Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. 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 5

←

Archive 8

→

Extremely valuable resource

If you don't already know, Google Books now has all Baseball Digests scanned in and readable in full-text. Each issue is searchable. This will be tremendously useful. For quick access, here is the template for magazine citations.

<ref>{{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = | newspaper = Baseball Digest | pages = | year = | date = | url = }}</ref>

Cheers, and happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a valuable source of info! Cheers to Kingturtle! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Kingturtle! Monowi (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

*wishes he hadn't been subscribing to Baseball Digest since he was 7* jj137 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good news/bad news, sadly. I understand that Google has (at least temporarily) lost their access (via Paper of Record) to The Sporting News, or at least anything before 1999. There's a thread over on Baseball Primer about it. Between the two, TSN is the much, much more useful source, at least in my experience. -Dewelar (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see Baseball Digest on google, but TSN's gone? ..that is a huge blow. Looks like i'm out of the article-writing game until it's put back up. In fact after seeing paper of record disappearing, I've completely lost my will to edit. Wizardman 03:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Already this has paid dividends to me. I started flipping through a random 1967 issue and was able to cite some key facts on Jimmy Lavender, including correcting some balls-out lies that had been festering there with a {{citation needed}} tag for 3 months. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not every Baseball Digest issue, as some early issues is missing, and sometimes the Digest isn't helpful (especially the later issues). The lost of the TSN archives is a much larger blow. I contacted TSN and they told me to contact google on that subject. Secret ^account 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1876 in baseball

I have recently updated this list, and would love input and/or help from people who have successfully promoted lists to Feature status. Are there actual standards in writing covering the standard form? Anyway, if people would like to involve themselves, please do, and maybe when this is completed, this can be the example for all other "years in baseball".Neonblak ^talk - 01:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go FL, I have some suggestions. All of the items you listed below the lead have to have references, specific, not just general. Inline cites are a must. Baseball Almanac isn't considered reliable. The lead would need a significant expansion and should not start with "The following are..."; featured lists no longer begin in this manner. Some image would be helpful, and the incomplete birthdays need to be complete or have an explanation as to why they are incomplete. This is just from a very quick overview. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful suggestions. Considering the lack of time I have, it will require assistance to complete this monumental task.Neonblak ^talk - 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Morgan

I need some help on the disambiguation front. Right now on the Bill Morgan (disambiguation) page, we have Bill Morgan (MLB catcher/outfielder) and Bill Morgan (MLB infielder/outfielder), both redlinks luckily in this case, with bad disambiguations. However, after looking through their careers and stats, I'm at a loss for what to change them to (one has no birthdate, so that safe option is out). Suggestions? Wizardman 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The best option I can give is to use the position each one played most often during their careers. That would give you Bill Morgan (right fielder) and Bill Morgan (shortstop). -Dewelar (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to make those changes, they need to be made in every article where the redlink occurs, since redlinks on the dab page are supposed to point to redlinks in articles. For what it's worth, the right fielder is on five pages I see, most notably Pittsburgh Pirates all-time roster. The other player is on none, and should be deleted from Bill Morgan (disambiguation). So should Curt Schilling's surgeon; his name is Craig Morgan, not Bill. Rklear (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that only one shows up on the Pirates roster, since both played for the Alleghenys, one in 1882 and the other in 1883. -Dewelar (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Both show up on the Pirates' all-time roster for me. Wizardman 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Designated hitter and criticism

I could use some help with the Designated hitter article. We have a user who does not understand what OR and reliable sources means, despite my attempt to explain it. He insists on restoring an old section on criticism of the DH, which is still mostly OR, and thinks I'm removing it solely because I dislike criticism of the DH! I don't have the knowledge, background, or time to get into sourcing this section. If anyone would like to step in and work on this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it. It's either a cut-and-paste or the user's personal editorial. Either way, it doesn't belong as it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Minor League

Is "Minor League" baseball at the fully professional level per WP:ATHLETE? I am wondering about the notability of Brian Rupp who was a player and coach in the Minor League, but I know nothing about baseball; I've read Minor league baseball but I'm still unsure. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's tough to say. the notability of a minor leaguer is probably our biggest controversial area; some would say he passes no problem, others would say he fails notability. From reading what's currently up (AAA player, A manager) he's borderline to me, I'd see if the article can be improved and notability well-established. If not, then send to AfD, though I'd imagine it would probably be kept. To answer your base question about if minor league inherently passes WP:ATHLETE, that's also a subject of debate. Personally I don't think it does, though others may disagree (it depends on the minor league level. AAA is a lot more professional than short-season A) Wizardman 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll tag it for notability and sources, and see what happens. JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's only a rare minority that thinks all minor league players should be kept. Consensus in AFDs is for deletion of these articles unless there are some special circumstances. Try a prod. Secret ^account 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Philadelphia Phillies season

Some of you may have noticed that this article was recently promoted to GA, making it WP:BASEBALL's 45th in that category. I'm considering an FA run for this article, and I would like input from project members as to what else it needs. It is currently listed at WP:PR; barring that, please feel free to list any comments for the article here in this section or on the article's talk page. I appreciate any and all input you are able and willing to give. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice job overall. A couple questions: 1) where's the roster box? and 2) is this now the accepted standard for team-season page stat tables? Because if it is I have to go back and change about 1,500 pages that I've changed in the past six months :) . I was also under the impression that game logs were no longer to be included in these articles, but that may be my misinterpretation of the recent discussion. -Dewelar (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of an "accepted standard" for stats tables; it's essentially based off of what I know of the FL criteria, since that's where most of my table-building expertise comes from. I know nothing about a roster box, though I have seen them; who, exactly, should be included in said box? As to the third point, whether game logs are to be included in the future (I believe them to be necessary, but that's beside the point), this article was completed before that discussion was brought before the Project. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as I have mentioned before, that there is no "accepted standard" for the stat tables. Nobody's really wanted to touch the standardization of team-season pages -- most likely of the enormity of the task -- but I took it upon myself to ensure that each one has a standard layout (i.e., all the sections in the same order, and everything that belongs in those sections actually in those sections), and at least has a roster box and stat tables, even if those are empty.

In reviewing the 2,500 or so team-season articles, I noted that most were using one particular layout for them, which someone mentioned as having been created by Soxrock. I modified it a bit, and submitted it to the group for discussion. Sadly, little discussion was forthcoming, and so going by the "silence = consent" doctrine, I have been slowly but surely adding (or converting) all team-season articles to this template. I now have all pre-1900 teams completed, along with about half of post-1900 teams.

As for the roster box, pretty much every team-season has one, although the vast majority of them have little or no data. However, Spanneraol has ensured that all Dodger team-season pages have one, along with a large chunk of the pre-1900 teams.

I won't rehash the discussion of game logs here, but I think the consensus was that they're more trouble to create than they're worth, and that an external link to one located elsewhere was sufficient. They're certainly available in enough places (Retrosheet, Baseball Reference, Baseball Almanac, etc). Even though I personally consider them little more than clutter, I won't object to the inclusion of one, but if one is included I would encourage the editor to ensure that it is in collapsed form (which you have done).

If you want a look at a page with both pieces in fully filled-out form, you can take a look at 1977 Oakland Athletics season. Obviously, these lack some of the data and some of the formatting of yours, but you can get an idea for what I've been doing. One caveat though - the roster box has flag icons, which recent discussion also determined do not belong on such pages. You should probably use the MLBplayer template rather than the Player one. -Dewelar (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me; I will check out some other articles to be sure that the proper sections are included. Since there are no other individual team season articles that are currently at FA or GA, I would like to make this one into an example to be followed, if possible. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Roster box has been added directly above the regular season statistics. All players who made an appearance for the Phillies during the 2008 season are included. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I made one minor formatting change to bring the Outfielder and Manager headers up to the top of the box to line up with the other two columns.

A few more things to bring it into standardized form:

Roster should be a sub-section of the Regular Season section, below the Game Log.
The Postseason and Awards section should be the last two main sections of the page, in that order. Since this is an article based on a period of time, these items, which came at the end of that time period, should reflect that in their placement.

As to the above two suggestions, the article is structured the way it is to make it a continuous read, followed by tables and lists. This is why I collapsed all of the game logs and box scores. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And yet, looking at it again, I didn't even do this; I'm so used to looking at the article that I totally skip the middle section. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, roster moved. Statistics were left at the end because they follow the structure of the lead, wherein postseason results (which are of tantamount importance) come before statistics.

That's reasonable. I will note here that I have seen some articles that also have tables for postseason statistics, which is what, I believe, necessitates that the regular season stats be placed beneath the regular season section, and the postseason ones below the postseason section, so as to avoid confusion. Otherwise I can see the logic for either order being valid. -Dewelar (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the Curse probably shouldn't be a top-level header on its own. I'd make it the final sub-header of the Postseason section. This one is more of a suggestion, I suppose.

