Talk:Lists of Negro league baseball players

Opinion

I like the list provided, but after checking The Baseball Encyclopedia, Revised 8th Edition, it became apparent to me that this important list of Negro League baseball players included more than those people who played in both the Negro Leagues and MLB. The original introduction indicated the list only included players who played in both leagues. I believe the edited introduction I entered now allows for the recognition of both types of players: those who played in the Negro Leagues and MLB and those who played only in the Negro Leagues. I think it's important for this list to include both types of players. As of August 2006, the list is only a very partial list. It would be nice to see the list grow.

Historical scope

Bill Monroe was recently added to this list, and I noticed that Hall of Famer Frank Grant was not on the list. I then read the page's intro and noticed that it set an historical date range of 1920 to 1960, which is generally accepted as being the dates of the organized Negro Leagues. Bill Monroe was dead before the Negro National League began play, and would not be covered by this article's scope.

We should either reword the intro so that it includes those players of color who played in the pre-league days as well, or we cannot include players like Monroe. I would vote for the former. -- Couillaud (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I added Bill Monroe, and I have to admit not reading the blurb at the top before doing so. Looking over the list, there doesn't seem to be much consistency—early players like Rube Foster, Sol White, and Home Run Johnson are included, even though they didn't play in the post-1920 official leagues, but other early players like Frank Grant and Bud Fowler don't appear.

Asking the question of whether most readers would prefer that the list include or exclude pre-1920 players, I think the clear answer is that the list would be more useful if early players were included. Most histories of Negro league baseball (including Wikipedia's main article on the topic) do not draw a sharp line through 1920, which is sensible since both teams—such as the Chicago American Giants—and players—such as Oscar Charleston, John Henry Lloyd, and Cyclone Joe Williams—have histories that begin before 1920 and last into the era of organized leagues. I agree with your suggestion to reword the intro to include all players who played at least part of their careers in segregated black-only leagues or independent teams. If this is agreed to, then when I get a chance I'll try to fill in some of the omitted names. BRMo (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrangement of players list

We recently had a frivolous AfD nomination, but there was some good discussion about how to make this list better. I'd like to suggest that the list should be broken into the eras of Negro League play.

There are 19th-century players, who (obviously) played before the 20th century, but are better distinguished by having played at least part of their careers in the years between the 1870s and the mid-1890s, when black players faced prejudice but still played on integrated professional teams. Fleet Walker and Frank Grant are examples.

Next, there are the pre-league players, those who played their entire careers under Jim Crow rules, but played the majority of their careers before the formation of the NNL. Pete Hill and John Donaldson are examples.

Then there are those who played nearly all of their professional careers in the Negro Leagues between 1920 and 1950. This would include players like Willie Foster and Josh Gibson; it would also include Willard Brown, who made a brief appearance in the Majors as well.

There are those Negro League players who had significant careers in MLB as well; Jackie Robinson only played a single season in the Negro Leagues, but still gets credit as a notable Negro Leaguer. Players like Roy Campanella and Larry Doby fit this class as well.

The final part of the list would be those whose Negro League careers entirely (or nearly so) covered only the post-integration period. Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Henry Aaron, and Minnie Minoso would be prime examples, but Mamie Johnson, who played in the 1950s and never got to even the high minors is notable in her own right.

There may be a few players that don't belong on the list, as they were not exceptionally notable in comparison the most of the list. Frank Leland was a player for a few years in the 1880s, but he is most notable as a manager and executive, something implicitly excluded from this list. I think there may be a few Negro League players who will get an article on them, and they are every bit as notable and deserving of an article as any Major Leaguer, but I think this list might be restricted to the most notable players. The category "Negro League Players" should give us everyone (assuming that the writers/editors of all relevant articles remember to include that category), but this list should be both more exclusive and more informative.

If anyone agrees with this idea, I could write it up in a day. I'm also open for any suggestions for improvement/expansion. -- Couillaud (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also been thinking about improving this list and even before the AfD nomination I had started working on it offline. I agree with organizing the players by era. Of course, quite a few players had long careers that spanned more than one era. For example, Cyclone Joe Williams and John Henry Lloyd probably were at their prime as players prior to the 1920s organization of formal leagues, but they also played for many years in the organized leagues. Would you have some kind of formal cut-off to determine which era such players should be assigned to?

If we're going to exclude some less important players (and I'd favor limiting the list to major players), then we should explicitly describe the limiting criteria in the article's lede paragraph. That information would be needed in order to explain why some players are not included or why we might have to revert other editors' additions of minor players. Two criteria I'd focus on are a) a long career at the highest level (most players with long careers were also very good players) or b) players who were clearly major stars in shorter careers (so that players like Dobie Moore and Chino Smith could also be included).

