Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 15

Albert Pujols
No 5 , St. Louis Cardinals
Position	1st Baseman
Born	January 16 1980
Hometown	Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
Nationality*	Dominican
MLB Draft*	(1999) (402) (St. Louis Cardinals)
Bats-Throws	Right/Right
First MLB Apperance
	April 2, 2001 for the St. Louis Cardinals
Last MLB Apperance
Career Stats
Teams
St. Louis Cardinals	(2001-Present)
Awards And Highlights
Other Important Awards	8× All-Star selection (2001, 2003-2009); 2003 NL Hank Aaron Award; 2004 NLCS MVP; 2008 Roberto Clemente Award; 3× ESPY Award for Best MLB Player (2005, 2006, 2009);

WikiProject Baseball/Archive 15
WikiProject Baseball/Archive 15
	№: {{{number}}} {{{team}}}
	[[File:{{{Image}}} \| {{{ImageWidth}}}\|alt=]]; {{{Caption}}}
Date of birth:	{{{DateOfBirth}}}
Place of birth:	{{{Birthplace}}}
Date of death:	{{{DateOfDeath}}}
Place of death:	{{{Deathplace}}}
Career information
Status:	{{{status}}} }}
	[Baseball positions
Height:	0 ft 0 in (0.00 m)
Weight:	0 lb (0 kg)
Jersey №:	{{{number}}}
College:	{{{College}}}
University:	{{{CIS}}}
{{{amateur_title}}}:	{{{amateur_team}}}
MLB Draft:	[[{{{MLBDraftedYear}}} MLB Draft\|{{{MLBDraftedYear}}}]] / Round: {{{MLBDraftedRound}}} / Pick: {{{MLBDraftedPick}}}
Drafted by:	{{{MLBDraftedTeam}}}
Hand:	Right
Organizations
	As :
{{{other_years}}}	{{{other_teams}}}
	As administrator:
{{{administrating_years}}}	{{{administrating_teams}}}
	As coach:
{{{coaching_years}}}	{{{coaching_teams}}}
	As player:
{{{playing_years}}}	{{{playing_teams}}}
Career highlights and awards
	{{{career_highlights}}}
Career stats
{{{statlabel1}}}	{{{statvalue1}}}
{{{statlabel2}}}	{{{statvalue2}}}
{{{statlabel3}}}	{{{statvalue3}}}
{{{statlabel4}}}	{{{statvalue4}}}
{{{statlabel5}}}	{{{statvalue5}}}
{{{statlabel6}}}	{{{statvalue6}}} {{#if:{{{MLB}}} \| ! colspan="2" \| Playing stats at mlb.com \|

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 10

←

→

IP addresses and redlink users

OK, so I don't know if this is a chronic problem, but it pops up on my watchlist all the time when I don't have time to fix it. The problem to which I refer is anons and new users only partially updating infobox stats. I get tired of typing the same "Hi, thanks, but don't do that unless you do all the work" message, so I created a set of "templates" in my userspace that I planned to use for user talk pages. They're modeled after the {{uw-v1}}, and so forth, series of templates. If you guys think they would be useful to have in regular Wikipedia namespace, and if you think they would survive a TfD or two, let me know and I can move them. Until then, you can feel free to subst them from User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-1, User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-2, and User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-3. You can use User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-4 too, but it redirects to {{uw-v4}}. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Can it really be considered vandalism to not update the entire set of stats? — X96lee15 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, only updating part of the stats is WP:OR and therefore in violation of WP:V. The same user, if he or she so chooses, can continually revert the stats. If warned about the WP:V and WP:NOR violations, and if they persist, that's definitely vandalism. That's what the higher levels are for (honestly, I never really intended to make more than two, but the third one seemed easy, and the fourth is a redirect). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

KV5, I think these are great, and I do think this is a recurrent issue for active player pages. I also think an adaptation of these templates could be used for some of the stat lists. If you put them in namespace, I would without doubt support keeping them if brought to TfD. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you like me to try to make header templates or user talk templates for those lists as well? I can do so within the next few days. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to put the time in to do that, I think that would be great. Thanks again. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will certainly do so. Just so I have a better idea of what to write, what are the major issues with the statistical lists that cause problems? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, I've noticed this problem quite a bit myself. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they're great. Some of us put a lot of work into these pages for someone to come in and edit just a stat here or there and not complete the entire box. Now I'm not saying I don't appreciate help here and there, but at least finish the job. Mattrob82 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation regarding statistical tables on Albert Pujols

I have requested mediation on the stat box issue recurring at Albert Pujols. Discussion there has not made productive forward motion, and this is the next step in the dispute resolution process. Please note that if you participated in the above discussion, you have been listed on the page as "involved". If you would like to comment on the case or read the filing, please visit the case page. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will join in once I read up on mediation. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for everyone's reference, this is informal mediation with the mediation cabal, not formal mediation with the mediation committee. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1892 split season and championship

I never realized until now how little information is on Wikipedia about these historic events. It looks like the only mention of them was on the 1892 in baseball page, and even then it was only to mention that the split-season concept was being abandoned. I added a couple pertinent dates on that page, and will be adding something on the 1892 Boston Beaneaters season and 1892 Cleveland Spiders season pages. Does anyone want to create an article for the 1892 world championship series? -Dewelar (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on some other things right now, but when I get back into editing King Kelly, I may have some source material for it if an article gets made. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball barnstar

FYI, I just created {{The Baseball Barnstar}} and handed out the first two to baseball editors I've encountered. This project is widespread enough, the simple Running Man barnstar for general sports contributions didn't seem like enough. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It has a ribbon now too, if you so prefer. See the thumbnail at the top right of this section. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Assessments

Hi. Just a note/questions. The assessment page at [1] seems to be languishing. Are assessment requests better posted here?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:IBAF World Rankings infobox

I was trying to add a parameter to specify a confederation to display to the exclusion of the others, so that this could then be used as a replacement for the tables on the confederations' articles - one of the main reasons for actually setting this up as a template in the first place. When I thought I had got it right, it displayed everything when a top value was specified, so I undid the change. (You can see the undone version in the history.) If anyone can work out what I did wrong at the check for each of the rows, I'd welcome the help. Afaber012 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dates; Inlining?

Hi. Do we have an agreed upon convention as to when (if ever) to inline cite dates (e.g., July 25 and 2009? The articles are all over the place. Personally, while I can see a reason some might want the Day/month of ballplayers (you can click through and see all others that share the same birthday), I'm not sure that there is much utility to other inlining -- but note that a substantial percentage of the articles have them, some referring to the baseball year. Thoughts? Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Per MOS:UNLINKDATES they should not be linked, unless there is some significance to the date. Same goes for years. black ngold29 15:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we need to make sure that we aren't plugging "year in baseball" or "year Major League Baseball season" links into inline dates as well. As far as I was aware, that's prohibited by MOS. I think. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Would be interesting to get a definitive view on this. From what I've seen, I think that a substantial portion (and probably a clear majority) of baseball player bios have inline links, some to year in baseball. Also, I'm not clear what "some significance" means for our purposes. One editor may argue it is never significant, another that it is only significant for the world series and playoffs and major awards, and a third that she thinks it is almost always relevant ... seems subjective, so I think if a view were expressed or developed here that would be helpful. As it is, the articles are all over the place, with no consistent approach.--Ethelh (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the date of a baseball-related event, I can't think of a reason why a given baseball event would be related to all other events occurring on that date, as baseball events are independent of the date on which they happen. Regarding years, personally I think it feels like overlinking if every occurrence of a year is turned into a link to the corresponding year in baseball page. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both Isaac and Ethel here. Certainly month/day links should never (or nearly never, perhaps) be made, but I believe some in-line year linking can be justified. It would be useful to come up with a project-wide guideline on this. -Dewelar (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It would have been easier to establish, I think, if the "day in baseball" pages hadn't been deleted. If we hosted those on the baseball portal, we could have linked inline dates that ALWAYS had context to the subject of baseball. We could even make a "baseball-date" template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They weren't deleted. They were just moved to the Baseball Portal subdirectory. For instance, here is the article for March 30 in baseball. -Dewelar (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Even in the context of baseball, there is no connection between events that just happened to occur on the same day of the year, so there is no need to link the date. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What about deadline deals? July 30 and 31 have a lot of context for those. I'm sure there are other examples. I'm not saying I want dates linked; I'm just playing devil's advocate here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a connection between one deadline deal and all other ones in every season in history. In addition, the deals are categorized through their relationship with the waiver deadline, and not a specific date — just seeing the deals on the same day would miss this, particular if the waiver deadline were to be moved one day. A team can also start pursing a sell strategy earlier in the year, if it suits their needs best, and these deals would be similar in nature to ones closer to the waiver deadline. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I was just noting that KV5 was incorrect about these being deleted. -Dewelar (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Month-day links and regular year links (e.g. 1974) are almost never relevant; most of those links were put in because of the now-deprecated practice of autoformatting. Year-in-baseball links are better, but pipe when possible (for example if the event in the article happened in May, you might try "May 23, [[2001 in baseball#April-June|2001]]) and I suggest linking them once or twice in the article. There's a nice navbox at the bottom of each year-in-baseball page that readers can use if they want other years. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox. Hi. Another editor (Ositadinma) suggests that when it comes to infoboxes, he feels that inlining of "the 2005 in baseball" is necessary in the "teams played for" section in the info box. "All of the other players have it." An example would be the diff at [2]. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said the inlining of days/months/years are not neccessary and default. People put that in for autoformating. I am trying the get some uniformity on wikipedia. Every professional athlete who has an infobox has an inline in it some where. Baseball palyers have years in baseball, football players have there own thing. I don't want to go back and undue every year in baseball link because that would take too much time. I understand Epeefleche trying to get Feldman and other articles to GA and possibly FA status and all of the Engilsh rules and grammer and other things that go into a "well-written article", but like I say it has been that for the longest and no one really cared then and why should someone care now. Ositadinma (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because consensus can change. Regardless, the "year in baseball" links are not really the best route anymore unless you are talking about someone outside of the realm of MLB. For Major League Baseball players, we should be using {{mlby}}, which provides more context. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow the consensus here, whatever it is. KV--are you suggesting that your vote is to use mlby in the infobox year for "teams played for." Or not to use it there? And everyone else--what is your opinion? I'm happy to follow the consensus view here for infoboxes. Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe links to season pages are most appropriate when a particular season is being explicitly referred to, and so there is a clear context for the reference. I don't believe the appearances of years within an infobox fits this criterion, and so am not in favour of making them a link to a season page. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the other side. I have no problem with linking the dates in the infobox (preferably to the MLB season), but not in prose. That includes team seasons as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I say again that undoing the inlining/piping in the infobox or other places will take forever and we will need bots to help us with that. Now if you need that little extra to get the article to a GA or FA level status do whatever you can to get it there even if it breaks consenus (English has it's own rules and wikipedians have ther own too; Clash), but I am in favor of keeping linking the the years in the infobox to whatever (year in baseball or MLB year in baseball). Ositadinma (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:1996 Florida Marlins roster