That's a possibility, I suppose as well; I placed it that way because it has its own main article, but that article doesn't hold much water at this point considering the postseason series. I will move it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

-Dewelar (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

←(outdent) Thanks for the comments. Just so you're aware, I've noted them on the peer review page for the article under a hide cap so that all reviews are easily accessible to the worker bees at WP:PR. Link here. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All-Star Game articles

Is there anyone interested in making the rest of the Major League Baseball All-Star Game pages, theres a bunch still not made, for example there is no 1964, 1965, 1966, etc.--Yankees10 01:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular game's article that you would consider a "model" on which to base the missing ones? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the 1968 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, it doesnt have to be to long, I just think that they should all have articles--Yankees10 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A request for assistance

I have the article Bill Ponsford at peer review. While he is best known as a cricketer (indeed he was an inaugural hall of famer), in researching the article I discovered he was, by the standards of the time in Australia, a handy baseballer. I have included a section on Ponsford's baseball career, but I am not entirely familiar with baseball terms (nor was his biographer I suspect, which is my major source for this section) so my use of terminology may be a little off. I would really appreciate someone casting an eye over the section (and the rest of the article if you like) to make sure it makes sense.

By the way, baseball was the second sport of many cricketers famous in Australia, including Monty Noble, Jack Ryder, Alan Kippax and two other cricket hall of famers Neil Harvey and Ian Chappell. It seems there is nothing like hitting a leather ball with a piece of wood! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting! I glanced at the section on his baseball carrer, but no errors jumped out at me. It did spark my interest in Australia baseball, so I looked up Baseball in Australia. To my dismay, it redirected to Australian Baseball Federation, were there is a very short section called "History of Baseball in Australia". I would love to see that section expaned, and perhaps moved to Baseball in Australia in the future. Should be a fascinating article when all the blanks are filled in, especially since none of the names listed above are mentioned in the section yet. - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there was an article at Baseball in Australia, but it was redierected/merged to Australian Baseball Federation, with no discussion on either talk page by the merging user. Hopefully it will be able to be recreated soon. - BillCJ (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting read. The only thing that I didn't understand in the section was the phrased "gained eight bases", as there's no link to explain it. I was confused by the use of "safe hits" as well, but the wikilink explained that. I might suggest a reword there to "Ponsford hit safely five times", etc. If you could explain gaining bases to me here, I might be able to suggest a reword there too that would make more sense to my baseball eye and ear. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

I subscribed the project for article alerts the other day. It is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article alerts. This only works for pages with the {{WikiProject Baseball}} template on them. —Borgarde 07:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This day in Major League Baseball

I created February 7 in Major League Baseball and Template:MonthsMLB. I am inviting anyone and everyone to help create the other dates and improve them. I'll try to add one or two each day. Kingturtle (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea; it gives us context to link full dates (I'll have to look into making an MLBD template to go with MLBY). Where are you sourcing this information from? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To start, I am mostly using baseball-reference as a source - and wikipedia for births and deaths. Kingturtle (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Do they have a "This day in baseball" page at B-R? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They have pages such as Players who died on February 7, Players born on February 7, and Players Debuting on July 8. Also, in Yahoo's Advanced Web Search, in the Site/Domain section you can put www.baseball-reference.com in only search in this domain and have February 7 be exact phrase. The results look like this. Kingturtle (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, I will check it out. Thanks! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you restricting these pages to just Major League Baseball? Kinston eagle (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there could certainly be a This day in baseball series of articles, but I wanted to make one specific to MLB. This day in baseball would include college, minor leagues, and little league and Japan, Australia, Taiwan, Korea, Cuba...it just seems too overwhelming, and I want something specific to MLB. Kingturtle (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to move them to This day in baseball similar to the This year in baseball articles. It would provide the flexibility to include notable events that didn't necessarily take place in the major leagues. For example, we could include birthdates of Negro League stars like Josh Gibson and Oscar Charleston who never played in MLB. BRMo (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a valid argument. I suppose I can live with it. I'm wondering what we should do about specific events. 4-home games in MLB games are rare. But not in College games. MLB no-hitters should be included, but what about college no-hitters or no-hitters in a Japanese league? That's why I wanted to limit this just to MLB. Any suggestions or ideas? Kingturtle (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The This year in baseball articles haven't been inundated with notes on little league games. It's always appropriate to demand a citation of a reliable source. And if there are disagreements about appropriate content, they can be discussed on the relevant talk pages and worked out based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. BRMo (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Hmmm. I suppose before I get too deep into this project I should change it to February 10 in baseball, etc. Point taken. Kingturtle (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It will be good for these articles to have the more inclusive title. BRMo (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A massive project edited by Jim Charlton yielded the The Baseball Chronology as a book twenty years ago. For about ten years an edition has been incorporated in The Baseball Library website where it is now featured as Charlton's Baseball Chronology. P64 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

When a player does two tenures with the same team

Tom Seaver with the New York Mets, for example. On his Hall of Fame plaque, and everywhere else but Wikipedia, I've seen it written:

However, in Wikipedia articles, for some reason it is written:

I find this kind of amateurish, and I think we should convert to the other, more accepted format.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Either way works, but the wikipedia way lays out the chronology of his career while the Hall of Fame plaque is simply trying to minimize the number of lines on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is inconsistency, though. Check out Dave Kingman's infobox, the Hall of Fame approach (like that would happen). Kingman came to mind because he played with 4 teams in 1977:

The chronological way would be:

Personally, I like the chronological way better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Bugs. Wikipedia is not paper, so we have the ability through coding to make it chronologically correct, rather than on a plaque where space is limited. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is what is the intent of the list: is it primarily a list of teams for which the player has been a member, in which case summarizing the player's tenure for each team is appropriate, or is it intended to be a chronological overview of the player's movements between teams? A lack of or ampleness of space is not a deciding factor either way. The infobox heading "Teams" implies the first purpose. Of course, if consensus is reached on the second purpose, the heading can be modified to something else that will reflect this. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's only intended to be a list of teams rather than a chronology, they should be listed alphabetically. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the chronological list of repeating teams, it's clearer. I've found myself many times wondering why a player didn't play for a few years, only to look up and see that it was because the years were already listed above. It's clear repeating teams, IMO. Plus, Bugs is right, if we're just listing the teams, then it should be alphabetically. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been guilty of doing it the HoF way, but on thinking about it, I prefer the chronological method as well. Since consensus seems to be headed that way anyway, I will start changing that as I see it within articles. -Dewelar (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer the HoF way. Looks nicer to me. Wizardman 15:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I, too, have listed the teams the HoF way, generally because that's the way I saw it done. I agree that if it is meant to be a chronological list, then it makes sense to list each tenure with a specific team seperately. I prefer the way I've been doing it, and am used to reading it that way, but will change to consensus.Neonblak ^talk - 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the chronological. A suggestion: when a player has a 2nd term with a team - don't link the team again. That would make it even clearer that its not the first time with a team (and probably agrees with some wikipedia policy about wikilinks). JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the chronological way as well. A previous discussion on double-linking teams in infobox is here and I agree with the outcome of this discussion. Jackal4 (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It probably does look better with the double-link. I doubt it's that inconvenient to find the first link, though. Consider Bob Miller (1957–1974 pitcher), who would have 12 lines with 2 of them double-linked. He's probably the worst-case scenario. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I only used the Hall of fame plaque as an example. Most other sources I've seen for listing the teams for which a baseball player played list the two tenures on one line. As I originally stated, listing them chronologically with the two tenures shown separately looks amateurish to me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how listing them chronologically looks "amateurish". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen chronology used anywhere but on Wikipedia. That makes it look amateurish to me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause it's used differently makes it amateurish? That makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Really the best reason to keep it chronological is a simple one.. what if his current team is the same as one he played on early in his career... would you put it like this?

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (1990)
New York Yankees (1991)
Chicago Cubs (1992-1998), (2009-present)
New York Mets (1999-2001)
Oakland Athletics (2001-2008)

That doesn't make much sense. and moving his current team to the bottom puts it all out of order. Spanneraol (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Daugherty (baseball) hoax?

A while back, I removed a bunch of stuff that looked like a hoax from this page, because the only evidence I could find for it on the Web was a blog post. Now, some of it is creeping back in, with a citation of something called "Baseball Weekly, Irish edition". I can find no evidence that such a publication ever existed, but I have left the information in with a disputed tag. Can someone verify any of the information in question? It's pretty bizarre if true. -Dewelar (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is regarding the info in the "popularity" section, it should be removed per WP:BLP. There aren't any reliable sources to back it up. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I did originally, twice. Two different editors User:EdRooney and User:OddibeKerfeld have now added some or all of it back in. It was actually originally in the intro, but this time I just moved it to its own section and tagged it. I posted to both users' talk pages asking for better sources. I just don't want to look like I'm edit warring over this junk. -Dewelar (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can help out. I've added the page to my watchlist. BLP needs to be defended! Haha. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. -Dewelar (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just had to undo this again. I'm sorely tempted to report OddibeKerfeld for vandalism, and will certainly do so if he posts this again. -Dewelar (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Has he refused to use the article talk page or his own for discussion? That would definitely reinforce the issue. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I kind of thought that wiping out all the good edits in between cinched it :) . However, the last time I reverted, I posted both on his talk page and the article's talk page, and he responded to neither one. I posted to his talk page again just now, saying that if he added the info again without proper citation, he would be reported. -Dewelar (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

After posting the below section, I noticed this section on Jack Daugherty. Intrigued by this "hoax," I decided to research it myself. It's a way out story that doesn't even appear slightly possible, but I decided to research it anyway. I couldn't find anything.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OddibeKerfeld just struck again. This time he thought about {{fact}} tagging it, but then deleted that. At some point it must be possible to define this as vandalism, mustn't it? Rklear (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he thought about fact-tagging it so much as he grabbed the most recent version of it, then realized that it had my fact tag on it and deleted it. At least he didn't remove the intervening edits this time, so I guess that's something. -Dewelar (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If it helps any, I e-mailed Snopes.com the story.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging of Tucson Sidewinders and Reno Aces