I think the list would be more useful if it included a little bit of additional information. I'm thinking of beginning and ending years active (at the highest level), primary position(s) played, and maybe something like number of East-West All-Star Games. I thought of including teams played for...that would be great if everyone was like Buck Leonard and basically played for one team, but I think too many of these guys played for lots of teams and it would make the list unwieldy. I also thought of birth and death dates, but it seems like in an awful lot of cases these are unknown or controversial. I'd like to keep the list as factual and uncontroversial as possible (though I recognize that sources disagree on almost every fact on the Negro Leagues). I'd like to use Riley as the main source, and use in-line citations if the information from Riley has to be corrected using information from another source. Is there any other information that you'd like to see included? I'd format the list as a series of tables; I can start playing around with formatting in my userspace.

Finally, there's the question of including red links—that is, players currently without Wikipedia articles. There are quite a few really good players without articles (for example, see all the red links in the list of 94 nominees in the 2006 Hall of Fame special election). Looking at the Hall of Fame list and browsing through Riley for players with long articles who don't yet have a Wikipedia article, I think there are about 50 to 60 major players that are worth including. I'm in favor of adding them—it would provide a guide to what articles are most needed and would provide at least a little bit of biographical information about players who aren't currently covered in Wikipedia. Is this agreeable? BRMo (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All very good ideas. As you're the guy who came up with the career stats table for Josh Gibson (which I have shamelessly made use of over on the Baseball Reference Bullpen <http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Main_Page> for Gibson and nine other players)

Although exact career dates are not known for all players (owing to the poor coverage given teams pre-league and during the depression), I think including such information when known helps a great deal. As for cutoffs, I think most players will naturally fall into one category without much debate, and the few who hit the transitional area (Pop Lloyd and Joe Williams probably the best examples) can be placed where they make most sense, or in both if necessary.

One of the criteria we could include on the list of notability is that a player has been included on a notable list. Bill James did this many years ago with his first Historical Baseball Abstract when he built his list of greatest players; he included everyone from three or four well-known (and respected) lists as well as everyone in the Hall, and most of the 55 who failed first cut should receive consideration for inclusion. We should include anyone who is in the online Baseball Hall of Merit, or who has received strong consideration. There was a famous All-Star team voted in 1952 that gets cited frequently, but I imagine everyone from that list has already made all the others. As for teams played for, there are men who played for six or more teams, but we could include most prominent teams played for. For example, Paige would have the Black Barons, Crawfords, and Monarchs as his prime teams.

Short careers are not necessarily a problem, if there was a reason. See Lyman Bostock for a short but notable MLB career. I have no trouble with Moore or Smith.

If a player is on this list, there should be an article, so if someone wants to include a player without an article, they should at least start the article themselves.

There are some players who were not particularly notable (anyone starting after 1950 has a problem, just because of the quality of the league) for their Negro League careers, but gained notability in other ways: Henry Aaron and Ernie Banks made the Hall on their MLB careers; Mamie "Peanut" Johnson was a pioneer female professional baseball player (40 years ahead of Ila Borders); Ike Brown is notable for having been the last Negro League player to have later made the Majors. Guys who simply played a season or two in the 50s Negro Leagues plus a few in the low minors are not particularly notable. I've never been convinced that Charley Pride was all that notable as a Negro League player, but that's not my call.

If you want to set something up in your userspace (or simply rewrite the article itself), do so, and if I can help, let me know.

-- Couillaud (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's sounds like we're largely in agreement. I'll try to work out a table format to get it started, then place it in a subpage where you or others can help fill the data. I'll find another place to put my list of important Negro league players who don't yet have articles. (I personally don't like to start stub articles; I generally prefer to wait until I have the time to write a decent start-class article.) I'll also mention that the Hall of Merit hasn't fared well here, so I'd recommend against citing it as a source. When other editors have referenced the project, the links have usually been removed with a comment saying that WP:EL doesn't allow linking to blogs. I don't think that's a problem because, as a former participant in the HoM project myself, I believe that everyone who did well there also appears on other lists we can cite, such as the Pittsburgh Courier, SABR, or Bill James lists. BRMo (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

After having made the switch to a breakdown by era, I noticed several glaring (to me) omissions, and have linked to eight more players, though it should be noted that many of the links are to very sketchy stubs; there will be many players listed here who will need further fleshing-out.

I'd like to know whether the change to eras is acceptable. I believe it will make the list more accessible. I would also like to entertain the notion of breaking the largest list, the Negro leagues era (1920-1950) into two separate groups as well: the 1920s through about 1935 era, and from about 1935 to 1950, the reason being the first era coincides with the rise and fall of the first leagues, and the second marks the rise of the second NNL and the NAL.

I also want to bring up the issue of the notability of some players. Charlie Pride, for instance is notable as a country-western singer, but was not that particularly notable as a Negro Leagues player. Francisco Coimbre was a notable athlete who happened to play a season or so in the Negro Leagues, but whose time in the Negro Leagues was not by itself very notable. Frank Leland was notable as an executive in the pre-league era, but his playing career was not notable at all. Carl Whitney was barely more than a cup-of-coffee player; does he qualify as "notable" at all?

Should this list be all-inclusive, or should it establish a general minimum standard for notability as a Negro Leagues player?