Template:1996 Florida Marlins roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Spanneraol (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the teams argument continues

Someone is trying to split the Dodgers & Giants pages again. Conversation here. -Spanneraol (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here Is The Conversation both BPD AND 65 Are me65.35.57.23 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

i think they deserve their own pages i made a page for the new york giants baseball abd someone just REDIRETCED IT im gonna make it again and a brooklyn dodgers page ETC. they have tons of history and deserve their own pages teams like the pilots Not so much but the Brooklyn Dodgers? The New York Giants? they deserve there own pages PLEASE HELP ME MAKE THESE Pages and make em good articles cause the ny giants have alot more history then san fran see Montreal Expos As an exanple for my petition PLEASE GUYS help the more historic teams have articles BigPadresDUDE (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the same team. Such pages would not only be content forks, but would be wholly unnecessary. Any information contained there can be included in this article. faithless (^speak) 01:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

i think they deserve their own pages cause there is a ton more history in new york then san fran 5 WS TIT AND 16 PENNENTS COMPARED TO 4 AND 0 In San Fran They have much history in new york and deserve their own pages like brooklyn and nyg so please keep the new page 65.35.57.23 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the same team. Just cause they moved doesn't make it a new team. No need for duplicate pages. The consensus at WP:BASEBALL has been to keep the information in one place. Spanneraol (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the only thing they share are name and records i guess they virturly have done nothing in san francisco there 5 world titles ALL IN NEW YORK and the separte pages i would only do for more historical franchises (ny giants brooklyn dodgers etc.) and not (seattle pilots etc.) i thought that the more history was in new york and i would be able to make it a good article but please give it a chance with separte pages for the more historacal teams like new york giants what have they done in san fran? 4 NL TITLES in new york 5 WORLD SERIES AND 16 NL TITLES i propose to make pages like nyg and brooklyn separete pages im starting the ORG FOR HISTORICAL TEAMS WIKIPEDIA PAGES oh by the way this is BigPadresDUDE 65.35.57.23 (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

i feel that they had enought history in new york and brooklyn to be seperated i made the nyg page amnd am commited to improving it so please i would would do this for me historical teams like new york and brooklyn not teams like the pilots so please consider my request65.35.57.23 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the editor's poor writing skills, I wouldn't entrust such an enterprise to him even if it was approved. Which it shouldn't be. There is a continuum for the Giants and Dodgers which the teams themselves as well as reliable sources acknowledge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Giants article is quite long, with an incessant amount of detail for recent seasons (I would imagine most of it could be moved out to the per-season articles?). It might be beneficial for some of the content to be split out into a separate article in accordance with Wikipedia's summary style guidelines. However, as I won't be the one doing it, I will leave it to others to make the argument. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Isaacl. The article definitely needs to be split. It is much too long. I think the most logical way to do it is to split it at team movements. However, perhaps some of the information can be moved to season articles as Isaacl mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably true on all counts. Certainly the team-season articles could use some expansion. -Dewelar (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

im new at this and trying to help give me a break BigPadresDUDE (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you really should do a little research into the discussion history of the articles, and read up on Wikipedia guidelines in general. Find out if this has already been discussed (it has, ad nauseum). Being bold is great and all, but it should be done judiciously. Also, keep the discussion back at the Giants talk page where it started. Forum shopping and discussion forking are frowned upon for good reason. -Dewelar (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

i did before i made it and i thought there was enough evidence for me to do it i just wanna be a good editor my nyg article was in good intentions BigPadresDUDE (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's doubting your good faith here, BPD. However, before doing something of this magnitude, you should probably discuss it first and see if there is consensus for making the change. -Dewelar (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What's needed is a summary article that covers both cities as a continuum, and possibly separate detailed histories by city, if that's what consensus is. However, they spent 75 years in NYC and so far only 52 in SF, and with much greater success in NYC. Are the articles going to be proportional in size? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before such a change can even be begun. -Dewelar (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

There's a minor tussle going on in this article as to whether the infobox should say right fielder and left fielder, or just outfielder. Any opinions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How much left field did he play? From my memory, sites like Baseball Reference don't differentiate between outfield positions that far back. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Baseball Reference he played 1057 games in left, 64 in center and 1131 in right. I came into the debate a bit late, but I feel that if he (or anyone) played significant time at more than one outfield position than they should be listed as "outfielder" and if they played significantly most of their time at one position they should be listed at that position. It's silly to list Right fielder/Left fielder when "outfielder" says it all.. he payed multiple outfield positions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Outfielder for sure, played all three it'd be a waste of time to come to a consensus as to whether LF or RF is better to list.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I say 64 in center is insignificant. Part of the debate was on Rickey Henderson, who was mostly a left fielder but spent 1/6 as many games as a centerfielder, i.e. as a regular position for his Yankee term. Ruth hardly ever played center. Whitey Witt and ther Earl Combs were the Yanks centerfielders during much of Ruth's stay in New York. It is said that Ruth generally played left on the road and right at home, I'm guessing because he didn't like dealing with the Yankee Stadium sun field. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Or it's because with the short porch in right, and the comparably smaller left fields in other stadiums, the Yankees wanted to put him where he had less ground to cover. I had forgotten about this, I usually think of him as a right fielder, but I guess the page should list him as both. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You're onto it. It apparently had to do without the amount of territory to cover, not the sun field. Looking at 1927 as a barometer, since that was one of his best years but he was over 30 by then [3] and he played more in right than in left. Here's the breakdown by site. It's interesting that where they were equal, he apparently preferred to be in left field, and he played left in St. Louis even though it was larger. But where it was significantly larger, he was put in right:

NY - RF - much smaller territory

BOS - LF - smaller

CHI - LF - equal

CLE - RF - much smaller

DET - LF - somewhat larger [actually comparable to RF Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)]

PHI - LF, RF - equal

STL - LF - somewhat larger

WAS - RF - much smaller

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at 1923,[4] the first year Yankee Stadium was in operation, the pattern is pretty much the same as in 1927. Interestingly, in early July, he had a stretch at STL and CHI where he was in center, and just after that he actually played in the spacious left field at CLE. He also had a few games at first during the final homestand, in which they were presumably saving his strength for the post-season. Looking at 1922,[5] his last year at the Polo Grounds, he played left field exclusively, on both home and road, even in spacious left fields like CLE and WAS, until late July when he started playing right field at the Polo Grounds. At that point he started playing right quite often, both home and road. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Unicode vs. fraction templates in standings

In an effort to get wider exposure for a discussion, please see Template talk:2009 NL East standings regarding the use of Unicode fractions (as found in the toolbox) vs. the use of the {{frac}} template, as prescribed by MOS:NUM#Fractions. The discussion is already ongoing there, but since it applies to all six standings templates, I wanted other editors to be aware of it. To keep it centralized, let's keep discussion on the above talk page instead of here. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using either of these, actually. They violate WP:ACCESS, as many screen reader programs for the blind cannot process them. -Dewelar (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

At least screen readers generally read the digits in the fraction template. The Unicode characters are ignored completely. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

