Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Source question for the masses

OK, so I'm working on filling out the roster of the Whiz Kids. I recently finished the article on Putsy Caballero, and Jocko Thompson is my next project. I've found a lot of information on him at Baseball in Wartime, a website written and maintained by Gary Bedingfield. Given that the author is notable and respect enough for his own Wikipedia article, and that he is recognized as an authority in baseball during World War II, and that he has published three books and several magazine articles on the aforementioned, would his website be considered reliable, in the view of project members? I also want to raise this at the reliable source noticeboard, but I figured I would ask the experts first. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction is "no". Published books have editors and fact-checking and publishing company reputations invested, etc. WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper) mentions that self-published web sites are "largely not acceptable" - but the last paragraph mentions an expert exception which I assume you are going for. So my "no" is not a slam dunk, esp. being unfamiliar with the web site or author you're referring to. Wknight94 ^talk 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the goal... should also note that Thompson is no longer living, just as a caveat. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For the WP:BLP mention in that section - right. The reliable sources people may do a more thorough check and give you the all-clear - who knows? There's even a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for this sort of thing - I'm not sure how prompt they are... Wknight94 ^talk 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm headed there next. Just wanted to check here first to see if anyone else has used the site or something similar before. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't, but then again, Harmon Killebrew is the only article I've really edited in the last several years. I may be way out of touch with reality. Wknight94 ^talk 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would consider him to be a reliable source personally, mainly by extension. Since I believe he's a reliable author and he's writing the content, I would find the website to be reliable. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally for a website like this to be considered reliable when up for FA, the website has to post its sources or a bibliography. An example from a site I know well that has passed scrutiny of FAC is http://www.hockeydb.com/credits.html -DJSasso (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Wknight94 ^talk 00:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That helps. Inline citations would be even better since this looks more like a list of books he likes - but that may be expecting too much. Wknight94 ^talk 12:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience that would be enough to be acceptable to the FAC folks. As Wknight mentioned inline is better, but I doubt you will ever find that on such web pages. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers guys. I'm off to WP:RSN. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bedingfield has been published on the subject. See if you can find a copy of his book(s); that should silence any naysayers. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Differing list formats

After taking a long break from the list, I recently decided to again start editing NPB MVP Award and make an attempt at a FL. For some guidance, I turned to both Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award and Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award. I quickly found a very big difference in the formatting of the two very similar lists. So, a few questions: Is there a reason they are so different? Should one be changed to mirror the other? If so, what format would be best and which should I use for my list? --Torsodog^Talk 05:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the MVP article was, at least in part, formatted the way it is (with both leagues in one line) to deal with the complex history of the award. Otherwise you would need AL and NL subsections for all those already complex sections. Virtually all the baseball lists I'm familiar with are formatted in the RotY style with each league separated. See Cy Young Award, Manager of the Year Award, etc, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. As long as there was a reason, I'm satisfied. And I also noticed that most were separated by league, which is originally why I started with that format for the NPB list, but then the MLB MVP list had me scratching my head. Thanks for clarifying. I'll stick with the RotY format then! --Torsodog^Talk 06:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reno Silver Sox

I started a move discussion on Reno Silver Sox and have had no participation thus far. I'd appreciate some input from fellow project members. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that discussion is located at Talk:Reno Silver Sox. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Garret Anderson

I've been in an edit war with an IP that constantly is adding to the Garret Anderson article an unsourced pov remark that he is "acknowledged as the greatest Angel player of all time"... I can't get him to stop... can someone help with this? - Spanneraol (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-pro, 1 week. Try to get him to discuss on the talk; I'm leaving a message on the IP talk page as we speak. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks KV, I didn't know you were an admin. - Spanneraol (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sho'nuff. Hasn't been that long, but it's nice to help out on this kind of thing if I can. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ron Washington

Just a heads up, but with the SI article about Ron Washington failing a drug test in 2009 expect a lot of vandels on the article.Red3biggs (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So far, most of the activity has been legitimate. There is a cited source for the report in the article, so I think it's OK to leave it alone... vigilantly. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. After his press conference and the evening Sportscenter, anon vandalism picked up. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BaseballLibrary

I come across the site a lot when researching random players, and I'm always unsure it it's reliable. It lists authors ([1]), but I can't find any evidence that someone other than the author is needed to submit a biography. Bruce Berenyi's biography is the specific page this time. Mm40 (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the author list, the quality and expertise of the contributing biographers is extremely variable. Considering that we have no idea about the site's factchecking and editorial policies, it's tough to safely brand it as a "reliable source". caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Where I've used them (admittedly, not a great deal) and knew the subject well, I found them to be accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of {{By}}