I think that the article Tucson Sidewinders should be merged into Reno Aces because it treats them as two different teams when Tucson became Reno so it doesn't make sense to have both.--Giants27 T C 19:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor league teams frequently change their names and affiliations. Isn't the usual procedure to have a separate article at each change? I'm no expert; I think there's too much minorleaguecruft at WP.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The approach I've seen is to have a unified article (with redirects) and the previous incarnations discussed in the history section. The exception would be former player categories: you'd want both Category:Tucson Sidewinders players and Category:Reno Aces players (though the latter can't be populated until the start of the season). Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, part of Tucson Toros should probably merge into Reno Aces as well, and that article given over to the new franchise with a note at the top directing readers to the Aces article. There was a merge discussion on the talk page back in August 2008 that didn't go anywhere. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

General practice for articles on minor league teams is to have separate articles for each city. I think this serves a practical purpose, in that it's sometimes hard to track the history of a minor league franchise across cities. Also, I think most readers and editors are interested in its history while in a particular city. So I'd recommend against merging. BRMo (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough--obviously we need the whole history wherever the text winds up. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I suggested merger is because if you look at Reno's infobox it's saying "Triple A (beginning 2009)", "Pacific Coast League (beginning 2009)", "Arizona Diamondbacks (beginning 2009)", so it's treating the Sidewinders and Aces as two different teams. NOTE: The same is going on with Vero Beach Devil Rays and Charlotte Stone Crabs.--Giants27 T C 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no uniform standard for whether to create a new article when a minor league team relocates. I believe that the more common practice is to have separate articles for the two cities—for example, see Albuquerque Isotopes/Calgary Cannons, Colorado Springs Sky Sox/Hawaii Islanders, and Portland Beavers/Albuquerque Dukes. However, there are some cases where there is a merge/redirect from the earlier city to the current franchise—for example New Orleans Zephyrs/Denver Zephyrs. My own preference is to have separate articles for each city. BRMo (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone reached

With the creation of 1915 Newark Pepper season, there is now an article (not just a redirect) for every major league team-season since 1876. Yes, including all the Union Association teams, marginal though they may have been :) . -Dewelar (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all who have worked on those, that is one monumental task, great !Neonblak ^talk - 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kudos. Harry Sinclair can rest easy now. That club's ballpark may have been the first time that part of the scenery for the bleacher denizens was an oil tank farm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources I've seen call them the "Peppers"; or "Peps" for short. Okkonen's book on the Fed shows their uniforms as simply saying "Newark" on the road and "N" at home. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen both in various sources. I went with "Pepper" only because the main article is at Newark Pepper.

I've also put a merge tag to bring in the info for the Indianapolis Hoosiers, if anyone wants to discuss it over there. I really hate that the Hoosiers (and KC Cowboys and Syracuse Stars) are all combining multiple distinct teams into one article, so this would at least eliminate one of them. -Dewelar (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reminder for 2009 season articles

Now that the snow is beginning to thaw I just wanted to remind everyone to help out with the 2009 team season articles. Last season the Phillies' team article became the first GA of its kind. The Phillies article would be a good model to use for this season, but don't be afraid to add to or change the style. Hopefully we can get more contributions and increase the number of GAs every season, perhaps we could even start making a template. Good luck to all... (and damn does it feel good to say this) PLAY BALL! black ngold29 03:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hack Wilson JPEG

I found an image of Hack Wilson which is used in the article. However, they "powers that be" want to delete the use of the image from articles regarding the Chicago Cubs. If anyone has an opinion, please jump in. Never been to spain (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Connolly

I made a page for Red Connolly, and I had a problem with the infoboox, because its not known his date of birth. Can somebody please fix it? Thanks, Adam Penale (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Team-season standardization update and questions

As my work on standardizing team-season pages continues, I have a couple of questions that I need answered on how certain things should look.

First, regarding innings pitched on stat tables. Should these be displayed as ".1" and ".2", ".3" and ".7", or as fractions (1/3, 2/3, using symbols)? And, if we're doing either of the first two options, should we or should we not be including ".0" for those who have a non-fractional total?

Second, on the roster boxes, should the players be displayed in alphabetical order, or (for those seasons in which they were used) in order by uniform number?

Spanneraol has been doing a lot of work on filling in roster boxes, and I'd like to give him full credit for that, too. All roster boxes are complete pre-1901, and I know he's working on the 1901-1910 ones now. My progress is going slowly, but I have all pages standardized (at least from the standpoint of layout) through 1921 (excluding those pages on which there is already significant work done, which is limited mainly to a handful of Detroit Tigers seasons), doing about a year's worth each day. I've also completed the stat tables for 1876-1878, moving forward much more slowly. If there are any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer 7⅔ over 7.2 because I would think it's less confusing to someone without a baseball background (and I just think it looks better). As for the rosters, alphebetical order would probably keep it more consistent, because as you mentioned, numbers weren't always used. Keep up the good work, it's good to know that the seasons of the past haven't been forgotten. black ngold29 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have one question about and one minor quibble with using the fraction symbol. The question: does it sort properly within a sortable table? The quibble: my preferred skin does not have the symbol button, so if I fill in tables, I'd be having to copy and paste a lot, which will take longer :) . -Dewelar (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I nearly forgot...I have to squint to see whether the fraction is 1/3 or 2/3 unless I increase the font size a couple levels. That's not so good either. -Dewelar (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the reference source, for example Baseball reference and even mlb list it with the decimals, so to keep it consistent, we should probably keep things as they are.. should be easier with the sorting also.. Spanneraol (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that since Wikipedia goes to the length of giving us 1/3 and 2/3 symbols, and since .1 and .2 are technically inaccurate, whether they are media standard or not, I think that the former is better for several reasons, not the least of which is pure factual accuracy. I'm certainly not tooting my own horn, but 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season passed GA with the fractions. I know they don't sort right, but neither do names; these things happen. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Names sort right if you use sortname, which I have begun adding to these pages as well. -Dewelar (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know, but that's still another template that we have to use. Sorting is sorting is sorting. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, frankly, either we should sort things properly, or just stop using sortable tables. I don't care which. -Dewelar (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I went without in the '08 Phillies and it didn't seem to cause a dilemma. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh...true enough. I mean, it's not as though I'm sitting here saying "you must do this", and it's also not as though I'd have any power to do so even if I'd wanted to. I was just pointing out that there was a way to get names to sort right, and that I'll be using it when I work on these pages. At the rate I'm going, I won't even be looking at your page there for another five years :) . Really, though, I'm just fishing for some input. If changes are wanted or needed to what I'm doing, I'd rather know now while the number of pages I'd have to change would be relatively small. -Dewelar (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Understood. I honestly think that we would be fine with or without sortability, but I still think per the reasons given above by BnG29 and myself that the symbols are the better option. We have to remember that we are writing for the world, not just the baseball community. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

True. Of course, I also remember as a child wondering "why is it 1/3 of an inning? If they get the first guy out, and then the other team gets six guys on base, isn't it really 1/9 of an inning?" But then, I was a strange child :) . Either way, I'll see if consensus develops before changing things. -Dewelar (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