True, since that's just formatting. I'll ask my wife to test that just to be sure. However, just for ease of use, is there some reason we can't use the decimal? All past season standings templates use decimals (at least 1876-1980 do, which is as far as I've checked). -Dewelar (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think decimals would be a good compromise. I've seen newspapers and sports sites use them often instead of fractions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

They were changed last year; I believe it was determined that because we were going to use 1⁄3 and 2⁄3 for innings pitched instead of arguing over .1/.2 and .3/.7, and that the standings should be changed to match that consensus. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So are we in the consensus to us .5 instead of fractions all together? Mattrob82 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in consensus for that. The fractions should be consistent throughout the articles, which includes both stats and standings. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that note. But we're going to have to settle on something. I felt it was fine the way it has been for the past 3-4 months with the unicode. When I started editing that template that's how it was so I continued to use the same code. Mattrob82 (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we could never come to a compromise on decimals relating to innings pitched. .1/.2 are technically inaccurate but used by most sources. .3/.7 are kind of accurate but it's rare that people will leave them alone (many redlinks and IPs have a bad habit of going through and changing them to .1 and .2). The fraction was chosen as a compromise because it was the most accurate option. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as pitching stats go I do feel the fraction, whichever one we agree to use, would be the most accurate as innings are only 3 outs. I would like to come to an agreement tonight as games are starting to end and it's time for the templates to be updated. Mattrob82 (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason the discussion can't be tabled until tomorrow, as long as no one agrees to edit war over styles until the discussion's actually completed. I have to get to bed, so I don't really have time to continue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Mattrob82 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there isn't agreement over the .1/.2 and .3/.7 thing. MLB uses .1/.2, which should pretty much end the discussion. The .3 and .7 (or, more precisely, the decimal values for which they are shorthand) are really only used for calculation of earned run average, and are really terms of art more than anything else.

On the other hand, unicode fractions are a non-starter, as they are both terms of art and in violation of WP:ACCESS. I will not promise not to remove those. -Dewelar (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the problem - everytime a team gaines or loses half a game we are going to have to delete or add the fraction template unless we put a hidden meassge on it. With the unicode all you have to do is go to the toolbox and get the code. Much simplier. Ositadinma (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. I have several comments:

With my browser (IE7), I have problems reading some of the results produced by Template:Frac. When the template appears in the last line of a paragraph, my browser cuts of the bottom half of the denominator, making the fraction difficult or impossible to read. This problem has also been mentioned on the template's talk page, suggesting that other users have this problem. Consequently, I can't support the use of the {{frac}} template.
Dewelar and KV5 have convinced me that Unicode fractions should be avoided for accessibility reasons. I'll note, however, that the guidelines they've cited are not especially clear about the issue. MOS:NUM#Fractions simply says that the {{frac}} template is available. It doesn't mention Unicode fractions at all, which I would interpret as taking a neutral position regarding their usage (especially in view of the easy availability of the Unicode fractions from the bar below the Wikipedia editing window). WP:ACCESS does mention accessibility problems with Unicode, but the statement appears in the context of a statement about providing transliteration of non-Latin writing systems. When I had previously read these instructions, it hadn't occurred to me that the issue also applied to the Unicode fractions. I suggest that Dewelar or KV5 may consider raising this issue on the talk pages of these guidelines to see if it would be possible to add clear guidance that the use of Unicode fractions should be avoided.
In tables, I think decimals are probably the best approach, and I'd even be willing to go along with the .1/.2 innings pitched convention (though the mathematician in me rebels). But I would object to widespread use of decimals in the text of articles, since I don't see decimals being used in the text of articles from what I consider to be standard-setting sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or MLB.com. As far as I can tell, they generally use fractions for innings pitched and games behind in the text of their articles.
In view of the problems with {{frac}}, Unicode fractions, and decimals, I suggest using regular ASCII (for example, "178 2/3 innings") in article text. This style appears in the text of articles from MLB.com [6], nytimes.com [7], washingtonpost.com [8], chicagotribune.com [9], and latimes.com [10]. (I'll note that the Associated Press uses "178 2-3.") While the result isn't pretty, in view of the differences in browsers and accessibility problems, I think it may be the best solution for handling fractions within text. BRMo (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in nearly total agreement with BRMo above, with the minor exception of the usage of unicode fractions. The problem is that many screen readers (including my wife's) skip unicode entirely. Thus, when the article says "the Foos finished 4½ games behind the Fees", the fractional game is simply dropped, and it is heard as "the Foos finished 4 games behind the Fees". I should bring this up at WP:ACCESS, true, but I thought those thinking about this decision should know how it works in practice. -Dewelar (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of ASCII characters in article text. In addition to being horribly ugly and also incorrect, I haven't heard anyone with complaints that the {{frac}} template doesn't work in text, so there is no reason to change that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that ASCII characters in text aren't pretty (though that doesn't seem to have deterred major media—New York Times, Washington Post, MLB.com—from using them as their default in text). But how do you figure that they are "incorrect"? And just so that you will be sure to hear it, let me repeat that using my usual computer and browser, the {{frac}} template doesn't work in text. I'm using my daughter's Mac/Safari now and it works fine, but with my usual IE7, most of the examples in the Template:Frac documentation are illegible. BRMo (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect because 2/3 doesn't mean the same thing as "two-thirds". It has to be a solidus, not a slash. The {{frac}} template uses a solidus. 2, followed by a solidus, followed by a 3, in the same case level, does not look right. In the case of 2-3, that is very easily miscontrued as "two minus three". And just so you will be sure to hear it, let me say that IE is the problem. It's not Wikipedia's fault that it doesn't support the Wikimedia software properly. Adn for the record, I am using IE7 on WinXP right now, and the fraction templates look fine to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of people will correctly interpret the presence of a slash (virgule), but you are technically correct. That said, I think this is another reason why, for our purposes, decimals are the best way to go. -Dewelar (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess for simplicity's sake, I would be OK with going back to decimals in the standings templates. I still think that we should be using fractions in article text, though, because otherwise we re-open the debate of .3/.7 vs. .1/.2. The article text, at least to my eye in IE7 (my parent's house), Firefox (my house), and IE8 (my job), doesn't have any issues. On the {{frac}} documentation page, the problem occurs because of the "code" tags, which create different backgrounds and layouts than would be encountered in an article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the solidus a Unicode character? Based on Dewelar's comments above, wouldn't that imply that many screen readers ignore it, and that the use of {{frac}} is therefore inconsistent with WP:ACCESS? BRMo (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the solidus is a Unicode character. Yes, screen readers ignore it. That means that at least the digits get read by a screen reader, as opposed to the Unicode vulgar fractions, which result in the complete loss of information, as opposed to a partial loss. Nothing is perfect, but it's a better solution than none. Has any thought been given to slightly widening the row height on the standings tables to make the {{frac}} work? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should use the fractions instead of the decimals for both the standings and innings pitched. I say this because the values are always going to end in zero or one-half, there is never going to be any other value (same for innings pitched: even, one-third or two-thirds). I also say we should use the unicode ½. instead of the {{frac}} template. There is no Wikipedia policy against using it, it's easier to read and cleaner than {{frac|1|2}} and WP puts it on it's little "insert symbols" toolbar. It's not Wikipedia's fault that screen readers don't support the Wikimedia software properly. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What a nice attitude. "If a blind person can't use our pages, that's just too f*cking bad". Actually, it is our fault (and, by extension, Wikipedia's fault) if we code our pages in such a way as to prevent Wikipedia from performing its function of being a usable encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the only wiki that uses Wikimedia software, after all, so Wikimedia is not required to limit its capabilities to what can be read by a screen reader. Per WP:ACCESS, we are (where possible, and in this case it is possible). -Dewelar (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you need to lighten up. I'm just using the same argument as to why we should be able to use {{frac}}: it's not Wikipedia's fault that IE7 cannot render frac. Regardless, that portion of the discussion should not be happening here, but should be happening at WP:ACCESS. There is a reason why unicode is not forbidden on WP. I don't know what it is. Maybe it hasn't just been brought up yet with the ACCESS argument, but until the MOS says, "no unicode", then my vote is to use the unicode fractions since they look better from a viewing and editing perspective. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with him. And MOS does say don't use those characters: "Avoid the Unicode characters "²" and "³". They are harder to read on small displays, and are not aligned with superscript characters (see "x1x²x³x4" vs. "x1x2x3x4"). Instead, use superscript markup, created with ." The superscript markup is what the {{frac}} template uses. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the MOS just says avoid specific superscript unicode characters, not the fraction unicodes we're talking about here. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes up a Unicode fraction? A Unicode superscript (forbidden by MOS), a Unicode subscript (identical but unmentioned), and a solidus. It's the same thing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree to disagree I guess. IMO, if the MOS wanted to say unicode fractions, it would. I still content Wikipedia allows unicode fractions because they put them in their toolbar. There are no unicode super/sub-scripts in the toolbar. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And I would suggest that is an incorrect contention. If you visit the original discussion at Template talk:2009 NL East standings, I provided links to several MOS:NUM discussions that showed a fairly strong consensus against Unicode fractions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is obviously not strong enough to make a policy change. That's all I care about. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And the current policy is not to use Unicode superscripts (including the fractions which use the same size and digits). That's why MOSNUM lists the fraction template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's YOUR interpretation, mine is otherwise. Like I said, agree to disagree. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing to disagree doesn't really get us anywhere toward achieving a consensus. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place where we should be reaching consensus, which is why I'm not going to try convince you and you're not going to convince me. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Could you explain why you believe this isn't the place to reach a consensus on what format to use in a baseball article? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the template, I suppose primarily because you asked for the conversation to continue to take place at Template talk:2009 NL East standings. From the larger perspective, because deciding guidelines on usage of the vulgar fraction characters should probably be discussed on the discussion page for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Isaac Lin (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, there will be no decision on whether or not to use unicode characters here since that discussion needs to take place at WP:MOS (or WP:ACCESS). This is a larger issue than just a baseball article. I just edit according to the MOS (and other various policies). — X96lee15 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

