000 to~~ 3,000+ links from articles that use Template:Baseballstats. The template has been updated, but individual articles still have dead links. You can find the articles within Category:Pages using baseballstats with unknown parameters.

The way to fix each article is to go to The Baseball Cube site, find the player's page, and then edit the Baseballstats template in that player's WP article to replace the player's name with their new Baseball Cube ID, like this.

All interested editors are welcome to fix these articles. I will watch this page for a while in case there are any questions. For background, see this discussion. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Baseballstats template

Re: {{Baseballstats}} - My impression is that using this template to link multiple stats websites would violate WP:NOT and WP:EL, and it doesn't follow MOS. I've not looked around much, but my guess is that this is an external links template that was created without knowledge of the general consensus that more than one such link should not be added to articles in most situations. If there's been any discussion at all, could someone point to it? --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ELYES: What can normally be linked: ... 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. (emphasis added) – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that each site has unique information that meets ELYES criteria? --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Could someone demonstrate with an example? --Ronz (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

They don't appear unique, even by the most cursory review, (the Baseball-Reference minor league stats link just goes to a subpage of the Baseball-Reference main page). --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. Its a completely different link. This link was added to baseballstats for a reason. It's not just sitting there to not be used. What is your obsession here?-- Yankees10 02:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

Are you claiming that the Baseball-Reference minor league stats link doesn't go to the subpage (actually a tab on the page) of the Baseball-Reference main page? You may not be aware, but linking to sub-pages in an External links section in that manner is against general consensus. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Well for some players who havent played in the majors yet.. the minor league link is the only one available on BR... and it allows a quick reference for minor league stats even for the major leaguers. I don't think we particularly need the ESPN or baseball cube links.. but they arent used as often as BR or mlb anyway so i dont think its a concern. Spanneraol (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that those BR minor league pages also include stats from many foreign leagues -- including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Cuba, and various Caribbean winter leagues -- as well as Negro League statistics. The template should probably be updated to reflect this. -Dewelar (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Having the template is fine. The concern might be more of WP:NOTLINKFARM. I don't think ESPN provides added value for stats, and Baseball Cube and Retrosheet seem more like niche sites compared to more oft-cited Baseball-Reference and Fangraphs.—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I think the Baseball Reference non-MLB pages cover most, if not all, of the same ground as Cube, but even more broadly, so I think Cube might be redundant now. I also don't know that Retrosheet offers anything additional beyond what the other included sites do. Agreed that ESPN is entirely unnecessary. On the other hand, I might suggest adding a link to Seamheads for Negro League-related stats, as I believe them to be more definitive than BR. -Dewelar (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Cube may not be redundant, as I'd forgotten that they also list coaching and front office positions on their player pages, which I don't believe any of the other sites do. -Dewelar (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the Retrosheet parameter was added about a week ago. Given LINKFARM concerns here, there might not be consensus for it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

For Baseball Cube, given the thread above about the parameter being broken in about 3,000 articles, as well as Spanneraol and me thinking the link is overkill, perhaps it's all the more reason to delete this one too.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

re Baseball Cube - d:Property talk:P4731. Cabayi (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

GA possibility?

Hello all--the best thing that came out of my Wikipedia class is Baseball in Germany. I'd love it if some of you could have a look at the article (and maybe do what you can, what you do best, to help it) to see how far it is removed from a possible GA nomination. I don't know if Germanboi87 is ready for it, but he's done a great job and I'm curious to see what you all think. Dr Aaij (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dr Aaij: My editing plate is full at the moment so I am not going to be the one to improve and take it through but I think your student did a good job. I am believe that with a willing editor basically any article which is not a quickfail can be brought up to GA standard during the process. Sometimes this takes more work than others. This would probably be on the more side as some section's writing would need to be revised, including the LEAD. I would say he has done a good job and is pretty much set with criteria 1a, 2, 4, and 5. While I have checked some sourcing I don't have current access to Chetwynd and have not done the complete source review I would do in a GA review. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I have seen you do much good work, and I appreciate your comment. Germanboi87, very impressive. Dr Aaij (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Baseball umpires

@JustJamie820: As a disambiguater for baseball umpires, "... (umpire)" alone is ambiguous; there are officials usually called "umpires" rather than "referees" also in cricket, which is frequently played here in Britain where I live, and in India and Pakistan and elsewhere as a result of former British rule. And in some other sports. Better use the disambiguater "... (baseball umpire)"?
- Also replace "... (pitcher)" by "... (baseball pitcher)"?, as people in some countries (Britain etc) are not very familiar with USA baseball terminology. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary as the first paragraph should mention the sport the person is involved with. Pitcher is only used if there are more than one person of the same name in the sport that plays different positions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

First off, for those unaware, this came about because I tried to move Jeff Nelson (baseball) to Jeff Nelson (pitcher)...if this becomes a long, drawn out topic, you have me to blame for that. Anyways...