Just some thoughts, and I'd like to here from others. -- Couillaud (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to setting a minimum standard, but it may be a bit tricky to define. For example, if you set a minimum of five years playing for major Negro league teams, it would eliminate some of the really minor players, but it would also eliminate players like Jackie Robinson, whom we really don't want to drop. You might add additional criteria (e.g., appearing in an East-West All-Star Game) that would keep Robinson in, but I think it might be tricky to come up with just the right criteria and exceptions. BRMo (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned as minimum standards of playing time as I am of notability. Some short-career players made major impacts. But take a look at Carl Whitney, whose Negro Leagues career consisted apparently of one season in the 1940s as a reserve for the New York Black Yankees. Does he meet the same standard of notability as a major league player in the 1940s would to merit inclusion on such a list? IS there such a list (or standard) for such major league players of the 40s?

After reorganizing the list, I went on a binge and found 11 or so Negro Leagues players who had articles but were not on the list, including Slick Surratt, who was a very minor player in the late 40s and early 50s, but made his name telling stories about the Negro Leagues (sort of like a poor man's Buck O'Neil). I don't know if all of them deserved inclusion. Perhaps we need to make this list more exclusive than just including anyone who played in the Negro Leagues and has an article, so we don't end up debating over individual articles, just the list itself.

What we need to decide is this: What purpose do we see this list serving? Should it be the showcase of the best and most notable players, or is it a catch-all for everyone? There are currently 111 (one hundred eleven) names on the list. Is the list too inclusive? Is it too exclusive?

Any player who played in the Negro Leagues or in the pre-league era and who is in the Hall of Fame should be on the list, IMO. Any player who was considered a star in the Negro Leagues (this includes short-career players like Dobie Moore and Chino Smith) could merit inclusion. Any player particularly notable (Toni Stone, for instance) could be there. A spot in the East-West games could be used to judge stardom, as long as we take into account that it started 13 seasons after the first league was organized and continued over 10 years beyond the point the Negro American League could have been considered anywhere near major-league caliber, so failing to be named in 1925 means nothing while making the team in 1955 also means nothing.

We have a few people on the list notable for things like having lived 100 years, and who also played a season or two in the Negro Leagues. We have Charley Pride, whom I've mentioned before, who is notable for his singing career, but for whom his baseball career (both in the Negro Leagues and in the minor leagues) was more a footnote. To me, if this is to be a more exclusive list, these are the entries that could be excluded.

Further thoughts? -- Couillaud (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

most notable players = most notable as players? Is it true that C.I. Taylor and Vic Harris, for example, were most notable players, and Cum Posey was not? Wikipedia has many convoluted lists and categories defined by who filled what role for what team in what league, and what is his native country or the quality level of his stub.

Is there a list of most notable people, regardless of whether they were most notable as players? --P64 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Does wikipedia use or even recognize the concept of Negro major leagues? For Riley the 1950 Negro American League season is the last major one. Did every one arranged in groups two and three play in the major leagues?

Arrangement. The current Arrangement makes sense. Call it groups 1,2,3,4. The arrangement proposed at the beginning of this section also makes sense. Call it A,B,C,D,E. The correlation between arrangements is A,B => 1; C => 2,3; D,E => 4. In the lead for current group 1, I have named the notable players from before and during the segregation process; that distinguishes A from B. --P64 (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hall of Fame candidates 2006

• Ed Bolden (exec)
• Chester Brooks
• Rev Cannady
• Bill Cash (baseball player)
• Pancho Coimbre (P.R.)
• Frank Duncan (baseball)
• José Fernandez (catcher) --listed
• Jelly Gardner
• Gus Greenlee (exec)
• Bill Holland (baseball player) --listed at William
• Oscar Johnson (baseball) --listed
• Frank Leland (exec)
• Jimmie Lyons
• Dave Malarcher
• Abe Manley (exec)
• J.B. Martin (exec)
• Horacio Martinez (D.R.)
• Verdell Mathis
• Hurley McNair
• John W. Patterson --listed
• Jap Payne
• Neal Robinson
• Nat Rogers
• Clarence Smith (baseball player) --listed
• Tetelo Vargas (D.R.) --listed at Juan
• Chaney White
• Wabishaw Wiley
• Clarence Williams (baseball player) --listed
• George Williams (baseball player) --listed
• George Wilson (pitcher) --listed

These 30 people from the 94 second-stage nominees in 2006 are neither members of the Hall of Fame nor listed here as notable players.

At least Williams and Williams date from the 1880s [Cuban Giants], at least Patterson and Wilson from the 1890s.

Every name in the list of 94 second-stage nominees in 2006 is a blue link but I haven't checked the links. --P64 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been some discussion here about what makes a player "notable" for this list. Pancho Coimbre was on this list, but I removed him because I felt that while he might have been a notable player in the Latin American leagues, his notability as a Negro Leagues player was not high. I also removed Frank Leland because he was only briefly a player and was much more notable as a team owner. Several men on the list of 94 first round nominees were not players at all, but owners/executives: Ed Bolden, Gus Greenlee, Abe Manley, and J.B. Martin specifically, and were never notable players. That leaves another 24 names, and we still need to get some consensus on how large this list should be (it has more than 100 names at present) and what its criteria for "notable Negro Leagues player".