An understandable position, in theory. In practice, though, as I noted above, it can result in making Wikipedia less accessible. I have always presumed that it is implied within WP:ACCESS that, when an accessible alternative exists, one should choose it, providing that no other information is lost in doing so. Does it truly need to be codified for the sake of avoiding pedantry such as this? While I recognize that some people need rules in order to be good netizens, it shouldn't be one's default mindset. -Dewelar (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If we use {{frac}}, we could probably adjust it so that people could set how it renders. Javascript could be written to render it one way for screen readers and another way for IE7, etc., etc. Not that I'm signing up for writing such Javascript, but it could be done, as opposed to if we use decimal values. Wknight94 ^talk 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I finally got the chance to test this with my wife's computer (she uses ZoomText), and the screen reader does interpret the solidus as a slash, so 1⁄2 is read as "one-slash-two". I can't speak for JAWS or other programs, though. -Dewelar (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have put together some possibilities in my sandbox. Please view and comment here on the five possibilities laid out. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant User:Killervogel5/Sandbox(?) Wknight94 ^talk 23:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, link fixed. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

While you know I prefer option 5 for the sake of both accessibility and clarity, following that link also helped me spot an error in the Pujols article :-D . -Dewelar (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Padres

ive started Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/San Diego Padres feel free to join and help out with articles relating to the padres BigPadresDUDE (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New Info Box

with the nfl info biox changing i thought i would take it and make a mlb vcersion of it you would have to mess with some of the coding to make it work but here it is

do you like it? can we use it? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Which specific codes need to be changed? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Colors And The Draft as far as i know BigPadresDUDE (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there some reason we need to change our current infobox? Especially since we just updated it a few months ago? This seems like reinventing the wheel to me at this point. -Dewelar (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we just add the MLB Draft onto the infobox instead of recreating it like what Dewelar said? It isn't any better than what we already have. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to add the draft, it can easily just be added into our current infobox. There's no reason to switch to a completely new format. I do think we need to re-examine the colors for {{MLBPrimaryColor}} and {{MLBSecondaryColor}}, though, as some of the colors used (like bright reds and bright blues) are difficult to read with white text and such. There's no reason that the infobox colors have to be "exactly" the team colors. The Phillies navboxes, for example, use the red and blue specified for the team by SSUR, the Society for Sports Uniform Research, rather than the extremely glaring red and blue in the infoboxes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the colours should all be changed to the generic grey/blue that alot of other infoboxes/navboxes use and then just add a line in the infobox for colour with colour squares in it to show the colours. This makes the infobox easier to read, less of an eye sore and still presents the information that you are trying to get across accurately. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Err nevermind I am thinking of team infoboxes...player infoboxes I personally don't think should have colours at all but I know I am in the minority on that. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to add the draft? It's a fairly new concept as far as baseball history goes... historical players would have no draft status.. and even today as many players are signed as undrafted free agents as are actually drafted. The draft info is in the article... I don't like that new info box he listed, it seems too busy... our current one is simple and sparse as they should be.. Why complicate matters? Spanneraol (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating adding the draft to the box. It's easily covered in prose and really doesn't make much difference in the long term. I'm actually against its addition; I'm just saying that there's no need to build something new when something existing with an additional piece would work as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox should be changed. However, I do think there are some features that could be added to the existing infobox that are presented here ("as player" and "as manager" and "as coach" for example). Keeping the baseball and football projects as far apart as possible is probably a good thing. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"As player" / "as manager" is currently being done by hard-coding, so if there's a way to add that to the current infobox easily that would be cool. Most of the other new stuff is unnecessary or irrelevant. AND PLEASE GOD DO NOT ADD A "STATUS" FIELD! Some of the edit wars over whether a player was active or retired are the stuff of legend. -Dewelar (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What about a "Level" field, for those players who have articles, meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, but are not in the majors? It could be set up to format automatically, using AAA, AA, A+, A, A-, and the teams could even be coded to come up automatically (it would take some work and maintenance). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No way, keep the current infobox--Yankees10 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The new proposal is way too all-inclusive. I wouldn't be against making the current one smaller (Eliminate or hide the Career highlights and awards and/or stats for current players), but I don't think it should get bigger. I've always been a fan of the swimming infobox. black ngold29 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of hiding career achievements and awards. I also wouldn't be opposed to narrowing the infobox a bit. At present, it can be quite wide. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Statistics in infoboxes

Do we have a clear, established guideline written anywhere for what is supposed to be in infoboxes in way of statistics? I was under the impression that it was supposed to be the Triple Crown stats, and then using WP:COMMONSENSE for the addition of stolen bases (Reyes, Rollins, Henderson...) and saves (Rivera, Sutter, Rodriguez). Only players that are career leaders or franchise leaders in another statistical category should have that category listed in the infobox. Is that a fair assessment as I understand the current guidelines? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this works for the vast majority of articles, yes. Most articles I have seen use the Triple Crown stats for batters and pitchers (with win-loss record replacing win). They are the most familiar stats to the casual reader, and are thus good things to have there. They are also what I use when I create an article or add an infobox to one, with a few exceptions. If the totals are meaningless, for instance -- e.g., for a batter who played in one game and went 0-for-2 with a walk I might use games played, at bats, and walks for the three stats. Also, if a player was known for something specific, you probably want to list that (on a page for Herb Washington, or perhaps even someone like Miguel Diloné, you could put runs scored and/or stolen bases in there and be OK). -Dewelar (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's generally unnecessary to show something like hits unless one is Charlie Hustle, or doubles unless one is Tris Speaker, etc., etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. About the only people who should have doubles in their infobox are Speaker and maybe Earl Webb. -Dewelar (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is fine as long as we show a bit of leeway for unique situations/players. For example, I think it's appropriate to list saves for aplayer like Firpo Marberry who was the first player to record 100 career saves (retroactively), and did so in an era where relief specialists were not the norm. I agree that Triple Crown + SB/SV is a good standard, but we should maintain some flexibility since there are up to six fields available for use. Just my $.02. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This is what I was getting at a few responses up. -Dewelar (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified players

I was looking up photos of Andre Robertson when I found this title. I don't know if anyone ever got the right answer for the unidentified players. It was in the following discussion.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 6 #31

The player on the right was indeed Oscar Gamble. The player on the left was a catcher named Juan Espino. I know this because he was Andre Robertson's Roomate in the Minor leagues.

TexasYankee18 (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Revised Infobox 2

i came up with a another new infobox for mlb and i think this is more organized and shorter then the current one i have used albert pujols as a test subject as you may say check my sandbox User:BigPadresDUDE/Sandbox For the blank version now heres a rundown of the changes

Change 1 - Organized And Decluttered Awards And Stats Section you guys have been asking this for a long time so i did it useing simalar coding to the nascar guys i made a decluttered awards and stats sections all the stats and awards are interchangeable too The List Was Long in awards section and i coudent get a collapsable one so i organized it useing abbriviations and the code it is much smaller now which is good and the main awards are in the abbriviations and are interchangeable i wikilinked them so if someone didnt know what they mean they could go to the page i did the same thing with stats other awards section is for the other awards the player has won with main awards abbove and small with abbriviations the awards section is much smaller

Change 2 - The Stats Section i did the samething with the stats there are 6 stat sections the default are Home Runs Hits RBIs Stolen Bases Total Bases And Average and are intrerchangeable depending on the player they are abbriviated to like the awards and wikilinked them so is all good

Change 3 - MLB Draft and nationality i thought these would be good sections and would be good i am making them discussable and it dosent really matter if you guys use this infobox and dont include one or the other or both

What i coudent get in

pictures AND color i am not good with these codes so if you decide to use it you would have to fix this mmk