Could I please have a few hands help me remove {{by}}? This template does nothing but create a pipelink such as [[2010 in baseball|2010]], although there is an ever-growing precedent not to do so (see WP:EGG). A similar template, {{filmyear}}, was deleted per an overwhelming consensus here, as were {{lityear}} and {{ymu}} per discussions here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The ones who want it removed should shoulder the burden of removing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on it; I'm just asking for help. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I gather you're doing it by hand. Is there a way to run some kind of bot program to do it? P.S. I'm inclined to agree with KV below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for AWB. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of this template, as it's eminently useful in tables where that information should be provided. We have several other similar templates that several similar purposes and shouldn't be removed ({{nlcsy}}, {{alcsy}}, {{mlby}}). I have no problem, however, if the template is removed from prose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And why should this get special treatment when no other similar years-in-x linkings are allowed? Most of those were used almost as often in templates as they were in articles. At the very least, remove the linkings in prose. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I have no problem removing them from prose; however, in tables, the added information was previously allowed under the MOS because those year links provide context ("An article is said to be underlinked if subjects are not linked that are helpful to the understanding of the article or its context" - from WP:LINK). There is also a section that says that those links may be acceptable if they provide appropriate context ("Year articles... should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year" - from WP:LINK#Year linking). Regardless, if you look at most featured lists that use this series of templates (at least the ones I've worked on), there is a key which explicitly defines where those links are going, so the destination is not unexpected at all. A main argument of mine for keeping them would be that - using an example from a list I recently worked on, List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions - winning the ERA title in 1910 is a lot different than winning the ERA title in 2000, and that context is provided by the link to the MLB season article or year in baseball article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I was trying to say earlier but couldn't phrase together. In tables like that, it's generally okay it seems. The transclusions in prose, however, need to go. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can get on board with that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Might want to voice an opinion here. I TFD'ed the template — but who knows, someone else might think that it needs to go anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I copied my comments there so that they are in both locations. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with KV. There is probably no need for the template in prose, but it should not be removed from tables or infoboxes. Rlendog (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for the template in prose. Am presently agnostic as whether it should be removed from templates, but think that the consensus view here should govern, rather than it be thoughtlessly required to follow the approach that others have taken. Who knows the reasons that in other wikiprojects they did not object -- not important, as it could be any of a number of reasons, many of which are irrelevant to the discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is? Seriously, why would a simple template be such a big deal to anyone out there? Am I missing the point?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK to have a list of people who play a position, right?

Most of the articles on baseball positions, such as Closer (baseball), have a short list of people who currently play the position, or have been successful at it in the past (For example, an article on Catchers would include Joe Mauer and Victor Martinez for the here and now; and Johnny Bench and Yogi Berra for back when). But recently, another editor has attempted to delete said lists and/or tag them as {{cn}}, claiming that they are OR (He also deleted half the closer article and challenged my placement of a Jonathan Broxton image in said article). I say it's perfectly fine to have a short list of people who play or have played positions in an article on baseball positions or positions in any sport. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey -- there's currently an AfD afoot where an editor wishes to delete the article on "utility infielder" and the like. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utility infielder.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's mentioned in the AFD list, above. Are you implying I'm trolling for consensus? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, it's not ok to have a list of people who play a position, UNLESS there is some objective criteria used to list the players OR there's a source that describes "top players at the position" or something. It's original research for an editor to subjectively choose what players to list for a position (or what photographs to include in a position article). It's pretty straightforward. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Should be noted that Lee is the aforementioned above user who deleted half an article without consensus. By his logic, I could never include any pictures of any baseball player (or any other player in any other sport) in any position. Lee has yet to quote any specific Wikipedia policy that applies to this case. Also Lee, I just read OR and there is nothing in OR that has to do with using images like that. Only using images you yourself uploaded. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think random selections of players in this context would be appropriate. Lists should either be complete, or have some noted significance that's listed in the article. In this context, listing something like the most recent Gold Glove winners for the respective positions might be OK, probably noted as something like "The most recent Gold Glove awards for a *insert fielding position here* were awarded in 2009 to *AL winner* and *NL winner*." Again, listing past players would need to include some sort of criteria to determine who's listed, whether it be most games played, most seasons, most Gold Gloves, highest salary, etc.
• When it comes to pictures, it seems to me that if they are of a specific player - as in would be reasonable to include somewhere in their article either in addition to or as alternatives for any existing images - then the the image should be near (at least in the same section) to a reference to that player. Otherwise a generic picture that demonstrates the position but the individual isn't identifiable, e.g. an aerial shot of the whole field with the position circled or a picture of a "notable" player but their face is hidden by the angle, their name on the uniform isn't readable, and the caption doesn't refer to them by name. My thought about the Broxton photo in question is even assuming the reference to him in the article is justified and stays, it looks like its in a different section to where the mention of him is. I know the code has both in the lead, but it doesn't look like it is, and I'm guessing there'd be few configurations out there where it would.  Afaber012  (talk)  05:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My experience with short "example" lists like this is that they tend to quickly balloon out of control. (Editor A adds a short list of famous catchers (Mauer, Bench, Berra, etc...). Editor B thinks that Elston Howard and Roy Campanella belong on that list. Editor C adds Kurt Suzuki and Editor D sneaks in Einar Diaz. And then things go to hell. Using specific criteria (like, as previously mentioned, the reigning Gold Glovers, is a must. As for pictures, they should convey something specific relative to the subject. For example: A headshot of Jorge Posada (included simply because he's a famous modern-day catcher) isn't as relevant to the article as one of Gregg Zaun tagging out a runner at home (because Zaun is illustrated performing one of the primary functions of the position). caknuck _° needs to be running more often 14:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So you want to see pitchers winding up, as Brox is doing? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through your edits where you are arguing with another editor about original research, I would have to say the answer to your question is no it is definitely not alright to just list some players of a position. That is arbitrary and original research. As mentioned above you need to have a clear cut criteria. Players who played this position in 2009 or Players who won X Award etc. To just pick a smattering of players is highly original research. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another way would be to have categories along those lines (some of which probably already exist) and possibly a category intended to include all catchers, pitchers, etc. (Babe Ruth would be both pitcher and outfielder, for example). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My criteria for my active closer list are a)# of career saves; and b) projected performance in 2010. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Projected performance" violates WP:CRYSTAL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody got beef with mentioning the following current closers?