I recognize the names, but some of them may be Latin players who made their mark in Cuba rather than in the U.S. Some of the remainder might be players who had a year or two of fame and then faded; these first round nominees were promulgated by the public and then whittled down by a small committee before the final vote, and there was no real set of criteria for making the nomination, other than perhaps knowing how to spell their names. I haven't looked but some of them might be real clunkers.

If anyone wants to add them, please examine their careers and their WP entries, and use your best judgment. -- Couillaud (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a few stray words following C's signature.

The 94 represent stage two, culled from all nominations to serve as a starting point for formal screening by the committee of experts.

Previously I should have posted links rather than plain names.(now done) If all the blue links are valid (they are), I suppose that is by policy; editors have created many true stubs. --P64 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many true stubs, some without listing on the appropriate disambiguation pages, which I have done. "--listed" means confirmed listing on a disambiguation page. --P64 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You've mentioned the 94 names as "stage two". As I recall, the list of 94 was the entire first list from which the list of 39 finalists was drawn (that list being stage two), and the 17 inductees were chosen from that list by the full committee.

Larry Lester, Dick Clark, and Larry Hogan were part (if not the whole) of that preliminary committee, and the list of 94 represented the entire number of names submitted. Do you know of an earlier stage than the list of 94? -- Couillaud (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidently I returned three days later and ignored this question, which was rude.

Lester, Clark, and Hogan were 3/5 of the preliminary committee (which we now cover somewhere, iirc). I talked to Clark summer 2005. I know that my vision of hundreds of nominations culled by the staff (eg, cut from 200 to 100) goes back to that time but I don't know that he said so. I presume they did something they construed as routine, like cutting people from the 1950s and those nominated for a single feat --analogous to cutting players from fewer than ten MLB seasons. --P64 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I just now noticed your post here. Sorry.

Larry Lester was my main source for information about the committee, though I also spoke to Dick Clark by phone during that same time. Neither ever mentioned any culling by staff before the preliminary committee met, though I wouldn't be surprised. I'm just wondering what criteria that group made, other than to make sure the suggestion was actually a Negro Leaguer and wasn't already in the Hall of Fame. As it was, the list of 94 contained some names that Larry admitted were unfamiliar to most of the prelim committee (for example, John Patterson, who played in the 1890s and 1900s and for whom we have virtually no stats). For reasons that defy understanding, Quincy Trouppe was never nominated, and the committee was not empowered to add to the list themselves. -- Couillaud 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hall of Fame candidate profiles

Here is the index of 39 candidate profiles published by the Hall of Fame winter 2006, prior to the February committee meetings that elected 17 of them. The host is Internet Archive where service may be slow. (Here is one direct link: Grant Johnson by Jim Overmyer.) The "pre-Negro Leagues" candidates appear first in the alphabetical list. I recall that they were more substantial than the blurbs on Leagues players, lacking a rendition of playing records as a crutch. --P64 (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this at Negro league baseball task-force talk. --P64 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Being as the article on Negro league baseball is with a lower-case "l", among other reasons, this page should be moved to List of Negro league baseball players with a lower-case "l". --64.85.220.224 (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there were no objections after 7 days, I made the request at WP:RM. --64.85.214.168 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dilution of the list

This has been a topic before, but most of the last several players added to this list have been far less notable than the ones who were already listed. The description at the top of the list states that these are among the "most notable" players from the Negro leagues, and many of the most recent are only notable for having once played in the Negro leagues.

I'm fine with this criteria, as long as everyone else agrees that it needs to be restated or that we have redefined "most notable". The NLBPA and the NLBM are primarily interested in promotion, and are not scholarly organizations, and their bios are not necessarily sufficient evidence (IMO) of notability.

There was at one time discussion of creating a list of EVERY Negro league player, and the consensus at the time was that, if we did so, it would be its own list and this would be a list of the elite. Has that consensus changed? -- Couillaud 22:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, I think that in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia it's difficult to maintain such a distinction unless it's based on objective criteria. Unfortunately, because we lack comprehensive statistical data, I don't see a way to come up with such criteria. So, lacking objective criteria, there will inevitably be some differences of opinion about the subjective criteria. BRMo (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Five years ago, a committee met to vote 17 Negro leaguers into the Hall of Fame, leaving some 67 other worthies out. Statistics have been gathered, and while it is not comprehensive, it is very good comparatively. Those 67 (many of whom were not players, but owners or organizers) who didn't make the cut were still notable Negro leaguers, and there are a mere handful of notable players (Quincy Trouppe, for example) that didn't make the HoF list, but still should be on this. There are close to a dozen who should be pared from the list as is, such as Felton Snow, Quincy Smith, Mel Carter, Al Bark, and Slick Surratt.