Final Thoughts i worked really hard on it and i hope you love it the awards and stats change even if you dont use my infobox you could take these and use em the one problem i have is this infobox might be a little larger but that is proboly cause the personal info is to the left and the two new fields mlb draft and nationality Well anyway thankyou for your time reading this and looking and i hope you use my infobox BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but maybe I'm missing something here. What is wrong with the current infobox? Personally I like it better than the one you are proposing here and if we decide to add extra parameters it's not hard. Borgarde (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but, no--Yankees10 01:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

what about the awards and stats section? i made them organized and less clutterd and the new fields (mlb draft and nationality) i dont care if there in but i would want em and i really kept the same style So whats wrong with it damnit BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine truthfully it sucks. Thats my opinion--Yankees10 01:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why what did i do wrong i organized and declutterd the stats and awards sections the draft and nationality i dont care if there in but i would want em i think the current infobox is to disorganized and clutterd if you dont use my infobox alest try my revised award and stats section to make it smaller like you want BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The current infobox is completely fine, there is no reason for any major changes--Yankees10 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

LISTIN for a second i think personaly the current one sucks (no offense to ever made it) and the revised stats and awards sections Everyone has been asking for them to be gone or shorter and i made em shorter and thought alest we could use em cause i read up on my info and alot of people want a shorter infobox and i thought mine kept the style of the current one yet had good new features (Stats And Awards) and NATIONALITY AND THE DRAFT i dont care if there in but i would want em Would you alest read what i say about the awards and stats and dont ignore it? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Padres, yours seems too cluttered around the awards, no major changes are needed right now to the infobox. If you think nationality and draft are necessary (and it is met with consensus from other people as well) we can add that to the current infobox. Borgarde (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok looks like were adding the draft and nationality but i worked really hard on the stats and awards sections and i really think we could alest use it in the current infobox BigPadresDUDE (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Who was asking for changes to the stats and awards stuff? I don't recall any problems with it.. and personally I don't want draft or nationality in the info box. Spanneraol (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Man i always get botched why is anything i do NEVER RIGHT i read and 75% of people want a shorter infobox so i did that with the stats and awards some cosmetic changes could be done but it saves space like most people want yet still displays relevant information MAN IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY HATES ME HERE BigPadresDUDE (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When you are dealing with things like the infobox, you really should discuss it here first and come to a consensus before spending all that time working on changes that the rest of us might not agree with.Spanneraol (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

im sorry but it seems like everyone hates me and think im stupid and should leave it to me feels like your stepping on me or biting me as they call it here everywhere it feels like nobody likes me and by the way span what did you think of my revised awards and stats sections? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want people to like you, coming in and making big changes and then getting mad when people don't agree with them isn't the way to do it. Spanneraol (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

what do i do then? for some reason im hellbent on getting one of my infoboxes used and what about the revised stat and awards section did i do good there? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Padres, as a comparison, it took weeks of discussion to come to a conclusion on the latest infobox we are currently using which was a merger of two previous infoboxes. We understand you are a new user and are trying to contribute, but I think maybe instead of just redesigning the infobox completely you should find ways in which you think the current infobox could be improved and/or how to do it. Any changes to the infobox will always need discussion and will hardly ever be accepted without it as they are used on thousands of articles. Borgarde (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that in a community-based project such as this, it's better to consider your edits to be contributions towards a community-written whole, rather than thinking of them as, for example in this case, "your" infobox. I know almost nothing about template syntax, but it seems to me that your current example is more of a mockup (using hard-coded HTML table elements) rather than something ready to replace the existing MLB player infobox template. There's nothing wrong with starting with a mockup first, but it would be helpful if you would explicitly call it a mockup to avoid confusion.

Regarding the awards section, note that for the vast majority of players, the totals would be 0 for all of them, and so it is questionable if they are worth taking up the space in the infobox. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

your right my boy i forgot to mention this is the first version and we could do something with the awards (remove a few from main awards etc.) BigPadresDUDE (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

MLB All-Star Game MVP FLC

I've nominated Major League Baseball All-Star Game MVP Award over at FLC. Nom is here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball-related FPCs

I'd love your input on a couple recently nominated baseball-related pictures over at WP:FPC! First a Walter Johnson restoration I helped with, and then an old restoration of Durova's. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball's newest featured content, an FP! Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Current Infobox

as my new infobox was shot down i would like to discuss aspects of it we could add to the current one first theres my revised awards and stats section then the two new parts mlb draft and nationality i think all of these would be good but i thought i would discuss it with you guys first so lets discuss BigPadresDUDE (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationality is unnecessary, as the current infobox already has a birthplace field. The draft bit has been bandied about here before and rejected, although there are some who would like to see it. If it were to be included, it would have to be changed to be "Signed from" or something like that, because the draft has been going on since 1965, or barely a third of professional baseball history. The awards section...personally, I think it's horribly ugly, and there should NEVER EVER EVER be a field for "Rings", but the current section certainly could be improved. -Dewelar (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Rings could be replaced with ws titles or something of that nature but you agree we need something for stats and awards like i did? and what does everyone else think? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some improvement could be made, sure. I'm just not sure what you have here counts as improvement :) .

Also, I have adjusted your comment above so that it follows standard Wikipedia style for an ongoing conversation. This way, people can tell who's responding to whom. -Dewelar (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion there are really no changes at all that need to be made. Having things like the draft and nationality are not needed, especially the nationality, it is just plain stupid since the birthplace is there. And the awards part looks terrible and no changes have to be made to that.--Yankees10 05:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the revised stats and awards sections. It receives too much emphasis, and some of the award categories, like ROY, are going to be '0' for almost everybody, so I think it's better to list it if they won it, but not clutter the infobox with a '0' if they didn't win it. Also, nationality is covered by birth place, and draft information isn't relevant enough to make the infobox. Does the second round matter more than the fifth round? Or if the player wasn't drafted? Plus remember international players aren't subject to the draft. I think it's better mentioned in the text. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the draft is infobox-worthy; it's not nearly as tied to participation as the NFL draft and the like. As I mentioned above, I wouldn't mind seeing a "hide" option for the "Achievements" section, and I would still like to see a "Level" field for those players who are not in MLB. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible sections could work, perhaps for statistics and teams as well as awards. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the level field idea.--Yankees10 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly stop the war over who deserves an MLB infobox. Makes it more accurate too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, too, although admittedly it would be very hard to maintain. Minor league transactions are a lot harder to track than MLB ones. If we do add this, I think the team colors should be turned off when it's filled in.

And...there's a war over who deserves an MLB infobox? Seriously? I would think it's pretty cut and dried. Anyone who has played in MLB gets one. Everyone else gets the baseball biography one. -Dewelar (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See Stephen Strasburg. He had that MLB infobox before he ever signed. It's happened at other locations too. I happen to think that players shouldn't have that infobox unless they are playing in MLB, are on a 40-man, or are retired, but that's not the current consensus, so that's why I'm bucking for the level field. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: you believe that players who have previously played in MLB, are currently not on a 40-man roster, but are still active in the minors (e.g. Sean Henn), independent leagues (e.g. Randall Simon), or recently released free agents (e.g. Rob Mackowiak), should have their MLB player infobox taken away and replaced with the baseball bio box? -Dewelar (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's my belief, but I'm not saying it has to be everyone's belief. I'm more than willing to go along with the crowd on this. It's just that I feel the level field is important to provide the most accurate info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I agree on the first part (I believe the small hit we take for having one MLB infobox is worth it to keep the edit warring to a minimum), but I do agree on the second part, assuming that it's kept updated for everyone (which I foresee being a huge problem). -Dewelar (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we will be fine as long as enough people have enough players on their watchlist (I know I have quite a few current and former Phillies and Twins on mine). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Lots of minor league players have the MLB infobox... the colors reflect the Major League team that controls the players rights. Even minor league players belong to the Major League team organization. If we add a level field (which I would support), it should be an optional one... retired players or current major leaguers don't need one. Minor league transactions aren't that hard to track.. i've been updating all the Dodgers minor league rosters fairly regularly and haven't had any problems tracking the players through the various levels. Spanneraol (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's why I'm saying we need the level field, because although they are controlled by the parent organization, it currently looks like they play for the parent team. That's why I think this is long overdue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So go ahead and the field then. Sounds like a good idea. It should probably be right below the team name field. Spanneraol (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Location makes sense. The template is protected, though, so I can't add it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Team color templates

The Template:MLBPrimaryColor, Template:MLBSecondaryColor, Template:MLBAltPrimaryColor, and Template:MLBAltSecondaryColor templates are notably used by the Template:Infobox MLB player. However, these templates are long overdue to have their colors corrected. Almost none of the team color templates actually match up with the team's actual team colors or the colors used by most other team templates (and corrections would hardly affect readibility of the MLB player infobox). Furthermore, others are just abritrarily chosen (e.g. sand is the primary color for the San Diego Padres? yellow is a team color at all for the St. Louis Cardinals?). I propose that we unprotect the color templates so we can go through and correct them, according to what the Society of Sports Uniform Research (SSUR.org) has on record. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree and support this proposal. I also volunteer to help add the Atlantic League colors to the template if/when the template is temporarily unprotected. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take part in this as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already corrected a few team's templates (current roster, roster navbox, etc), like the Brewers, Padres, Red Sox, Angels, Phillies, Mets, Orioles, Marlins, Tigers, Astros, Diamondbacks, and Braves. So for those teams, we can simply refer to their team templates for the correct colors. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Project Padres