One-gamers

I believe that all these articles on players who played one or two games should be mentioned on the team season article, as more than likely no reliable sources can be found other than stats websites or books like, baseball-reference and so forth, unless of paperofrecord Sporting News archives comes back on (shame it's a loss). If some decent sources that isn't baseball-reference is there, then an article can be created. That way we could take care of one of our most controversial topics, and let them meet wikipedia policies at the same time. We can also create an article similar to what WP:HOCKEY has which is List of players who played only one game in the NHL. Look at the blue links, most of them redirect there. Any ideas. Secret ^account 13:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would note that since you mention WP:HOCKEY we are actually in the process of changing each of those links into articles because they all meet WP:ATHLETE/WP:N. The list was one editors opinion a number of years ago, and we didn't realize alot of the blue links were just redirects when we were going through team player lists creating stubs for everyone. Nevermind that the list is far from complete. That being said we also create articles for players who only ever played in the minors, so it would be foolish of us to not create articles for 1 game players at the highest level. -Djsasso (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes all these one games meet WP:ATHLETE, but they really need sourcing first. Sourcing is possible for most of them, I'm just saying when there isn't no sourcing other than baseball or (name a sport) reference, it should be redirected until sourcing is found. A redirect is harmless. Secret ^account 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with redirects, unless an article exists already. I would not change an article into a redirect. -Djsasso (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Same here if it has content that isn't a infobox and stats. I prefer expanding as well, but there are so many unlikely to ever be expanded stubs that a redirect just seems better in this situation. Secret ^account 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have always been of the opinion an article is always better than no article (even just an infobox and stats) because a drive-by editor who might actually know of a source and more information is more likely to expand an article than to change a redirect into an article. I like to capitalize on drive-by editors. Anyways thats just my opinion, I don't edit baseball articles much but since I noticed the hockey comment I thought I would put my 2 cents in. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I remain of the opinion that it is better to have a stub page than a re-direct. A stub at least gives you some info about a person (when they were born and their stats) while a redirect gives you nothing at all.. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Pile on support for stubs being better than a redirect. Baseball-reference.com alone gives you enough to write a half-way decent stub on a one-gamer.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I definitely support a stub over a redirect. It's not that hard to write a nice article on a one-gamer, I've done it before. Wizardman 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes on stubs. As has been noted, even just a stub with an infobox (which is mostly what I create) gives information on the person such as their full name, birth and death dates, what team(s) they played for and when, and, yes, their stats. Having this information is exactly the type of thing that might inspire someone else to expand the article. -Dewelar (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes stubs give that information, same with baseball-reference, and we don't want to put that website out of buisness or so forth. Secret ^account 19:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  - Why should people who are looking up a player on wikipedia have to switch over to baseball reference to find out about him? They have plenty of detailed info on baseball that I really don't think a few stub articles on Major leaguers on wikipedia is going to put them out of business... Spanneraol (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    - Not only that, but if there's no stub page, then there's no link to baseball-reference for them to click at all! If anything, us not having stub pages might put them out of business! -Dewelar (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  - Yea tad offtopic there, but we should at least recommend not to use baseball-reference as a base of writing stub articles. Remember baseball-reference is useful for bringing player stats, but not to write an whole biography, we had this discussion before (I believe early last year if I'm not mistaken). Secret ^account 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    - I would agree with this wholeheartedly. We've had a few discussions along those lines here over the past few months. The BR Bullpen is especially unreliable. -Dewelar (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
*starts slow clap and chants for Stubs... stubs... stubs...* KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If and when the list is created, it might be interesting to add a managers section. Bill Burwell is undefeated as a manager in his career of one game. Are there any other websites that have a list of one-gamers? Moonlight Graham's appearence in Field of Dreams could be mentiond. I believe there's an interview about W. P. Kinsella's inspiration of adding the character on the DVD; I'll have to watch it again. black ngold29 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There is such a page started already, at Cup of coffee. -Dewelar (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can see this page if you don't subscribe to the baseball-reference PI, but here's a list of all players that played in only one game. Along those same lines, here's a list of non-pitchers that played in a game but did not make a plate appearance. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

World baseball Classic

The rosters for the WBC came out today so I went over to that page to take a look at the status and the roster formatting for the WBC teams is really terrible. Should it match the formatting we have for the MLB teams? I don't know if we have a standard format for the international leagues but the format we have here seems to look much nicer than what they have... any one have thoughts on this? Spanneraol (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so because the WBC doesn't go on every year so it would be stupid to have a whole different template for them.--Giants27 T|C 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A. J. Burnett

Someone is screwing with this page again, moving it to Allen James Burnett because some local weatherman also has this name. I have tagged it with db-move, but I figured I'd give a heads-up here, because this is at least the second time this has happened. -Dewelar (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, now he just moved the text from the other page to the correct one...criminy. Can you say "doesn't know what the frak he's doing?" -Dewelar (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And in the process, the edit history disappears. I hope there's a way to recover it. Rklear (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Even worse, it now appears that the full text exists in *both* places. I placed a histmerge request tag on it before I went to bed, but I suppose I'm going to have to make the one a redirect myself. -Dewelar (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this be removed

This is from the 2004 World Series: "Also present at the game were actors Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner." Someone has suggested it be removed as they feel it's non-encyclopedic. Just wondering You people think. BUC (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that was me, at a peer review at which the eventual goal is likely a GA or FA final product. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting which celebs show up to be seen at games puts wikipedia in the position of press agents. There can be exceptions. Jack Nicholson's devoted fandom to the Lakers is well-known and frequently pointed out. Stuff about Affleck and Garner is probably more appropriate to their own articles, if anywhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone eles want to give their views on this issue? BUC (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the article. If you are reading an article on the 2004 World Series, who cares if two actors were there? —Borgarde 08:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It has no place in the article. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Borgarde has it right. Knowing that a particular actor attended the World Series is about as encyclopedic as knowing if Manny Ramirez went to see a movie.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. A movie will be shown around the world, thousands of times. A World Series game only happens once in once place. BUC (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about as encyclopedic as knowing if Manny visited the set while they were filming. :) My point is that 174,088 people attended that WS. I'm sure there were a lot of famous people among those 174K fans. I'm not convinced that knowing the names of any of them helps us understand the Series itself, unless they did something at the game that was significant. (I know the poor guy wants to be forgotten, but Bartman would be an example of what I mean here).

Depends on the movie. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

World Series Champions templates

Question to be posed: In conjunction with WP:BUILD, should we have links to the 2008 regular seasons and playoff series in the World Champion navboxes at the bottom of World Series and player articles? I've made an example at {{2008 Philadelphia Phillies}} for everyone's perusal. Thoughts welcome. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. -Dewelar (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but do you think we can change the color so it matches the top--Yankees10 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the color should be identical because that usually implies a subnavbox, like in the team navboxes. It could be a lighter version of the header (which I chose) or a tertiary color (blue, in this case). In addition, dark colors in the bottom bar make extra span coding and such necessary to change the color of the links to white. Thoughts? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont mind, I just think it would look better with the same colors, or a different color other than pink, but it is a good idea.--Yankees10 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would honestly prefer a tertiary color, but not all teams have one. I'll change it to blue now; tell me your opinion. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think these boxes should be on player articles, because WP:EMBED says navboxes should only include articles which would otherwise already be linked in the articles they are on if the article were at its best. And most players on a players team would not be linked from a given players page. It is also not defining of player a that he played with player b which is also another criteria. -Djsasso (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is defining of a player that he was a member of a World Series championship team, and one player cannot win a championship without the rest of his team. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I don't see anything within WP:EMBED that would preclude us from using these navboxes. A navigational template and an embedded list are two very different things. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator?

Hey. This may have been brought up in the past, but do we need/want a coordinator for our WikiProject? Wizardman 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't have the time or resources to be the coordinator of a project this large, but I'm currently part of the working group that's "assessing assessment" on behalf of the WikiProjects, so at least our interests are semi-represented there. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a coordinator as long as that person communicates regularly with the coordinators of the subprojects (something like a coordinators' committee within the Project). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It would take a great deal of time to coordinate a project this size, but I wouldn't be opposed to selected a group of people to keep the Project running smoothly (not that we have any major problems we can't handle). I'm thinking of things like getting the newsletter going again, making sure we keep the sub-projects in good shape (many are not too active anymore), and improving the AiD because it has proven that it can work. black ngold29 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. I would volunteer myself to handle it, but due to ArbCom already taking up most of my time I don't know how well I would be able to handle it. A group of coordinators sans a lead might work best for this project. Wizardman 14:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bud Selig's salary

Is Bud Selig's salary notable enough to warrant a reference in his article? Generally I haven't seen CEO salaries listed in their articles, so I don't see a reason to treat the MLB commissioner's office differently. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much of a problem with it being there, although I don't think it's notable enough to be in the lead. black ngold29 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it's anywhere near Manny Ramirez's asking price. On the other hand, how many home runs did Selig hit last year? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism upswing

It's spring training, and a young vandal's thoughts are turning to baseball. Just a reminder that we may all want to watchlist a team or two, as well as rosters, templates, season and player articles -- as many as you can comfortably manage.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about 2004 World Series

I'm currently working on this article and am hopful I can get it good or maybe even FA status. One concern I have is the "Continuity" section. Firstly I'm not sure if that's even the right title, but more importantly I'm wondering if it needs more about the media reaction. Just wondering what you people think. BUC (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

The page List of players from Czechoslovakia in Major League Baseball lists five guys who were supposedly born in Czechoslovakia. When three of them were born, Czechoslovakia did not exist. In fact it did not exist even when they were active players. This list is rather misleading. It should either have them listed where they were actually born (Austrian Empire for example) or from what the country is now (either the Slovak Republic or the Czech Republic). 69.68.238.142 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been fixed. It looks like Baseball Reference has the same inaccuracy, which is probably where this came from. Thanks for the heads-up. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rumor has it that one of those guys invented the Czech swing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I got no response on the discussion page, I'll ask my question again here: None of the Lists of players from other countries lists players from defunct nations except this one. Is there a reason for that? The List of players from Russia in Major League Baseball for example lists Victor Cole even though he was born in the Soviet Union. The List of players from Germany in Major League Baseball lists Jeff Baker who was actually born in West Germany. If the convention is to list players from the country that exists now where the player was born, shouldn't these players be moved to new pages at List of players from Slovak Republic in Major League Baseball or List of players from Czech Republic in Major League Baseball depending on where they were from? As a side note, I fail to see the need for a list in the first place when there are only two people from there. Kinston eagle (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

They were born in Czechoslovakia. Make those 2 redlinks to be redirects to the current page, and add a footnote in that page as to which current country they would have been born in. Only 2 players, already too much time spent on it probably. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that they were born in Czechoslovakia. But, the convention seems to be from all other examples that we list people as being from the country that exists now if they were born in a country that no longer exists. Kinston eagle (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Then go ahead and do it. I empower you! 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not have the power to delete a page. Do you have the power to bestow that ability? Kinston eagle (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to delete it. Just replace its content with links to the other two articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it should exist in any form. I am of the opinion that two people are not enough to justify a list. Are there Wikipedia policies on that? Besides, while Linhart was clearly from a city in what is now the Slovak Republic, Valo is from someplace called Ribnik which doesn't appear to be in either country. Kinston eagle (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are these kinds of lists used, in general? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two places named Rybník (note the accent on the i) in Slovakia. You'd probably be OK just moving the article to List of players from Slovakia in Major League Baseball. I tend to agree that this article doesn't really stand on its own with only two players. It seems to exist mainly to fill a slot in the navbox Template:Baseball players, which includes a bunch of other nationality lists. That template would need updating too. Rklear (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I've moved it to List of players from Slovakia in Major League Baseball, but I'm still doubtful that it's necessary. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced and located at a more appropriate name now, so it should be fine. What I am thinking though, with these countries with two or so players that have made the majors, maybe we should make a combined list for less commmon countries like BR does? Then there wouldn't be a list of two players. Borgarde (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackal4, etc.