You spoke of lack of comprehensive data, but I think that the data is comprehensive enough that the objective argument could be made based upon it. If not, then subjective criteria should be exceptionally strong. I fear that this article is veering toward the lowest common denominator, and is moving us dangerously close to reopening the argument over Josh Gibson's mythical 800+ home runs. I believe that the burden of proof to add someone to a list of the "most notable of those who played Negro league baseball" should be on those who want to add a player to the list, not the other way around.

Unless it can be shown that the addition is truly notable (as opposed to having a journeyman career), I think it should be more restrictive. Otherwise, the article is of little value, other than being a list of men who played in the Negro leagues at some point in their lives, at some undefined level of quality. Either that, or we need to remove the introductory paragraph and abandon any pretense that the list has any value as such. -- Couillaud 19:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Arrangement of preface

I think the arrangement of players is reasonable. Some of the preface doesn't fit as well as it should. It seems to me that we probably need a sentence or two at the head of each section, perhaps with variation in the key. A term such as "organized white leagues" would be refined as appropriate in each section.

All I will do now, however, is tweak the format. Feel free to revert. --P64 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this list page need to be renamed?

I've been having an ongoing argument with User_talk:Ssinke, who has been adding articles on a number of Negro leagues players and then adding them to this page. The problem (as I see) is that he added a number of less-than-notable players, when it had been agreed a couple of years ago that this list should be of the most notable players from the four eras of the Negro leagues, which is what it says on the page's intro.

While "most notable" is a vague term, I'm guessing that a utility or bench player with 10 years is NOT among the most notable. "Ssinke" thinks that EVERYONE should be included, ignoring the intro but insisting that a "List of Negro league baseball players" should be all-inclusive. He/she is pretty angry about it, especially since I removed Frank Blattner from the list.

Perhaps this page needs to be renamed, say, to "List of Top Negro league baseball players"?

Thoughts, anyone? -- Couillaud 17:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've long thought that if the list is going to be be limited, we need to set some clear, objective criteria that differentiate between the players who will appear on the list and those who will not. The problem with just saying "most notable" is that different editors interpret the criteria differently, so editorial disagreements and possibly even edit wars are the result. I'd prefer to avoid it by laying out objective criteria that can be agreed to by consensus. For example, here's a possible set of criteria (which you are free to critique or modify): "This list consists of some of the most notable players of Negro league baseball who have met at least one of the following criteria: a) played for teams in the major Negro leagues (or equivalent level teams in the pre-league era) for at least 10 seasons, b) appeared in an East-West All-Star Game, c) led the league in a major statistical category, or d) also played in Major League Baseball." I think these criteria would apply to almost all of the players that appear in the current list and would avoid picking up players with shorter, less notable careers. BRMo (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lists that have arbitrary requirements usually fail at WP:AFD and are either deleted or have the qualifications removed. The reason being is: Who decides where to draw the line? Consensus changes, which causes the arbitrary qualifications -- that at one time seemed obvious -- to now seem absurd. Wikipedia also changes, and this list is a remnant of the old (c. 2005) Wikipedia. Take a look at List of Major League Baseball players, this is how it is done nowadays (although IMO that replicates a category, but whatever). This is a list of every MLB player, as the article title suggests. The title of this article is List of Negro league baseball players, so they all must be included. Such lists can be further broken down as needed, but the qualifications must be objective (ie, "List of All-Star Negro league players"), and NOT subjective (ie, "List of Top (or 'notable') Negro league players"). Unfortunately, the type of list Couillaud is proposing is too subjective for the aforementioned reasons, and specifically because you then end up with another user (Ssinke) with a different subjective take. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.221.223 (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So, should we just kill this list? We've talked about it before, as Category:Negro league baseball players covers all players, and going through all the work of adding each and every player for whom someone has created an article is simply redundant and not worth all the effort. The consensus of a couple years ago was that this would be more limited to make it more comprehensible to readers, and give them a place to find the most notable Negro Leagues players, split by era.

Response to the otherwise unidentified 64.85.221.223 above: I am asking whether we need a name-change, and you are saying that ALL names MUST be included because of the name that I am suggesting we change. I am suggesting a name change and a bit tighter criteria BECAUSE the name no longer fits. There has been an ill-defined consensus of who qualified for the list, and my run-in with "Ssinke" is because he/she insist that the list's NAME says we MUST allow EVERYONE who was a Negro Leagues player, no matter what is written in the intro. In fact, I was accused by "Ssinke" of having re-written the intro to suit my purposes (no, the intro hasn't changed substantially for a few years now). I will state right now that I will abide by whatever the consensus is, but I will NOT participate in such an expansion, as I feel it would be a lot of work to make a redundant (and therefore worthless) list.

I took a look at the List of Major League Baseball players, and it does NOT a list of every MLB player -- it is a list of lists.