Would anyone be interested in joining WikiProject SD Padres? And could someone help me with the side bar thingys to make be on the left and right? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Collapse Section

i fugured it out i found this code and played around and i got collapasble sections i havent figured out how to put them in the infobox but i have a demo here and notice it has nhl awards in it cause i was testing it with my nhl infobox template go to User:BigPadresDUDE/Sandbox To see it BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Still no good--Yankees10 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

what the heck is wrong? PEOPLE have cried for something like this i still dont know how to add it the to infobox but i am trying to help and oh yeah could you review me at Wikipedia:Editor_review/BigPadresDUDE Thank you for your time and as i said IM TRYING TO HELP and this is demo i made this in 15 minutes im sure you guys could whip something like this but better now that you have a code AND AS I SAID IM TRYING TO HELP BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You should just stop wasting your time, no one wants to change the infobox--Yankees10 01:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

im sure there is someone out there who does and me personaly i think the current one sucks and i read archives and there have been plenty of people who want the infobox smaller for some reason im hell bent on getting one of my infoboxes/designs used and for somereason i think YOU HATE ME Yankees everytime you comment on me you say bad things YOU HATE ME YANKEES BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No actually I dont hate you. I have no idea who you are and never saw any of your edits before this. I just dont like the infobox you created--Yankees10 01:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

well i mostly do sports and i fell that no one really likes me anyway Template:List Of San Diego Padres Opening Day Starters here is one of my templates and i made Wiki Project Padres Which is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/San Diego Padres im a ok editor in my mind i make mistakes and have a short temper check my contribs to see more and what DID you like and DID YOU not like about my infobox BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How old are you? Just curious--Yankees10 01:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

bout 22 why ya asking? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No reason--Yankees10 01:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

hey and would you adopt me and as i said i have done some good things including Template:List Of San Diego Padres Opening Day Startersand Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/San Diego Padres so how would you rate me as a editor and template/box maker going thorgh my contribs and checking those pages out? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I see it says on your page that you've been editing since August 23. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think you're biting off more than you can chew at this point. Lots of us have been working things like these infoboxes for some time. They could use some improvements, but there's no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. My advice to you is to stay a while, watch and learn, make helpful contributions where you can, then start to work your way up to bigger and bigger things as you learn the ropes. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

but you have to admit i did good with WikiProject Padres you interested in joininh mubo? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to Template:San Diego Padres Opening Day Starters above? Borgarde (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah And I Did do a good job with wikiproject padres right? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

About 1/3 of the links in that Opening Day pitchers template were wrong. They're fixed now. -Dewelar (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, and I didn't even notice that it duplicates the work of Template:San Diego Padres Opening Day starting pitchers. BPD, you might want to start out a little smaller. -Dewelar (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

well it never got used so im considering redirecting that to my version BigPadresDUDE (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know I redirected your version because it was a duplicate work, nothing against you I was just unaware the template already existed. Borgarde (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BigPadresDUDE - it seems to me like you're just trying to replicate a bunch of content you are coming across for other baseball teams for the Padres without actually knowing what you're creating or without knowing a lot of the editing protocol/guidelines at Wikipedia. I would recommend you read some of Wikipedia's policies and simply observe some discussions before you start trying to make such drastic changes. I would also recommend you calm down every time someone disagrees with you - you can try and help, but you are not entitled to have all of your ideas and suggestions stick. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball related featured pictures

I'm working with User:Durova on image restorations and we have a long term plan to fix Portal:Baseball. That requires a good solid list of images to rotate through, and baseball images are all jumbled up across FP categories. So I created User:Staxringold/BaseballFPs as a stop-gap to help keep a list going, although I think it'd be helpful for the project to start tagging/noting them just like the Mil. History Wikiproject currently does. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Statistical tables... again

Are we applying the same criteria to managerial records as to player statistics? Should they also be removed, or should they stay in? Should a reduced format be implemented, as has been done (reluctantly) at Albert Pujols? I ask because a user has created Career Managerial Record of Charlie Manuel, which I have proposed for deletion. Should the information even be present in the main article? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have input here? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's the same as playing statistics. Since they're available on external sites, they shouldn't be copied to the main page here. However, a page dedicated to the managers of a team is an appropriate place to list managerial statistics, to demonstrate the franchise history. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. Linking to managerial records on bbref or another site is sufficient. -Dewelar (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I also concur. Thanks, guys. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel I've got to remind you of the discussion we had a few weeks back about this issue. I objected to the removal of the career managerial record table, and because you insisted on continuing to remove it, I gave it its own article. If the table is left in the article, I also see no reason for it to have its own article. You'll recall that that solution was not even my first choice. It was your insistance that the abscence of such a table was established "consensus" that prompted me to split it into a separate article.

The bottom line, for me, is this: if the table is left in the article, I have no objection to the deletion of the separate article. I maintain that the table is a perfctly readable and valuable addition to the article...and why not have ample readable, sensible information in each and every article? This is, after all, an encyclopedia. I also have to continue to object to the "consensus" against the inclusion of such tables. Look at the pages of coaches and managers at the professional and collegiate level, you'll find that most include a records table...and I applaude this.

Anyway, I've posted our original coversation from the Charlie Manuel talk page below for your reference:

== Managerial Record == I undid the removal of the record table. If folks disagree, that's fine. I'm not trying to monopolize. I do, however, wish to register my objection. First, look at the majority of coaching pages in general: not only do they have record tables, most have seen people add such tables recently--steps I strongly support. I think it's great information to have and look at. I can understand how such tables can visually dominate the article, but Charlie Manuel simply has not been manager long enough for that to be a problem (if it were, one might create a separate article to house it). Also, myself and others have taken steps to ensure that such tables are not visually overwhelming by adding such things as color coding, double thick lines, and descriptions. I welcome other comments, but must register my own opinion. It is doing a disservice tot he article to remove this information. EATC (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC) The consensus at WT:MLB has been to remove statistical tables from player articles because they are becoming substitutes for prose. The pertinent information in the table should be available in the prose or, if it's not, should be made available as such. I am going to remove the table again per the established consensus. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Boy, consensus just must not mean what it used to. Look at MLB managers' pages...how many of them have that exact table? Why stop there? Look at football coaches, basketball, hockey, even college! Nevertheless, as I stated, my intention was not to start a war, and certainly not to "substitute for prose". Therefore, I have come up with a compromise. EATC (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, couldn't your argument that external links cover the same information be used for everything in the article? And don't we want to include as much readable information in the article as possible? It's an encyclopedia...

EATC (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're posting the same information in multiple places and it's not helping matters. Read the larger discussion above (WT:MLB#Stat Boxes) to see the entire argument, not just this section. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because it's there doesn't make it right. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that discussion had been archived. See the archive here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ex-Cubs Factor and rosters

I was looking at Ex-Cubs Factor and noticed that the 2008 World Series had two teams with three or more ex-Cubs on them. The Phillies had Jamie Moyer, Scott Eyre, Matt Stairs, and Tom Gordon. All but Gordon played in the World Series. The Rays had Cliff Floyd, Jae Kuk Ryu, and Mike DiFelice. Only Floyd played in the World Series for the Rays. Now here is where is gets tricky. DiFelice was released by the Rays on September 1 and Ryu was only a member of the 40 man roster (he played one game for the team and that was in April). So does the Ex Cubs Factor roster only relate to the 25 man World Series roster, the expanded 40 man roster, or any player that played for the team during the year? I can't find anything official on it, but I would think it is for the 25 man roster. Even if it relates to the 40 man roster, the Rays would not be an Ex-Cubs Factor team since they would only have two ex-Cubs. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I have made a change to the article about DiFelice's September release. Feel free to revert the change if I was incorrect. Thanks! Patken4 (talk)

I'd be more concerned to find sources for an article that seems to be have a large element of original research. BRMo (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree... I never knew why we had an article on this to begin with. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree, especially since it's essentially about a superstition that has, over the years, required increasingly tortured logic to justify. And what the heck is it doing in the team template? -Dewelar (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably the only reason to have the article is how often the "factor" is cited. Magazines like Sports Illustrated assume the reader will know what this phrase means[11], which would put me in the keep column. (But get it out of the template).

FWIW, every year I figure the ECF for all eight post-season teams and I always use the 25 man roster as of the first day of the playoffs, breaking ties with total number of Cubs games played. (When the Cubs make the post season, I give them an ECF of 25). IIRC, last year the Red Sox should have won the series according to my ECF calculation, but the couple of years before that the ECF correctly predicted the order teams dropped out of the post season. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done some more research on this (hopefully, not OR). For the OR point, there does seem to be quite a bit of information out there, at least talking about it and defining what it is. I've found the original article by Ron Berler from 1981 on web archive and added it to the article. In addition, at the beginning of most post seasons, there looks to be articles out there discussing what each teams Ex-Cub Factor is and predictions based on that. About half the articles from are the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times, but other newspapers, such as USA Today and Sacramento Bee, talk about the subject. Sometimes they define what it is, sometimes they don't. Some of the articles since 2001, when the Diamondbacks won it, cite the two refutations to that point. So far, no one has said the Phillies from last year are another refutation, but there are sources from before the playoffs last year that said the Phillies were "doomed" because of it. I've actually found articles from 1987, even before Mike Royko made it more well known in 1990.