The user in question managed to get himself a 24-hour block tonight, for edit-warring over the use of the comma. That's the just the tip of the stylistic iceberg of an ongoing battle with that guy. What's a mother to do? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jackal is really focused on his stylistic stuff.. fighting over commas and the use of RBI... it's pretty silly I think. Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Born Players

I created an article with the nations of foreign born MLB players, and the first player from those nations. I'm pretty new at this, and would appreciate some assistance or imput.Passedflatus (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. Looks like your article has been nominated for deletion already... you aren't a true wikipedian till you've had your first deletion battle.. good luck. Spanneraol (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he already has had his first deletion battle - with his previous user ID - and this one is going to get blocked also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

GetGreat.com

I created the page, and it was immediately given the following tag:

Call Ripken launched GetGreat.com, and it seemed pretty important to me. Anyone wanted to argue either side of that argument I guess should go the the article's talk page.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Class AA

Class AA is currently a redirect to Minor league baseball#Double-A. I hope someday Class AA or Double-A can become its own legitimate article. Kingturtle (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy baseball league

For anyone interested Killervogel5 and I were hoping to have a league for the Baseball WP this coming season. If you're interested just add your name here and we'll get you the info. Hopefully it won't distract anyone from contributing here too much! Thanks. black ngold29 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, we should have a minimum of eight players to make it viable. If we don't get them, we should probably scrap the idea. On another note, I have no qualms about doing ESPN instead of Yahoo!, as long as that's OK with everyone else. Consensus, people! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) - I've volunteered to commission the league, and I will set it up on Yahoo! if we get enough interest here.
Depends where, Yahoo I filled to my leagues, and MLB I just don't like I'll do ESPN. Secret ^account 14:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Steedley

The following revision was done to Spencer Steedley's entry:

Spencer's #1 fan is Luke Keever.

It was later changed to:

In his off time he likes to ball up on his cousin Luke Keever.

I undid this and asked the guy who did these revisions (User:Lkeever2) to stop vandalizing this site. I got the following response:

this is lkeever and you need to not tell me what not to put on my soon to be cousin. ok 5 minutes before i did that we were outside playing basketball. so SHUT UP and don't tell me what to not put on my cousins own page. ok! and there is other stuff he asked me to put on ther but i am going to wait a little bit to tell the people of wikipedia about it.

Is there an administrator out there who would like to deal with this guy for me?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not much to deal with at this spot. He left an immature reply, you've called him on it, he hasn't edited since. Unless there's a problem in the future, seems like it's resolved.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, it might serve him right to leave the comment in there. Those of us who don't understand street slang will just assume that "ball up" is a synonym for "have sex with". I'm sure he'd appreciate that. *grin* -Dewelar (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

International competition template

Perhaps someone with the skill could make an infobox for international competitions such as the World Baseball Classic, the Baseball World Cup or the various regional competitions. It would really help enhance a lot of these articles that don't have much content. Grsz¹¹ 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been learning more about template syntax; I will take a look and see if I can adapt something like a World Cup template to fit our needs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:2006 World Baseball Classic rosters

I think Category:2006 World Baseball Classic rosters is unnecessary though the WBC category edited today.--KANE SUE 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC) My English may be inappropriate, because I am Japanese.

Freddy García and sources of birthdates

There is a minor dispute going on in that article because different sources are giving different birthdates for Freddy García. Someone is making the argument that someone besides MLB.COM is the better source because they are not a "primary" source. However, the "secondary" sources disagree about the date and year. I say MLB.COM is the OFFICIAL source, and in the absence of evidence at any of the sites (as opposed to mere claim or assertion of fact), MLB trumps the other sources. What say y'all? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MLB is probably the worst source because they are the least independent from the subject, per the WP:V and WP:RS policies. I would usually trust MLB.com, but not when it contradicts ESPN, Yahoo, CBS, Sports Illustrated,Baseball-Almanic.com, and USA Today. This also has WP:BLP and potential financial ramifications. Making him a year older makes him worth less. We should err to the safe side and not make him older then stated by reliable sources unless we have clear proof that they are incorrect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And I say the "financial ramifications" argument is inherently false, because it is MLB that is paying him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. MLB has the greatest incentive to make him older. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If he doesn't have a problem with what MLB.COM says, why would he care what wikipedia says? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. How do you know he doesn't have a problem with the date. Btw, this whole brouhaha started with the edit of a one-IP]. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that there is no consensus as to what his birthdate is, so I think it would be best to list the three variations. Since sites copy from each other, there is no "majority rules" on this one. And one other point: You are apparently of the notion that wikipedia editors have to accept blindly, what the reliable sources say, even if we suspect it's wrong. That is incorrect. Wikipedia is not supposed to publish information that is either known to be false or is of a suspect nature, especially where bios are concerned. I can't find anything that explains these discrepancies (other than the general obfuscation of birthdates which seems to run rampant, especially in the hispanic sector), so asserting any one date to be true, is inherently false. We should list all the variations and their sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In the lead, we could say "born 1975 or 1976", with a footnote to a paragraph that lists all the known sources for each of the possible birthdates. Maybe an interested reader will research the matter and determine what the truth is, if it's available via reliable sources somewhere that I haven't found yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon this conversation. Doesn't look like there is a consensus either way. Seems to me that we need to list both birthdates since there isn't an obvious date and I don't think there is a way to determine which of the sources listed is the "most reliable". I wonder if we put a "c." in front of the year to show that it isn't 100% known. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death — X96lee15 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There can't be consensus because the sources don't agree with each other. I think you're onto it, that we would have to say "1975 or 1976" as the birthdate, and then list what the various sources have to say, some of which are simply parroting each other, so you can't count them and decide that that somehow proves something. Then there is the recent Vladimir Guerrero revelation, in which he slipped and said he was 34 when his official age was 33, and then he had to own up to it. Maybe someone in the press will ask Freddie that same question, and then we would have a reliable source at hand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This part moved from the Garcia page

Not just MLB.COM shows 1975. Also Baseball America's Almanac for 2009, and The Sporting News Baseball Register, as of its last publication date in 2006. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Reference and Fangraphs say 1975. ESPN and The Baseball Cube say 1976. MLB has to be considered official. So it's 1975. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's actually four possible birth dates:

06/10/1975, per Fangraphs and Baseball Reference and retrosheet
10/06/1975, per MLB.com
06/10/1976, per ESPN, Yahoo, CBS, Sports Illustrated,Baseball-Almanic.com, FOX, and USA Today
10/06/1976, per Baseball Cube

Mlb.com is not the strongest source per WP:V and WP:RS because it's the least independent from Major League Baseball. Most reliable sources go with #3 so that would be the most logical choice and most in tune with WP:BLP--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the argument that he wants to "shave a year" from his age is false, as such an effort would be most likely to manifest itself on MLB.COM. Since MLB is the official source of player data, then that has to be assumed to be the correct information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, reliable sources are the best sources, not the official source.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that applies in this case, especially as those other sources don't give any evidence as to why their information is more correct than MLB's, they merely assert or claim it - and they contradict each other, possibly due to confusion over American vs. European style of rendering all-numeric dates. I have raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball‎. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't have to prove their case. Anyone arguing that an article should contradict the reliable sources has to make a case. There is an apparent confusion between the American and European styles, but that would explain the discrepancy between #1 and #2 and #3 and #4, not between #1 and #3.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So ESPN can claim whatever they want, and they are somehow more reliable than MLB.COM? Sorry, that doesn't cut it - and besides, the sources contradict each other. And why is ESPN any more reliable than Baseball America's Almanac or The Baseball Register? I think it would be most efficient to take this discussion to the project page where others can weigh in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:V, The New York Times is more reliable on Obama's birthdate then Obama's mother. As for Baseball America's Almanac and The Baseball Register, I don't know. They sound reliable, but it also sounds like they are only available off-line. I don't have access to them. I don't who Baseball-Almanic.com is, but they are on board with #3 --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Books are also reliable sources; there is no requirement that sources be on the internet. In particular, Baseball America's Almanac 2009 is in stores right now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Restrosheet says "June 10, 1975". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On-line reliable sources are preferred to off-line sources. In any case, my point regarding Baseball America's Almanac 2009 was that I was wondering if it's the same entity as baseball-almanac.com which goes with #3. Dunno how rich you are, but these days are not ripest for my to splurge on an almanac :-( --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. Printed sources are just as reliable. More so, in fact, since they remain tangible while websites can disappear. As regards the baseball almanac website - no, there is no connection to Baseball America, which is a print publication, a periodical, which also publishes an annual Almanac (a statistical book) and a Directory (teams and schedules) for all levels of baseball. The internet site baseball almanac does not originate information, it typically parrots information from elsewhere. So it's just a matter of guessing which source they copied the birthdate from. Obviously not from MLB.COM - unless MLB.COM had a different date at one time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Checking back issues of The Sporting News Baseball Register, I see a date of October 6, 1976, in the first edition in which he appears, 2000, and also in 2001 and 2002. It switches to June 10, 1976, in the 2003 edition, continuing to 2004. It switches again, to June 10, 1975, in the 2005 edition. It remained June 10, 1975, in 2006. And I overlooked the final edition, 2007, in which it reverts to June 10, 1976. The Sporting News was working on getting out of the book business. I first bought Baseball America's Almanac for 2007, as TSN had already stopped publishing their Baseball Guide. The 2007 edition says "6-10-76". The 2008 edition says the same. In 2009 it switches to "10-6-75". So it looks like there has either been some finagling going on with Freddy's birthdate, or honest mistakes, or both. So the so-called "reliable sources" don't agree with each other, and it would become necessary to investigate further - or else report multiple dates in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense to cite both dates if the sources were somewhat split down the middle. But since a significant majority goes with 6-10-76, there are potential financial ramifications, and it's a WP:BLP, we should play it safe and go with 6-10-76. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No. You can't "count sources" that way. They obviously copy from each other, and even the same sources can't agree with themselves over time. You either publish all the dates, or you go with the official date as per MLB. Or better yet, you do some research and find out what's going on with his birthdate, rather than blindly copying allegedly "reliable" sources that disagree with each other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