This page started as simply a list of nearly every (if not every) Negro Leagues player who had an article (and perhaps some who didn't), but that was when it had fewer than two dozen players. As the list grew, it was not well-organized (it had duplicates) nor even alphabetized, and was just an uncategorized list of names. At some point (thinking about 2005), the description became "the most famous" players, later changed to "most notable". We never defined "most notable" (my reason for starting this discussion), but we did at least split them into individual eras.

So, should we rename the list and define some criteria for it(and 64.85.221.223, I would take your assertions that WP:AFD would apply here more seriously if you signed in), should we leave its name alone, redefine it to be all-inclusive, or should we just kill it now as not worth the time?

I'm in favor (of course) of Option "A" here for reasons stated above.

-- Couillaud 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have condescensions to IP users, good to know. However, the half-dozen or so other times I have interacted with you over the past seven or so years you were quite cordial, although those times I happened to be with your position. Also, List of Major League Baseball players most definitely does list every player, but by each letter of the alphabet, such as List of Major League Baseball players (N). But these points are neither here nor there and only distract from the topic and create a toxic environment.

Back on point, I understand what your point is: You want a list of notable players to give a reader a good idea of a few well-known Negro leaguers without the clutter of mediocre part-timers that no one has heard of. Problem: To create an objective qualifier that is within WP standards and will not create a subjective disagreement as we have here. So, just to get the ball rolling, what we need is a bunch of brainstorm ideas for new titles: List of ______ Negro league players. All-Stars? Hall of Famers? Those seem too restrictive. Limiting the list to someone with 10 years experience is arbitrary; why 10 and not 7 or 12 years (same way with games played or batting ave, etc)? What is a sufficient qualifier that means "notable" but is not subjective? Using SABR's top 40 list of Negro leaguers from 1999 is a copyvio, but something like that is a good place to start. If you give me a few days to scour the bowls of WP, maybe I can find some good examples of how other lists limit cannon fodder from such lists. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.220.108 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• A few things to keep in mind, from Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists:
  • "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, membership criteria should be based on reliable sources."
  • "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment."
• Also Wikipedia:Featured list criteria is a good guide to have in mind, too. (Note #6 with regards to edit wars.) Just throwing out some thoughts, hoping something sticks. --64.85.220.108 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if you feel I was being condescending; it was not my intent, but because your IP changes nearly every time, it's difficult to know if you're just not one my enemies in disguise.  :-) Please forgive.

I also missed the A-Z links on the List of MLB players, and only saw the "See Also" and assumed it to be the list itself. Please forgive the myopia of these aging eyes. Still a list like that for the Negro leagues is impractical at present, as full rosters of all teams don't exist outside of the Hall of Fame's list, and they haven't published or shared it. That, plus the fact that the Negro leagues still have a goodly number of "phantom" players. It will be awhile before such a list is actually feasible, IMO.

Bill James wrote The Baseball Historical Abstract, and set forth his own criteria for defining "greatness", both for inclusion in his book and in the Hall of Fame. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think that some of his suggestions could be adapted for this list.

I think that BRMo's criteria is actually too inclusive; if we were to use it to build a list of MLB players, Doug Flynn would qualify, and I doubt that anyone would claim him to be among the "most notable" MLB players. James' criteria included questions like "Was this player, while active, considered the dominant player on his team, or in his league at that position?" Ours could be modified to "one of the dominant players", using contemporary sportswriters' and peers' opinions, as well as historical research.

Actually, there ARE a number of good source lists available, and most have been utilized in this list. When the Hall of Fame held a special election in 2006, some 94 players, managers, and executives were considered, and 17 were chosen. I believe that every player on that list is on the Wiki list. That list lacked many post-integration players, and did not consider many pre-league players (primarily because of the lack of hard data).

And, if I may reiterate, if we can't create such a list of the most notable players (however we describe it), then it is my opinion that this page is a waste of bandwidth. -- Couillaud 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think my suggested criteria are too inclusive, fine—suggest some more restrictive criteria. My concern is that we ought to have some set of criteria that are reasonably objective so that editors can agree on whether a player meets or fails to the criteria. Vague criteria like "some of the most notable..." inevitably lead to disagreements, which I think is an unfortunate waste of everyone's time. BRMo (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with using one author's (or group of authors') criteria for greatness is we again run into the arbitrary problem: Why use such and such but not so and so. The response would then be so and so isn't notable, and now we're back to the vagueness of "notable". When I searched for a "notable" list, 99.9% were redirected to an all-inclusive list. We've found out first hand that adding qualifications in the lede does not work (and is not common practice anyway because of that). I have not found any suitable solution by looking at other lists on WP.

But I was thinking, if one wanted to who was a "notable" MLB player, well the HoF leaves out some, but most any MLBer who was anyone was at least an All-Star once. So maybe All-Stars is the way to go. I realize there wasn't an E-W game most of the time, so what if it is a list of honored Negro leaguers. That is hard to qualify so hear me out.