As for the question I had, it seems Ron Berler looks at the 25 man roster to determine Ex-Cub factor. Here is the source. Since he's the author, he makes the rules. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Albert Pujols statistics

It's happening again. I requested page protection to encourage debate~~, but it was rejected~~. Dispute resolution has not worked in the past. This time, a table is being copied from Ichiro Suzuki's page to include info that's redundant to B-Ref and should be available in prose. I'm sure everyone else is as tired of this as I am, but unfortunately, we can't just let this die. An article about one of the biggest players in baseball's modern era shouldn't be left to languish under piles of its own statistics. It's turning into ESPN instead of an encyclopedia. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: The page has been protected for 10 days to facilitate discussion. Anyone who has an opinion is asked to contribute at Talk:Albert Pujols#Hits tables. The old statistics discussion has stagnated, so it's better to start fresh. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And I just failed the GA...that GA should've never been open as the nominator (Katydidit) should've known the article was incredibly unstable with other issues. Which hopefully can be met down the line.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually saw that it was again listed for GA after the notice that was posted here for Wizardman. I couldn't believe it! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pete Rose

Please read the debate at Talk:Pete Rose regarding the criteria for inclusion in infoboxes then voice your opinion in the ongoing straw poll. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Youman Wilder?

MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (The Mexican League:BRMo (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC) BRMo (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame at FLRC

I have nominated List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Cheetah (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Home Run Derby (TV Series) Factual Errors

On the Home Run Derby (TV Series) page, the ORIGINAL EPISODE RUN is listed from April 1960 to October 1960, yet all of my resources say otherwise. IMDB has 2 episodes listed on its website, bearing an initial airdate of 1959, the Home Run Derby DVD boxes are all copyrighted 1959, and the contests were most likely filmed between October 1959 and February 1960 because they wouldn't run a contest like this during the season PLUS Jackie Jensen retired before the start of the 1960 season, Rocky Colavito changed teams (Cleveland to Detroit) yet was always in a Cleveland uniform on Home Run Derby, etc.

Whoever made these changes to the article don't reference where they found these dates either, thus they are highly questionable. How do we go about fixing this or at least taking those unproven dates down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpisports (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi everyone! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. Being that this project is pretty active in the FLC/FLRC process, it was suggested that some editors here may wish to run in this election, or at least vote in it (voting starts on Tuesday). You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Florida Marlins proposal

I have proposed a Florida Marlins wikiproject. Discuss or support here. Thank you. Dippicus the Great ^{The one and only...} 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. RFC: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Referral For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 00:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we operated any non-standard naming conventions; could a project editor clarify the issues to which User:Xandar is referring for me? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The entirety of WP:NC-BASE qualifies as non-standard by its very existence. -Dewelar (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Having read the proposal, I do not believe this affects us, since the proposal appears to apply only to exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME, which we do not, to my knowledge, have within our conventions. -Dewelar (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So should we assume that Xandar's notification was just a general notification to all project pages, and not pointing to any particular problems with the Baseball project? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is how I read it, but I'm hardly infallible :) . -Dewelar (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Infaliable", maybe. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

{{MLB awards}} and inclusion questions

This pertains to DHL Delivery Man of the Year Award and the League Championship Series MVPs. I originally removed them at the start of our MLB Awards FT discussions because I felt they were of lower notability and therefore not worthy of inclusion. The DHL award is merely a clone of the longer-lived Rolaids Relief Man Award plus a monthly component (and monthly awards are definitely not included, such as Pitcher of the Month). We don't list numerous MVP award clones, why is this one notable enough for exception. Why is this better than, say, The Sporting News Reliever of the Year Award? As for the LCS award, it's not even notable enough for it's own article, the link currently just pipes to the general page on LCS.

Since my deletion, however User:Yankees10 and myself have reverted one another a couple times. To avoid WP:3RR I'm asking for some independent opinions on the matter. Looking at the article history, I see that User:Killervogel5 previously tried removing the LCS award back in May but was quickly reverted by Yankees10. I really feel further discussion is warranted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I removed it then because it doesn't have an article. If it just links to League Championship Series, then it should be a redirect, and should NOT be included. If it's worthy of its own article, then make it a redlink instead, and we'll make the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about including the two awards I named in the first place, though? The DHL award, to me, is no better than say the Warren Spahn Award which we do not include. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly think that the LCS MVP is worthy of its own article; it's not nearly as big a deal as the WS MVP. The DHL award is new, but I don't think that's any reason to discriminate against it. I don't know if I really have an opinion on that one yet. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But then what about The Sporting News Reliever of the Year Award? This Year in Baseball Awards (which feature a closer award)? The Rolaids award is the older (what makes it worthier of mention over DHL or TYIB) and official (over the TSN award) MLB award for relievers. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know. I've gone over and over this topic trying to figure out what we actually need to do to make it comprehensive and not cherry-picked, per the FT guidelines. If I had to make a decision, right this second, I would say let's let B-Ref do the work for us. Everything here should be part of the topic (aside from non-awards like most ASG appearances, triple crowns, and HoF), and everything not there should be excluded. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. By that standard we'd remove the DHL award, add the TSN award, and have to write up a proper article for the LCS MVP. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I don't have an issue with that. I can tackle the LCS MVP over the next couple of days, so no one needs to worry about that for the moment. Even if someone volunteers to scratch out something quick on the TSN award, it would be helpful. The Babe Ruth Award also comes under the purview of this topic, if that's the route we choose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The TSN articles are already there, they just need sourcing and modernizing. I wouldn't mind including the Babe Ruth award, though it's another clone. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to use that page as our criterion for inclusion, then we have to include everything on it; we can't cherry-pick based on whether it's a clone or not. It's just one more list, and since they are presented by different people, there's no telling whether it's a direct clone or not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: Are we still using the B-Ref awards page as the criteria for inclusion in this topic? If so, should we remove Comeback Player of the Year? It's not on that list. I've added the TSN awards to the navbox, but the MLB CPOY award is only 4 or 5 years old, and it supplanted the TSN CPOY award. By the current FL criteria, the MLB award will not pass, and would have to be passed into the featured topic as a "list of limited subject matter or scope". Neither of those awards (MLB or TSN) are part of the B-Ref page, but I see the TSN award as fundamentally equivalent to the already-included TSN Player and Pitcher of the Year. I don't want to make this decision unilaterally, and I don't think that I could make it objectively if I had to. If we end up having to expand the purview of this topic to include every single award given to Major League Baseball players, the topic will become almost unending, which is why we tried to set criteria for inclusion to begin with. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This makes no sense. The TSN awards should be in the template but the DHL Delivery man of the year award should not. The DHL award is listed on the OFFICIAL Major League Baseball site, the TSN are not.--Yankees10 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is more authoritative? A primary source or a secondary source? WP:RS says there's no contest. The other option is to combine them. However, the DHL award won't pass FL muster at this point either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I still dont understand why the DHL award is any less important that the TSN awards.--Yankees10 20:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If for no other reason than it's only been around for, like, four years; it's also essentially a clone of the Rolaids Relief Man award. The first reason is why it won't pass FL; it would have to be peer reviewed and be added to the topic only as a "list of limited subject matter or scope". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And the TSN pitcher/player of the year is not a clone of the Cy and MVP. And what does it matter that it has been around for only a few years its still an award.--Yankees10 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the TSN awards aren't clones, plus they have been around longer, are better established, and in some cases are the only reason that the official awards exist (TSN started some awards before MLB did). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They actually are clones regardless of which one came first. The TSN pitcher of the year is the same thing as the Cy and The TSN player of the year is the same thing as the MVP.--Yankees10 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Conceded. Then I have to ask what you think makes an authoritative source like Baseball Reference cover the TSN awards but not something like DHL that's only been around for a short time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. Why does baseball reference call Dan Haren, Danny or hasnt updated the 2008 winners of the Hutch Award or Lou Gehrig Memorial Award.--Yankees10 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Danny, because he went by that for a large part of his career. The rest, I have no idea. A couple pieces of missing data doesn't speak to the reliability as a source; that's why I believe if we are going to include the awards shown on MLB.com, we should use both as part of the COI, and not just one. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I havnt heard anyone call him Danny in years, def. not a large part of his career, but anyways Im not saying BR is not a reliable source. It is like my favorite website and by far the best website for baseball stats, etc. I just dont think that an award from TSN should be on the template, since its not an offical MLB award.--Yankees10 22:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're only counting "official" major league awards, those only presented by MLB, then every award with a corporate sponsorship goes too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I meant for the template to be, when I created it. I know DHL sponsors that award but it was on MLB.com so I added it.--Yankees10 22:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, just because it was created for that purpose doesn't mean it's absolutely going to stay that way. This navbox is going to be the link target for a featured topic, which means every article in that topic has to be in the navbox. That's really what this debate is about. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I know that but non-MLB official awards should not be in the template. If you are going to have some non-official awards why not have all non-official awards like the Heart & Hustle Award or Edgar Martinez Award.--Yankees10 22:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And now we are back to where the debate started. What's the inclusion criteria for this topic, how do we codify it and justify it, and what do we tell the FT reviewers when they ask "Where's the TSN Player of the Year (or whatever)?" I mean, do we do all the official awards as their own topic, and then sub that into a "Professional baseball awards" parent topic too? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should get more people to join this discussion because your right were just going in circles and nothing is getting solved.--Yankees10 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll ask Stax, since he was involved earlier. Everyone else, please feel free to jump in. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The DHL award is a random new award, that's my issue with it. Here's an idea, since the monthly awards provide additional content, how about moving the award to simply DHL Delivery Man Award and having two sections, one for the monthly and one for the annual award? Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That actually makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. What do you think, Yankees10? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to have an objective measure of how reputable an award is, which I believe is the key issue in deciding how notable it should be. Here's one suggestion: include awards with national media coverage that are selected on purely statistical means or primarily by non-partisan voters that make up a broad representation of the MLB community. This would include the following awards:
- MVP, Cy Young, MLB Rookie of the Year, MLB Manager of the Year: selected by BBWAA vote
- MLB Relief Man Award: selected by statistical means
- Player of the month, Pitcher of the month: selected by beat writers
- Branch Rickey Award: selected by members of sports media, past Branch Rickey winners, and district governors of the Rotary club in MLB cities. Not certain, but seems to meet the non-partisan, broad representation criteria.
The following awards would be excluded:
- Gold Glove, Silver Slugger: selected by managers and coaches. Perhaps a special exception could be given for these long-time official MLB awards?
- Hank Aaron Award, Rookie of the Month: selected by broadcasters and fans
- World Series MVP: originally selected by SPORT magazine; now selected by media members, MLB officials, and fan vote. Perhaps a special case should be made for official MLB playoff awards? This special category would then also include the LCS MVPs.
- DHL Deliveryman of the Year: selected by fan vote
- DHL Deliveryman of the Month: apparently chosen by a select group of people
- Babe Ruth Award: selected by New York chapter of BBWAA
- Lou Gehrig Memorial Award: selected by Phi Delta Theta fraternity
- Hutch Award: selected by former Hutch Award recipients
- All TSN awards: selected by TSN. Unclear if this can be considered a broad representation of the MLB community. (Due to TSN's historical place in baseball reporting, I believe it would be useful to find a way to include these awards, but I cannot find an objective means to include these and not, say, awards given by ESPN columnists that are covered over the wire by national media, and I'm not sure if this is desirable.)
Unsure
- MLB Comeback Player of the Year: MLB.com reporters from each city. In theory, meets the non-partisan voter criterion; not sure what the situation is in practice
- Edgar Martinez Outstanding DH Award: beat writers, broadcasters, club management. Depends on how much weight is given to beat writers over other voters
- All-Star MVP: not sure how this is selected
Special exemption
- Roberto Clemente Award: selected by panel of baseball dignitaries. Assume the panel provides a sufficiently broad, non-partisan representation of the MLB community. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stax's Proposal (2 ideas)