--

"Blindly copying sources" is what we should be doing per WP:V. Doing research and coming out with some sort of conclusion for the discrepancy treads into WP:OR territory. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, if you use reliable sources to resolve the discrepancy. That is, there might be a reliable source that says, "This is why Freddy Garcia shows several different birthdates in different places." I'm not saying we should go to his homeland and search for his birth certificate. That would indeed qualify as OR, unless a reliable source already had his birth certificate on display. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully a reliable source can be found that explicitly explains the discrepancy. I would go to Caracas to look at his birth certificate if you would pay for my ticket. Come on you're rich, you buy a new almanac every year.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my budget was exhausted buying that book. Maybe you could stow away or hitch a ride on a tramp steamer. Just watch out for the tramps infesting it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at this carefully. His birthdate is listed as June 10 and October 6 in different sources. The explanation? He wrote his birthdate on the Mariners' roster as "10-6-76". The Mariners thought that meant October 6, however in South America, people write the month first, and the realization hit that his birthdate was June 10.[1] As for whether it's 1975 or 1976, that depends on which one is more reliable. (Though this does mean that MLB is wrong). Wizardman 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably how the day and month got confused, but it's the year that's the real sticking point here, and it can't be explained by different dating styles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians minor league players

Is this an appropriate article? Most of these players aren't notable and don't merit an individual article, but is it appropriate to lump them all together like this? Grsz¹¹ 01:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Three similar articles for other minor league organizations were nominated for deletion and survived. You can see the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Tigers minor league players. Here is a discussion that took place around the time such articles were created: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 7#Mini-articles for minor league players. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll say if the minor league player is a decent prosepect at least, those articles are a good place to merge them. If they are backups, not a good prospect, rookie-league or left the minors, than no. But keep those articles. Secret ^account 14:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They're okay to have, I guess, just so long as we don't start using them as a respository for non-notable or crap articles, which I'm worried we might do. Wizardman 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of freely licensed photos

Take a look at this photo stream from Flickr. There are almost 7,00 photos, all taken by a professional sports photographer (all of them his), and they're all licensed as CC-BY-SA. So if you have any need of a good MLB picture, I would advise you look through this treasure trove of images. Also, if you upload any new photos to the Commons, it would be great if you could add them to Category:MLB photos taken by Keith Allison. Thanks, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cobb records

Should the infobox say .367 and 4,191 (the official record) or .366 and 4,189 (the result of private, unofficial research)? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it should be the official record. Spanneraol (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is *not*, in fact, merely the subject of private unofficial research, but the number curently provided in Total Baseball, which was denoted years ago as the official encyclopedia of major league baseball starting in the 4th edition (source: Schwarz, Alan. The Numbers Game : Baseball's Lifelong Fascination with Statistics. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2004.)

DSZ (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Total Baseball went out of business, as I recall. Last I checked, the Elias Sports Bureau is the official statistician of MLB, and they show Cobb as .367 and 4,191. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The publishing company went out of business, but the data remains and is continually updated. Elias is hardly an independent source for data that they didn't research and they didn't develop (Elias started in 1976) DSZ (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated where, and by who? Also, Elias as a company began in 1913. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Badly worded (and missing a few words) - Seymour Siwoff bought it in 1976 (I think, I don't have a cite handy!) and changed the organization changed quite a bit. It's not really relevant, though, as we still wouldn't have any verifiable research other than Elias's word, but it's a moot point as this issue seems to be resolved for now. DSZ (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Really, this brings up a larger point. When I'm creating player pages, I use b-r or retrosheet for my Infobox numbers. Each of those sources list 4,189 and .366. If we use MLB's numbers for Cobb, does this mean all baseball infoboxes must also only use MLB's numbers? Would I have to, for instance, restore to Jim Donnelly the numbers that belong to James Donnelly, because MLB doesn't yet recognize Retrosheet's research? -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source examples says: "Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care." I believe that consideration must be given to each of these statements in this instance.

"Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training." - For us, this means that we should leave deciding what is correct and what is not to the experts.
"Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided." - Obviously, for us, this is near impossible, because so much of what we do is based on statistics.
"Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care." - for us, I believe that this means we should focus on primary sources. I know that in the baseball world, reading the last two statements together is contradictory, because it's telling us to both do the impossible and discount the value of secondary analysis. As it is, we can't synthesize our own conclusions, so I think that in the case where two obviously reliable sources such as these conflict, we need to defer to the primary source which is, in this case, Elias, as the official statistician of the governing body, rather than a source that is merely endorsed by the governing body. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The stats issue is fully explain in the Cobb page. The question is which numbers should appear in the infobox? Maybe the right answer is to include both numbers: ".366 or .367". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that both is the right answer; perhaps putting the Elias stat, since that is league-recognized, followed by a ?, which links to the section about the statistical debate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The way it is currently on the page is similar to what you suggest and I think works fine. Spanneraol (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a small <ref> would suffice. After all, the Schwartz reference above is more general and says the accuracy of almost everyone's stats can be questioned. Are we going to slap an ugly "(disputed)" tag on every number in every baseball bio infobox? WP:UNDUE needs to kick in at some point. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Spanneraol; the current marking method is perfectly fine. "Disputed" is even clearer than a question mark. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Alan Schwarz reference is for Total Baseball being baseball's official encyclopedia at the time, not the 4189 number. This is not some very quiet minority issue, but the number quoted by the encyclopedia named, ESPN, baseball-reference.com, and SABR research and many other sources. There's clearly a notoriety in usage that should be highlighted that isn't there for, say, some error-or-hit scoring error by Joe Schlabotnik. I feel highlighting the number with a simple link makes it clear that there's an issue involved without committing either side towards definitively saying that it's 4189 or 4191.DSZ (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Being baseball's encyclopedia and being baseball's statistician are two completely different things. I don't know that there's a difference between what's already being done and what you are describing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

@DSZ, I'm referring to the Schwarz book in general, which does not spend all its time on Ty Cobb alone - it generally discusses statistics and how numerous people's statistics can be brought into question. If you're going to put a big (disputed) tag on this one, you should put it on any statistic that is as disputed as this. Then we can bring back User:Ron liebman who has been driving us nuts with quibbles like this for years now. Personally, I'd prefer an article about the accuracy of baseball statistics in general - where the Schwarz book would be a key reference - and that can be linked to from wherever you'd like. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the pantheon of disputed statistics, Cobb's hit total is pretty high up there, especially with MLB finally recognizing Hack Wilson's 191 RBI count in recent years (I had assumed the Schwarz reference was referring to to my cite of his book earlier). I don't even remember how I got to making an edit, but I really only threw a fuss because I felt the verifiable evidence to the contrary of the Cobb stats was very strong. For most statistical errors, there's always going to be a veil of doubt - while I'm pretty confident that Cobb didn't have 4191 hits, I'm less so about any alternative for El Duque's birthdate (though I'm confident it sure isn't 1969). An accuracy about baseball stats article in general would be interesting, though I think I'd have too many issues of impartiality there for me to be all that useful. DSZ (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball Players Born Outside of the United States

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 13. Enigma^msg 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One user is adding this category to tons of articles right now.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same user that created the category. Since it's redundant with several categories already present on most of these articles, I've reverted the ones on my watchlist. I'd drop a line at the CfD if you're concerned too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the user in question, Racingstripes, is a sockpuppet of Jackal4, who is currently under a 1-month block. I've made the appropriate report. See [2] I've found Jackal4 to be a highly disruptive editor of baseball articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The CU report came back as unrelated. Kingturtle (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Racingstripes is too much of a newbie... his style was much different than Jackal. Spanneraol (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging by Racingstripe's complaint against BaseballBugs on an obscure issue )see [3], in his fourth edit after being created, I don't think he is at all a newbie. Though he has not responded to my query as to what his former name was.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