This page remains here and contains a list of all Nl'ers, but we jettison off those players to separate pages such as A-F, G-L, M-R, S-Z. Then on this page we have a section "Hall of Fame Nl'ers" and "E-W All-star players". That will keep a objective psuedo-list on this page of some of the notable players and also allows Ssinke to add to the other lists.

This is just a thought and I believe it meets WP policy and acts as a work around for what's "notable". I realize some notable players will be excluded, but that's life I guess. Thoughts? --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.214.251 (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As I've indicated before, I strongly believe that such a list of all Negro Leaguers is neither possible nor practical. There is no central, unified, and accurate roster list published anywhere from which a list could be built. SABR published a roster list in the 1990s in its Negro Leagues Book, but a large number of the names are last names only (and a lot of them are "Smith"); Riley's "Bigraphical Encyclopedia" has a list of names, but does not necessarily provide any detail as to for what teams they played and when. The final issue on both of these references is their accuracy. When I compiled the 1923 NNL season, I used those two lists as my starting point; I found (among fewer than 200 men) two players whose stats had been conflated into one, and at least four "phantom" players, where a player's name had been garbled and assumed to be a different player. Besides, Wiki currently has articles on some <300 players, with some 3,000+ to go. If this list must contain all Negro League players, no matter how we split it up, then please count me out. Because of the amount and quality of available data on the Negro Leagues, we cannot treat them the same as we do MLB, and cannot make all of the pages mirror each other.

The East-West Game might be a good starting point, but it really only covers the 1933 through 1950 seasons, missing the first 13 years of league play, and all of the pre-league period. It was actually played up through 1962, which then includes a large number of players who played in what had been reduced to a minor league by that time.

That said, it's not a bad measure, just a limited one, and I don't known that making a single All-Star game should qualify, but perhaps being selected to the game in three different seasons should.

There is a famous set of all-star teams created by a poll taken by the Pittsburgh Courier in 1952 of some 31 players, managers, executives, and sportswriters, and more than 100 players received votes. That list would be an excellent one as a start; most of the names are already part of our list.

I agree that no author's list should be used, as I would not trust a single person's opinion on who is the best or second-best, but if we had a list of 5-10 different writers, the combined list could be used as a starting point; someone who made everyone's list (or was listed 80% or better) would make it.

That still leaves us the pre-league players, most of whom were forgotten by the 1952 poll (similar to how most 19th-century players were forgotten by the Hall of Fame when it opened in the 1930s). Let me think on that one. -- Couillaud 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Three points: 1) A list of "all" players is not required to be either exhaustive nor complete. By this I mean that I could do these pages in 5 minutes total; I would just go to the category of Nl players and put them on a page and fancy it up a bit. Voilà! Incomplete lists are the norm. Now, if someone adds a name that is disputed, by anyone, then policy is to request a source for it and either put a {{Citation needed}} tag by the name or remove it. Sources are required per policy if info is disputed. If sources conflict, then that should be noted. Red links are acceptable on the list, BTW, which is a good thing.

2) Regarding the list of 5-10 writers, be careful. (You've probably seen this, it combines 6 lists.) This is where I was warning about arbitrary use, why use such-and-such but not so-and-so's list. It's a slippery slope and can be subjective. All-star appearances are objective. But, as you pointed out, I guess E-W games may not have had the top talent each year (I know players would take other offers for the right price, for example.). The cut-off could be Jackie Robinson's MLB debut, which is a defensible qualifier. Also, it could be a list of multiple invites to the E-W game, like you suggest. There may be a better solution, just be careful not to let perfect be the enemy of acceptable.

3) A good way to slip in "notable" players who may fall through the objective cracks would be to mention them in the brief lede in the Hof section and E-W game section. For instance, we can salvage the current summary ("They played primarily before the organized Negro leagues. Among them Fowler, Frank Grant, George Stovey, and Fleet Walker were notable players especially during the 1880s, before complete segregation.") and stick it before a list of all-stars, thereby mentioning the players that are not actually in the list. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.215.220 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My last post for this week. Be back Sunday or Monday.

On point One: "A list of 'all' players is not required to be either exhaustive nor complete." I do not believe that 10% of the total will put you in any danger of being either "complete" or "exhaustive". If you want to do it, then do it. I do not believe it is necessary, nor even a very good idea, but I'm just one person.

On point Two: Yes, I've seen the list you mention, and I would accept the Courier list as one, but none of the other, particularly not Bill James, who has been on record that he really doesn't know or care about the Negro Leagues, and his list frequently seems pretty much out of left field. Having said that, I also know there are some fairly qualified researchers who have made similar lists, and a single compilation of several personal lists could be built to make a single component. The linked website gives equal weight to the Courier poll, a fan poll, and Monte Irvin's (possibly ghostwritten) book, and gives Bill James double weight for two lists. The best two lists I can think of at this moment are the aforementioned Courier list and the Baseball Think Factory's "Hall of Merit". I think an individual author's list suffers from the fact that it is subject to that author's personal idiosyncrasies and prejudices, something that might be mitigated by compiling a single from a number of sources (James, Holway, Riley, Lester, Irvin, et al.) and treating the combined list as a single source.