@Anthony Appleyard:: I know this is the baseball WikiProject, but I have to make this point: Using your argument, does this mean that David Shepherd (umpire) should go to David Shepherd (cricket umpire)? I bring that up because, unless it's in the Manual of Style and I don't know this, you can't say that one sport gets umpire and the other gets <sport> umpire. Both are umpires, aren't they? Unless we get a David Shepherd umpiring stateside, I don't see a reason why either should be changed. Basically, you change both of them or none of them.

There is a long-standing precedent for baseball naming (I directed Anthony to this in my initial request to move the pitcher Nelson), and yes, to the international eye, it can be confounding not to use "baseball player" for disambigs. (Much in the same way I find it confounding that every UK parliamentary constituency has to have a disambig, even when it's not necessary. To each their own...) Baseball has more structured positions than most sports, save for (American) football, and the decision was made many years ago that it's okay to use just those as a way of disambiguating articles. Anthony uses cricket as an analogy, so I'll say that you can't use "bowler", "batsman", or "wicket-keeper" since it's not consistent from match-to-match. Yes, pitchers bat in the NL for now, and yes, 66 non-pitchers pitched in 2018 according to Retrosheet. But baseball players are widely remembered by their positions, general or specific. That's why it shouldn't change. It may look weird to international eyes, but it's what we've done for years and it still works today. I don't think it needs changing now. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest policy is seemsto largely support current practice. A good summary of which is, "According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary." These titles are also concise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Per the guideline WP:NC-BASE, the sport is not used when disambiguating by position.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it, the purpose of the disambiguator is to provide a distinction between two subjects with the same name so readers know they've found the one they're seeking. Since there isn't an article on a cricket umpire named Jeff Nelson, the plain "umpire" disambiguator is enough for someone to know if they've found the umpire or the pitcher. isaacl (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Spanneraol, JustJamie820, Bagumba, and Isaacl: As regards the distinction: Could a baseball umpire act as umpire in a cricket match? Could a cricket umpire act as umpire in a baseball match? Unless the same man knew well about both sports. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The key question is if I'm looking for Jeff Nelson, umpire, and I see the articles Jeff Nelson (pitcher) and Jeff Nelson (umpire), can I tell which one to visit? The disambiguator isn't required to provide a complete description of the subject's profession. isaacl (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with isaac. The disambiguator there is to distinguish between similar names not provide a capsule summary. If there were ever a cricket and baseball umpire with the same name then we would have to add something to the disambiguator (assuming no primary topic) for those two people. In most cases the reader will also have further context as to what sport they were an umpire in, and won't even see the disambiguate (the contexts I'm thinking of includes links from with-in an article, a google search, or a link from a disambiguator page). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Game Log data

hi, is there a good place to get information about how the Game Log sections of team season page are generated?

I'm looking to help-out the process.

Things like 2007_St._Louis_Cardinals_season#Game_log. There seem to be many missing.

Thanks, Spencerk (talk)

@Spencerk: It's great that you want to get involved. I would suggest a different way, though. That section was created entirely by users, building and filling in tables. But, in what way is that better than what external sites do? Like https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/2007-schedule-scores.shtml for instance? I don't see the benefit in copying from the stat sites. They do that well, we build articles with sourced prose. The article you presented as an example does a decent job of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Deleting players' Twitter (and similar) pages from ELs

We have many articles -- including many Good Article pages -- that are bios of MLB players, who don't have a personal official website page/personal web presence (as, for example, Cole Hamels does).

Many of those articles list the player's official Twitter page link in the EL section.

For example, Kris Bryant, Chris Davis (baseball), Jacob deGrom, David Freese, Trevor Hoffman, Eric Hosmer, Clayton Kershaw, Yadier Molina, Iván Nova, Iván Rodríguez, Jimmy Rollins, and Stephen Strasburg.

An editor seems intent on deleting these Twitter page links, however. I've tried speaking to him, but he sees his deletions as good, and does not recognize the "no other personal official web presence" exception for Twitter ELs. User:TheGracefulSlick for example. So I am raising the question here for others to discuss.

Question: Should editors be deleting those Twitter (and similar) EL links from baseball player pages -- as the editor is doing -- including all those Good Article pages (where there is no player personal official website)?

I think "no." Please way in. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

So this is not my area of policy expertise but I agree that the plain language of WP:ELMIN says one official link is normally included. Preferring a website to Twitter or Instagram also seems correct. In the example you linked to (Andrew Knapp) it appears that you and TheGracefulSlick were disputing whether to include two external links (Twitter and Instagram) so policy seems to disagree with both of you - however the fact that there is a bot authorized to do this work says there could be consensus beyond ELMIN that supports their removal.