More likely he was responding in kind to his first two usernames being reported as offensive by Bugs. I expect that since he objected, he learned a bit about that process. Given that his previous usernames show that he has the sense of humor of a ten-year-old (and, really, his latest username is only marginally better, and only offensive in certain contexts), playing a slightly more sophisticated game of "I'm rubber, you're glue" doesn't surprise me in the least. -Dewelar (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else interested in commenting at the CfD should do so. Thanks, Enigma^msg 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to let folks know, in response to this discussion, I have begun populating Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin. Might as well have something useful come out of this, right? -Dewelar (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, we should standardize the list pages. Right now we have both "List of Major League Baseball players from X" and "List of players from X in Major League Baseball." Personally I favor the former, which also matches the current categorization scheme. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we need lists and categories, though? If we decide we do, I agree with Mackensen. -Dewelar (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the lists are unnecessary myself. Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the lists are fine, you can add more information than a category that just lists names. I think lists should be named like the categories with "List of Major League Baseball players from X". I do however believe lists are unnecessary for countries with a couple of players. Borgarde (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the redlinks in lists can be helpful for finding players for whom articles are needed. BRMo (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Created image

I took it upon myself to improve the Italy national baseball team page. Along the way, I created the following image:

180px|Team Italia's uniform for the 2009 WBC

I couldn't figure out all of the licensing, so I copied the licensing off a Major League Baseball uniform PNG file. If anyone out there who is more wiki-savvy than me can fix it for me, I'd appreciate it. I don't want anyone to think that I purposely put inaccurate licensing information on this image.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman fixed it for me. Nevermind--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Tigers minor league players (2nd nomination)

Someone is trying to get rid of the minor league baseball lists again. Spanneraol (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Silver Slugger Awards

So, I've been thinking. We have a lot of awards. There are a lot of winners' lists. I think this is a perfect opportunity for the community to increase its amount of featured content by quite a bit (I plan on starting work on this project soon). However, I feel that, to do this, we may have to combine NL and AL lists into one, in order to create complete data sets. I do realize that a lot of our information was drawn directly from Baseball Reference; no problem there. However, I think that we would have better success if we had, for example, 8 Silver Slugger lists instead of 18. I didn't want to drive through these lists making sweeping changes without discussing here first, but I do eventually envision this becoming a featured topic (i.e., Silver Slugger Award as a lead, which would turn into a comprehensive list of all winners, rather than a list of lists, as it is now; along with 8 featured lists, one for each fielding position, outfield of course being one, and one for the DHs). Please, everyone, talk it up. I could really use some validation here. Ready... set... discuss! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rlendog (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess this isn't as controversial of a topic as I thought it might be. I'll give it the rest of the workday today to see if any objections are raised and, if not, I will start working on the main Silver Slugger Award article tonight. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You can if you want, though we already have over 3x the FLs as FAs, i wouldn't mind us tackling the other side of the equation for once :P Wizardman 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, featured content is featured content. It's the ultimate goal of all articles, and I don't believe that we have any featured topics yet. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So consensus to merge both the NLs and ALs? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Daugherty (baseball)

Just after St. Patty's day, they're baaaaack...

Anyone who can help keep an eye on this page would be appreciated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I added it to my watch list.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been on mine since the last battle. EdRooney and OddibeKerfeld are pretty much inveterate hoaxers, so if you get a chance you might want to review any edit they make to baseball pages for accuracy. I've reverted one already today. -Dewelar (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dipshit screwed with Norm Charlton's site also. I was unable to fix it. Can we just get these two assholes blocked?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He put some info back in again this morning, but even the factual part was utterly inaccurate. Like I said, if you see him editing a baseball page, check the edit. It will likely be bad in some way. -Dewelar (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

How about having all the organizations a player has played for see example, and we put an asterik next to the teams where the player was only a member of the spring training team or just a minor leaguer for them. And then have a message saying something like "Offseason and/or minor leaguer only". See what the infobox looks like now to compare with what it might look like.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We already have gone over this in the past, and most people said they didnt like the idea, so I would say no to the idea.--Yankees10 19:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. The infobox is for important information, and teams for which a player didn't actually play don't belong. At most, they should get a mention in the article text. And absolutely, positively, no minor league teams (Somerset Patriots?). -Dewelar (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Fully professional"

What exactly is the definition of fully professional? I would say A and up, but am unaware if there is a previous agreed upon definition. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, I had these individuals in mind:

Grsz¹¹ 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Although A and up (even Rookie and up) are fully professional, within Wikipedia the consensus is that merely playing at those levels does not warrant notability for an article. I may not have this memorized perfectly, but generally what is needed is any Major League appearance, a full season at AAA, or all-star or major award status at a lower minor league level. Rlendog (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, technically you would need an all-star appearance or a decent career at AAA. Wizardman 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with a minor league all-star apperance. Secret ^account 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I do. Minor leaguers are notable public figures, and whether they make an all-star appearance or not, as long as they pass WP:GNG the article is entitled to be kept. Borgarde (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well there has been heavy consensus, here and in AFD that minor league players aren't really notable, unless with special exceptions (like a highly regarded prospect) I merged two of them already, I'll keep Venditte, not sure about the last two. Secret ^account 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like the consensus has been that there's no consensus. The last time we got into a heavy discussion on it (last year?), I started out with the opinion that a MiLB All Star appearance would lead to enough WP:RS out there to show notability. I took several names at random from a recent all star game, and couldn't show notability on a single one of them. In a couple of AfDs this year on minor leaguers, some people took the term "fully professional" to include single A, some said AAA, and some were in between. (Can't remember any arguments for Rookie League, so that's something). The only thing I'm certain of at this spot is that fully professional really needs to be changed or better defined.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A kinda similar discussion last year resulted in Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. Although it's nice, it seems to have stalled where it is and isn't linked from anywhere. Someone care to pick up that ball? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It had been pretty much accepted as consensus, and listed on the front page of the project, before Blackngold29 redesigned the front page and pushed the notability guidelines onto a subpage. I'm going to re-link them on the front page, unless anybody objects? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to FL criteria WRT length and content forking

See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to some of the discussion over this criteria, and looking at some FLs myself, I have proposed that List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame by date of induction and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame be merged under the latter title here. I also feel that the former list no longer meets the featured list criteria, however that should be an easy fix for someone with a couple good sources available. Reso lute 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed on Stan Musial's infobox picture

I've recently started improvements to Stan Musial's article, and as part of the process uploaded and utilized a free-use image of Musial for the article's Infobox, which can be viewed on Commons here. The downside to the free-use image (the only free-use one I've found/had available) is that it was taken last year, when Musial was about 87 years old. Another editor has suggested various reasons on the article's Talk page as to why a copyrighted image from the Baseball Hall of Fame should continued to be used instead. After reading a quote from the Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues page which said, "Basically, fair use content should be replaced by free content whenever possible, because we want our content to be truly free," I feel compelled to persist in urging adoption of free-use image.

The question is, should the free-use image or copyrighted one be used for Stan Musial's infobox? As always, I'd love to hear opinions from any and all fellow WP:Baseball editors. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stan was a ballplayer, and in my opinion, that's how he should be presented in the infobox. It's unlikely he'd be well-known if he weren't a ballplayer. Even at that, though, Stan the Man looks pretty good for 87 years old - although he was unable to go to the Hall of Fame this past year and play "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" on his harmonica, as had become traditional. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Commons link has extra stuff on the end. This should work. Rklear (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel any free-use image should be used before a copyrighted one. If people can't read the article to understand that he was a baseball player, then they're missing the point of Wikipedia. black ngold29 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture from last year is labeled as being from "Stan Musial Day" in 2008 while the article talks about a "Stan the Man Day" in 2008. Did he have two days last year, or is one of these incorrect? Kinston eagle (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1877 Brooklyn Hartford's season

The article, 1877 Brooklyn Hartfords season, needs a review of the team name. While it is true that the team played their home games in Brooklyn that season, it appears that they are still referred to as "Hartford Dark Blues" by all encyclopedias, including Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference. I think it needs to be changed back until Baseball recognizes this change.Neonblak ^talk - 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A contemporary New York Times article refers to the team in the heading as the Brooklyn Hartfords, then calls them Hartford or Hartford Blue Stockings throughout the article, even in the box score. Here's the link.Neonblak ^talk - 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a great little find. The MacMillan encyclopedias, starting in 1969, simply listed the 1877 club as "Brooklyn", because they played their home games at the field of the expelled Mutuals. They were officially "Hartford", but this was a way for the young National League to "save face" - to maintain the integrity of its rules while retaining the New York market, at least for one more season. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as the team nicknames are concerned, I've observed that Retrosheet tends to stick with the "conventional" nicknames even when research would suggest otherwise. Obviously, they were called the Blue Stockings. But somewhere, a century later, someone thought they were called the Dark Blues, and it stuck. People don't understand that nicknames had a different meaning at that time. One team might have several nicknames, none of them official, just whatever name the newspaper writers stuck them with. Often those puckish nicknames were eventually adopted. Hence the team with the peculiar name of "Dodgers". Meanwhile, I note that of the 60-or-so games that "Hartford" played in 1877, all but one were played in Brooklyn (over 100 miles from Hartford), and one was played in New Haven (some 75 miles from Brooklyn), and exactly NONE in Hartford. In addition to "Brooklyn Hartfords", I've also seen them referred to semi-formally as "Hartford of Brooklyn", an oxymoron that has never seen the like since. Unless you count "Los Angeles of Anaheim". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

World Series WikiBook!