Being selected by one voting body or another doesn't make it notable enough or not for inclusion in the topic. The NBA and NHL awards topics, for example, includes several awards such as NBA Executive of the Year, NBA Sportsmanship Award, NHL Foundation Player Award, and the Mark Messier Leadership Award that are not simply selected by a panel of media members (though that is the more common form). Assuming we include the DHL award per my suggestion (move to a general article name and include both the annual and month awards) I think there are two good options to pick from

1. Include all awards listed at the two most basic notable, verifiable sources for baseball-MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com (basically what we have now plus the DHL Award) OR
2. Exactly the option above, except don't include TSN awards as they are not official MLB awards but instead independent bodies granting an award (even if it's notable, ESPYs and SLAM Magazine honors are not included in the NHL or NBA topics for example).

Personally I think option two is our best bet. It keeps a clearly defined line of notability and inclusion (an official MLB award notable enough for mention at MLB.com or B-Ref.com) and thus limits the number of secondary articles we'd need to fix (all those TSN tables, yikes). Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For the NBA topic, we just include awards that are officially recognized by the league. That is similar to option 2.—Chris! _ct 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. I agree with what everything Staxringold and Chrishomingtang said, and I support and prefer the second option. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I also like option 2.--Yankees10 15:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Per this discussion I'm removing the TSN awards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, you have changed your mind about your uneasiness in including various awards from the MLB page?

I'm not sure what the rationale is for not including some unofficial awards but including others -- can you clarify? Isaac Lin (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I. I didn't even know that this discussion was still going on, otherwise I would have been involved in it. I certainly don't see a consensus here yet, so the template changes shouldn't have been made. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno man, this discussion is very cyclical but no one else is participating (despite a posting here for ages, and asking for help from NBA/NHL FT makers (the NBA guys weighed in) and at FT. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the NBA guys from WP:FL, and I'm OK with option 2 as well, but I'm worried about the issue of cherry picking being raised when we take this to WP:FT. What defines "official MLB awards"? For example, the Hutch Award isn't presented by MLB, is it? Neither is the Lou Gehrig Memorial, as far as I'm aware. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I find so annoying. I 100% guarantee that what's going to wind up happening is we'll have what we think is the topic all featured, we go and nominate it, and get a host of opposes because we're missing award X or Y. No matter what form we pick. And yeah we can pick just the "official" ones but WTF does that mean? Rolaids is an official award, but it's sponsored. How does that differ from the DHL? And This Year in Baseball? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I proposed a slightly different tack earlier: do all of the official awards first (which means we have to pick a criteria that defines "official"), then nominate that and get it promoted to FT. Then, that becomes a subtopic itself of another topic of all professional baseball awards. This project is getting quite large. The whole crux of the discussion is that we have to define "official". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. If that's the criteria then the list is probably something like:

Commish trophy
MVP
CYA
Manager of the Year
Rookie of the Year
World Series/LCS/All-Star Game MVPs
Silver Slugger
Gold Glove
Hank Aaron Award?
Roberto Clemente Award?
Comeback Player of the Year? (There is an official MLB award now, would probably have to include the TSN award as the current list does because the awards are associated)

Does that seem reasonable? By that basic definition (which closely mirrors the NBA/NHL ones) we nearly have the topic now. You're suggesting that then, were that approved, the broader List of baseball awards be our next (very) longterm goal? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. The problem is that is one TSN award is included, then we need to include the rest. The TSN award can be excluded on the basis that it is unofficial, but then the information on that award should be removed from the official CPOY award list (as it truly should be anyway, because it's currently a content fork), and the official list will be included in the topic as a "peer reviewed list of limited scope or subject matter". As an aside, the above redlink already exists at Baseball awards. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary section break

I believe everything shown in the All-Time Winners section on the MLB Awards page should be official awards, plus a few others that are not shown on the front page, for some reason, but show up in the dropdown list on all of the results pages (e.g. when you visit the MVP page): Comeback players of the year, Gold gloves, Silver Slugger, and triple crown winners. Note Delivery Man of the Year and Relief Man Award are listed. The MLB.com awards (such as the This Year in Baseball awards) are not official awards, as MLB.com is, from a reporting standpoint, separate from MLB. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That page seems reasonable (and the argument against TYIB is as well). Comeback Player seems like the big issue, to me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Though a note, would we have to create Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to undertake the creation of the abovementioned, and support this set of criteria for inclusion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Beat you to it :P It could use plenty of work but I gotta run. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, below is what we are proposing for the current topic:

Does that look ok to everyone? So far we've got 3 supports (Isaac proposing it, myself, KV5). What does everyone else think? (FYI, I formatted the box like this so the very traditional awards Commish Trophy/MVP/CYA/RotY/MotY/GG/SS are all in one column) Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it a while, I think other awards like the Babe Ruth Award, Branch Rickey Award, etc. are still legit. As they're not officially bestowed by MLB or as high profile as the Gold Gloves or Silver Slugger, I can understand not listing them in the same breath, but I propose they should be included under a less prestigious section, like "Awards not promoted by MLB" or something along those lines.--Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't break up a featured topic that way, unfortunately. It would have to be its own subtopic, and an appropriate lead article (probably derived from Baseball awards) would have to be created. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm catching up because I haven't had time to follow this recently. I feel like those "lesser" awards should still be included on the main article, even if in another section. Does that violate the featured topic concept to have articles linked on the page that aren't included in the featured topic? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

When the featured topic is mostly lists, like this one, it does sort of defeat the spirit of the FT concept, yes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. It can go to Baseball awards then. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I appreciate the effort, but I tagged your quickly created Commish award for copy vio. You can't just copy/paste the sections from the MLB site. KV5 sounded willing to make it anyways. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)