184.153.21.19, I have not investigated any of your contributions but in general fighting the same fight across multiple pages with the same editor is bad form at best. Since this is a content dispute, assuming neither of you have actually crossed the line into edit warring, it's probably best to pick a page and discuss it on that talk page, going through dispute resolution process and see if you can work it out there and honor the work in other places. It might be necessary to repeat this step if other editors disagree on other articles. Some discussion here can be useful but short of an official RfC this project can't impose a LOCALCONSENSUS on articles with-in the scope. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL makes an exception for official social media sites when "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." It seems like this needs to be evaluated on a per-case basis, and there is no an always/never rule here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Wade Boggs Statistics Line deletion.

Hello to everyone. On 27 December 2018 at 1:36 my stats line addition to Wade Boggs page was deleted, the editor claiming it was difficult to decipher and unsourced. I saw nothing wrong with the statistics line I entered, as I have added stats lines to other players and I thought the stats line was OK. Yes, I didn't mention my source, but I got my numbers from Baseball Reference and everything was correct. Please look into and see what can be done. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8000:21B0:E984:5033:A9A5:C428 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

His main stats are already listed in the info box.. what you added didn't add anything particularly useful to the article. Anyone wanting more than is in the info box can check the baseball stats links at the bottom of the article. Spanneraol (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Updating the Phillies' featured roster lists (is this the right place to ask for this?)

Hi. I've noticed something rather troubling recently regarding the all-time roster pages for the Phillies: It appears that the content featured in each list has not been updated in seven or eight years. Looking at this page, Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H), is particularly off-putting. Besides not including a guy like Rhys Hoskins, it suggests that the now-deceased, 2019 Hall of Fame ballot member Roy Halladay is still on the 25-man roster.

I know this is something I could fix myself, but fixing every page is overwhelming. So, is it possible that we can get some people to upgrade these pages for 2018? I'm willing to be one of them, if I give myself enough time, but I'd need a lot of help. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right place to ask about this.

The editor responsible for getting those roster links to featured status retired from Wikipedia, sadly. The two options before us are eiter (a) us updating the lists as you suggested, or (b) having their featured status removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Since I just returned from my own long hiatus from editing Wikipedia, which I had edited under a previous nickname, I don't really know the status of most past Wikipedians like that.

Anyway, I wanted to bring this up now because I didn't think immediately sending the articles to FL removal was a good idea. Again, I'm willing to fix, assuming I remember how to edit lists correctly. It actually may not be that hard, as I counted 53 players debuting for the Phillies between now and the 2010-11 vintage lists we have, and there may not really be that many existing players who need statistical updates, although I can't be sure. It still seems daunting to me, however. I'd continue about this, but I don't want to ramble on too much longer. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I have an updated version of the A list in my sandbox, but I haven't published this due to some fundamental issues I'm having with its format. However, if people like it...I guess I can add it to the mainspace. I don't like it for many reasons, reasons that I won't rage-dump on this talk page all at once. I can bring them up later if you'd like. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing's really happening here. I really don't want to rage-dump the concerns I have with these lists, but I may have to soon. All I know for sure is that saving these eighteen lists is more overwhelming than I thought. That's why I need to take a break from them. There are more comforting things to do on Wikipedia than try to save lists that still look bad when you update them for 2018. It's looking like I may send these lists to Featured List Removal in four weeks. That's ample enough time for people to be prepared for it. I wish I didn't have to, but these lists are leaving me with no choice. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC) (Sorry about having to do this...)

It is a major undertaking, requiring constant upkeep. The editor had keep working on it for it to stay at FL standards, but they retired. I don't have the interest in doing it, and I don't blame you for not either. It's a shame, but so it goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Constant upkeep and constant template work to keep it up-to-date with other featured lists. I'm just going to get into what I think is wrong with these lists: Too many list pages to begin with (consider that the best English football clubs can use three to list a thousand players), no proper updates of data since 2011 (there was an improper update in 2016 to the primary ATR page, so I was wrong about the number of players I needed to work on, it's really closer to 170...yikes...), bizarre formatting (especially on the main page), a lack of nationalities (obvious), a lack of sortability (ditto), and an over-reliance on B-R, especially when it links there and doesn't actually tell you what it's supposed to in the lead. That main ATR page doesn't have mention a single player in its list, which is even stranger, and all its pictures are of teams instead of players. *breathes out* Anyway...

...if I had a clear idea on how to salvage these lists, I'd mention them. Other than knowing that there needs to be four to six lists instead of eighteen, I'm not sure what I can do. I'm not even sure how to divvy up the lists. Of course, while it's hard to know what to do to save them, it's feeling harder for me to come up with a good FLR rationale to make on the first of the year without coming off as passive-aggressive. I don't know. This just overwhelms me in a bad way. (Sorry for the rage-dump...) -- JustJamie820 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have the rationale made for sending the main ATR to featured list removal. I'm having a lot of other problems right now so I haven't made the official FLRC page for it yet. Once I can clear my head of these issues, I will follow through on this. I just hope I don't have to spend all of 2019 asking to remove bronze stars. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)