I created a World Series book using the Create a book features. The PDF is 859 pages. And it only costs $58 (including shipping) to have it printed and mailed to you. Pretty neat. Kingturtle (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. How much did it cost to have stray "Hi Mom!"s and the like removed from the text? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a way to select particular versions of each article. I hope to do that eventually. But it will take time :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be perfect. You could make each article exactly the way you want it, and then even if it gets reverted or trashed, you've still got it: "World Series: The Kingturtle Edition. Appearing at a newstand near you." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's awesome. Now if we could get every article up to FA status we could go for a NY Times bestseller. If not, I would probably atleast order it. black ngold29 14:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rich Perez

Someone from here might want to look over the article on Rich Perez and comment at the afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Perez, it'd be useful for those of us with less of a clue to help voice an opinion. Ta. Hiding T 15:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Planecrash111

Would someone like to assist me in cleaning up this users edits? I am not going to revert anything he does more than once - and he is reverting correct sourced information with incorrect, unsourced info.... (most recent example here on Tim Hudson's page.) Assistance would be appreciated, because I won't let him get me into an edit war and get me blocked.... again. He will obviously continue to revert all edits I have made to pages he has put incorrect info... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I can help. I'm sure we all can pitch in in some form. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought he would have eased up after his block was over.. guess he didn't learn his lesson? Spanneraol (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought so too. I tried to stay abreast of the situation but apparently the other user wants to continue the battle. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Boston Reds (1890–1891) all-time roster

Just finished doing the work on this list. Wanted to run this by the Baseball project before taking this to Featured List nom. Yes, there are two red-linked players, I will get to those shortly, or if anyone else wants to create those, they can.Neonblak ^talk - 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a nice list; I look forward to reviewing it at WP:FLC. I noticed a couple of things that need to be fixed, but I will save those for a review. You will probably be asked to expand the lead by another paragraph or so; FLC is becoming more and more prose-conscious. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, did some lead work, added refs, and it looks like Wizardman created the stubs for the two red-linked players already. I will nominate this List when I return home, thanks for help !Neonblak ^talk - 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, I may just be the first to weigh in on it! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

National Baseball Teams

I've taken it upon myself to fix the Italy national baseball team and United States national baseball team articles. I've also done a considerable amount of work on Netherlands national baseball team and Cuba national baseball team. Not to sound as if I am biased, but I am an Italian American, and that plays a large part in my bias toward the first two articles. I was wondering if I could appeal to the nationalism in anyone else out there to help me fix up some of the articles on some of these other national teams as some of them are pretty pathetic.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was supposed to be working on an infobox for these competitions. Unfortunately, I took a look at the code and it seems to be beyond my grasp. Fail. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The currently existing infoboxes ask for a lot of information (ie, World Baseball Classic, Olympics, Baseball World cup, etc.). In most cases, I've noticed that they either haven't been fully filled out, or the information is in need of updating. To a degree, I've taken it upon myself; I just wish I had some help. It's a bigger task than you might think.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Category:Major League Baseball players with retired numbers has been co-nominated for deletion, along with the similar categories for the NHL and NBA. Please respond at the discussion page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Season importance

I was planning on spending some time rating the unnassesd articles for both class and importance. It seems that most of the unassessed articles are team season articles (ie 2002 San Francisco Giants season) and I was wondering what the importance rating of said articles should be? I was thinking that World Series winning seasons could be High class while the rest would be Mid importance. Any thoughts on that? Thanks. black ngold29 19:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think World Series winners should get rated High, along with landmark or record-setting teams (say, the 1947 Dodgers, the 1906 Cubs, the 1899 Spiders). Playoff teams and other pennant winners (e.g., all first-place teams pre-1903), and maybe a few others like first-year expansion teams should be ranked Mid, but the majority should probably be ranked Low. -Dewelar (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All the ones I saw that were assessed were rated Mid, unless they were a world series winner or soemthing. So that's what i used when i assessed, though i don't exactly agree with it. Wizardman 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with that assessment project-wide, but I bet there's a bot that can do it for us. We should also make sure that team projects are included (i.e., if it's a Twins season, then we should have the parameter |twins=yes included. Also, World Series wins should probably be rated top-importance for team projects. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: [[Category:Autoassessment bots]] shows bots that can do this. I have always been impressed by AnomieBOT's work on other tasks and would recommend it highly. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I started going through the seasons tonight. A bot would be cool, but I don't think they could accurately rate for class (they can't base it off other WPs since most are only within this project) and I figure since I'm doing the importance already I might as well do class too. The vast majority are Stubs and I have been rating them as Mid importance for their respective subprojects as well. It's pretty mind numbing work, but obviously not challenging. If we worked at it, I think that rating all of the unassessed articles would be possible for the start of the 2010 season. It averages out to about 15 per day, and while there will always be new articles, I have already rated 60 tonight alone. black ngold29 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My reading is limited to the beginning of our time period. The articles on ballclubs desperately need a lot of work and they are important, perhaps what you call Mid. The articles on ballclub seasons seem designed to mimic the data tables presented by dedicated baseball encyclopedias (chiefly baseball-reference). Generally they have no importance and no quality.

For example see St. Louis Brown Stockings and its linked single-season pages (three, 1875 to 1877). --P64 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Contemplating making 2004 World Series a FAC

But I was hoping you guys could take a look at it first and tell me if there is anything that needs to be fixed. I also set up I Peer review. BUC (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review will definitely help. I will give the article a thorough copyedit within the next few days (I am going without the Internet after today until Sunday afternoon but will try to catch up then). Someone should run the dablinks and deadlinks checkers and such on this article too, to head off those issues first. ~~I honestly might suggest doing a GA first rather than straight to FA.~~ Apologies, I misread the year, GA is done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No harm into trying to make it a featured article, it's just that this was not a particularly exciting Series, following on the heels of the Red Sox stunning comeback against the Yanks in the ALCS. It was a little like when the USA beat the USSR in 1980, and oh by the way had to also beat Finland or somebody like that in order to actually clinch the gold. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I might give the ALCS article a look too since that pretty poor at the moment. But lets work on one article at a time. BUC (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One of my favorite moments of the 2004 Series was when first baseman David Ortiz, who probably hadn't played in the field all year, nonetheless fired a bullet to the third baseman to nail the Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, who had probably not been to third base all year, and had rounded it a little too far. Both players were in unexplored territory on that play, and the fates were all on the side of the Beantowners. Incidentally, that play is not explained too well in the article, as it leaves out the crucial fact that Ortiz threw the ball to Mueller to put the tag on Suppan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Reworded BUC (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. And I want to point out that I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the 2004 Series. Far from it. It was an event in the history of the Red Sox and of baseball which had great importance. It's just that the Series itself... well, as a fan, you begin to see the signs of how things are going. For example, in the very first game of the 2005 World Series, when they took Clemens out in the third inning, I said, "It's over." The Astros had thrown the best they had out there, and he was done after 2 innings. And so were the Astros. In 2004, I had that feeling after the first game. The Cardinals battled but lost, and it was clear to me that they were done. They were the helpless victim of a Red Sox team that was on a mission, a freight train that was not going to be stopped, and that's just how it was. After losing the first 3 to the Yankees, the Red Sox shifted into high gear and won 8 straight games. The team of destiny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor Leaguers are 'technically' Pros

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course minor league players are professional ballplayers. That goes back 120-odd or 130-odd years, much longer than contracts with major league clubs who "stored [them] in lower class teams". That doesn't mean there should be a stub for every minor league player!

(quote) These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts.

Certainly it is a losing game to compete with the websites of active minor league teams for ballpark-based internet traffic, those fans in the seats who would like to look up more data than a local club provides by public address, printed program, and electronic scoreboard. --P64 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

New category problem

An editor has recently created Category:Purposed Continental League franchise locations. One, shouldn't this be "Proposed", not "Purposed"? and two, he is placing the cats on franchise articles, such as Buffalo Bisons and Colorado Rockies, rather than on pages about the cities. I don't think these need to go on the main city pages either, but perhaps an article on sports in those cities (and if they don't have that, then perhaps the main city page.) Any thoughts/comments on how this should be handled? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Without any articles on proposed Continental League franchise locations, a list rather than a category is appropriate. --P64 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Purposed"??? That's a good one. Although the CL did serve a "purpose" - it forced the majors to expand, and specifically to put an NL team back in New York. I would argue that the CL itself was "vaporware" - merely a threat to MLB, which disbanded once it forced the majors to do what it wanted. The CL article itself covers the situation. Attaching the category to those ball clubs is an interesting idea, but I'm not convinced it has real merit. The creation of the Mets was the turning point of the whole process, and I would argue that they are the only club that really merits membership in that category - which makes for kind of a small category. Meanwhile, the Mets article already links to the CL, so again I'm not sure what the point of the category is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the category from all franchise pages, and also removed this from the parent category "defunct teams" - there were never any teams, so they can't be defunct. -Dewelar (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The category now contains only itself. And as you indicate, the teams were vaporware. Presumably the now-empty and typoed category could be nominated for deletion, unless its creator can pose a good argument in its favor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If the category remains empty for more than four days, we can use {{db-catempty}} to request speedy deletion. BRMo (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)