Also on point Two: Most Negro League researchers (starting with Robert Peterson's Only the Ball Was White) use 1950 as the cutoff for the Negro Leagues. This is not, IMO, an arbitrary standard, but a consensus of most researchers.

Point three: Not sure what you mean, but the pre-league list, if I were to describe who currently occupies it, consists of (1) those African-Americans who played a significant number of years in the organized white leagues before integration; these were the best black players whose talent was good enough to at least briefly overcome racism and play in the high minors (and in two cases, the majors); and (2) the top players of the top all-black teams from 1890 through 1919, top teams defined as those that got the greatest attention in the media and most consistently won, and top players defined as those who were consistently starters on those top teams, and again got the most attention from the media of their day.

-- Couillaud 19:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent and paste following edit conflict)

Regarding 1). Couillaud and 64., Have you looked at Category:Negro league baseball players? There are 34 subcategories and 223 pages.

That category is in the administrative hidden Category:Categories requiring diffusion. IIUC that means wikipedia policy(?) would put almost all these players down in subcategories. Many players were be in two or more subcats and few or none would be in the parent category and a subcategory (current example, Dobie Moore).

One type of List has the function to replicate (and perhaps classify) a parent category that has been diffused into subcats. Here it would be a list of all wikipedia biographies of NLBP. That list isn't useless but it is only one type. Perhaps it should live behind the scenes in Wikiproject space, and be organized alphabetically for easy editorial reference.

(?)I don't know whether wikipedia policy does require diffusion or, if so, whether this project complies. If all biographies of NLBP are in the parent category, and will remain there, then there is no need for any alphabetical List of all. --P64 (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Couillaud: Re: point 1 -- You still say an all-inclusive list is unnecessary, but that is the whole problem with which we are dealing. This page cannot be maintained without an objective scope, I point out again virtually all "notable" lists are redirected to all-inclusive lists. If we do not have an all-inclusive list, Ssinke has every right to believe this page can only be edited by its gatekeepers. If we do not have an all-inclusive list, I do not believe this page would pass an AfD (see "notable" redirect link). My proposal is offering a "work around" to meet policy so that users like Ssinke (nothing personal towards them) and users like you (nothing personal towards you) can have it both ways: Jettison off the all-inclusive list to subpages and keep notable players on this page under objective grouping of all-stars or HoFers or whatever seems reasonable.

Re: point 2 -- I was just using that link for fun and wanted to share it with you (not seriously suggesting to use it). But you did go on to think out-loud about "compiling a single list from a number of sources (...) and treating the combined list as a single source." This is a slippery slope and might be considered original research and could sink the proposal. I am not ruling this out, but I am urging extreme caution if this is pursued. It can lead us back to a similar situation as we have here.

Re: point 2 (redux) -- 1950 seems a justifiable cut-off provided the given source.

Re: point 3 -- I don't know how to clarify, but I get the impression we are on the same page so don't worry about point 3 so much.

@P64: I added the {{catdiffuse}} template to Category:Negro league baseball players in anticipation of creating the list. The reason being taken from Wikipedia:Categorization (and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates) since this is a parent category and I based this on the common practice that and the names belong in the subcategory of the team. Somewhere I read that lists are used when the subjects are too numerous to be held in one category and are relegated to subcategories, but I can't find that quote right now. The other examples I used for models were Category:National Football League players, Category:National Hockey League players, Category:Major League Baseball players, Category:Baseball players, Category:National Basketball Association players, etc., where no players are (intended to be) kept in the parent category but are relegated to team categories. I did not mean to cause any confusion, so feel free to remove the diffusion template as it may have been overkill.

Regarding your last sentence, "...then there is no need for any alphabetical list....", then that would also disallow maintaining any subjective list such as this is currently, which is why I make this proposal.

Hope this isn't tl;dr. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.215.193 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Creating works-in-progress pages here: Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test, Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test1, Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test2, Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test3. Slowly but surely, a picture's worth a 1000 words, or something. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.214.97 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the concept. BRMo (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I took the liberty of moving the lists to mainspace:
  • List of Negro league baseball players (A–D)
  • List of Negro league baseball players (E–L)
  • List of Negro league baseball players (M–R)
  • List of Negro league baseball players (S–Z)
• Since they are in the public domain now, please feel free to edit them at will! I'm still tinkering with 'em, but I think they turned out nicely. Rgrds. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.217.221 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to revert anything you feel compelled to. I realize I'm being rather bold. --(Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) 64.85.217.221 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. These lists look very nice and provide a lot of useful information. BRMo (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cuban League

Should there be a separate list for players of the Cuban League?--Penale52 (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Although there was a lot of overlap between the Cuban League, there were also Cuban League players who played in the U.S. major/minor leagues, and others who didn't play in the USA at all. BRMo (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I started the list here. I'm sure this will take a long time. For know I only have years played, but it will probably look better if the teams are included. Penale52 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)