1. Mariano Rivera
2. Johnathan Papelbon
3. Trevor Hoffman
4. Joakim Soria
5. Johnathan Broxton

For former closers, you can just use Eckersly and the other Hall of Famers. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the criteria for inclusion? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, my WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT alarm just went off. Has anyone voiced support for this type of list? Wknight94 ^talk 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I was playing devil's advocate to make the point that without a reliable source, sound reasoning, and criteria for inclusion, this is original research. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he was probably meaning PBP who clearly does not seem to understand these lists are completely unacceptable when you are creating random inclusion criteria as opposed to a set criteria like award winners etc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well now I ruined it! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I forgot the "@Purplebackpack89" at the beginning of my note. It's the classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT where 7 people say "no lists" and the asking party responds with, "ok, how about a list with these people?" It's like our speakerphone is on "mute". Wknight94 ^talk 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys miss the point that almost every sports article has a list like that. And most didn't say "no lists", they said "no OR lists". Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And the list you are trying to insert is OR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the type of list you are talking about is an OR list. See New York Yankees all-time roster or Cy Young Award for examples of non OR lists with clearly defined criteria you have to meet. (ie Played for the Yankees and Won a Cy Young.) -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't have any problems with the retired closer list, do you? (Didn't think so) Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which list you mean when you say retired closer list. But as long as it lists every known retired closer then no I don't have a problem with it. Because there is no judgement call being made which is OR. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you define a "closer", statistically? Joe Nathan is a reliever, not a starter. But he's been brought in non-save situations and doesn't necessarily finish the game - he's more of a "stopper" in those cases. Obviously, he's primarily a closer. But numbers-wise, how do you determine someone is primarily a closer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't like position lists at all except in the general sense like "Pitcher". But when I say all closers. I mean anyone who has litterally closed out a game. As in threw out the last pitch which is what a closer is. So it doesn't really matter what they primarily play. For atleast one pitch they were a closer.-DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Projected performance" is absolutely off the table. But one way to do such a list would be to establish some minimum, and verifiable, criteria for inclusion. Let's suppose that first of all it's having played a minimum of 200 games for the team in total, not just at a particular position (different number for pitchers, though, as they play less often). Then maybe list him where he played 100 or more games at any one position. If none, he's "utility", a Paul Popovich type. The specific cutoffs are to be determined. But having some minimum criteria would include Johnny Evers, Billy Herman, Glenn Beckert and Ryne Sandberg on the Cubs second baseman list, but exclude the likes of Casey Wise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, Bugs, you can't list all 30 2-baggers in an article. In my mind, there needs to be a criteria to get it to five to ten people; probably a criteria that would vary with the position. I just fixed the list of 2-baggers...right now it's the five 2-baggers who were All-Stars last year. That seems like a perfectly reasonable and simple criteria. For outfield, since there are more of them, I just did the starters, and for the retired greats, I used the All-Century Team. I think those are as good criteria as any, at least for the time being Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you've got a criterion that's constantly changing (as in, it's not just being added to but it's unstable), then you're toeing that really thin line that crosses over into OR territory. Especially because there's no objective criterion that you can apply across all of the articles to get the amount of players that you want, and to which many other editors have objected. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The way to get around that is rather than having a minimum, you have a maximum - for example, the 5 or 10 who played the most games for a franchise. That's still just numbers. If you start getting into who's "better", that's shaky ground. However, you could have other criteria: including the players who also "won something", i.e. an individual achievement recognition, e.g. at least one of being in the Hall, getting voted MVP or Cy Young or Gold Glove, being on a team's retired numbers list, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need these lists to begin with?Spanneraol (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Wknight94 ^talk 14:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The original premise, "...who currently play the position, or have been successful at it in the past" is where the trouble arises. Define "successful". One could argue that just getting to the big leagues qualifies someone as "successful". As lousy a hitter as Casey Wise was, he had a 4-year major league career, so somebody thought he was worth something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• The consensus is strong that these unqualified lists are not appropriate. I've removed them from their respective articles. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 20/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 20/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Don Black (baseball)

Hey. Maybe you guys can help me figure this out, as I'm lost. The article currently has his birthday as July 20, 1916 and his death date as April 21, 1959. The death date is right, but I'm finding conflicting sources for the birth year. Baseball-reference and sites such as those give 1916, however when I've been looking through newspaper archives, they give ages for him consistent with a birth year of 1918. (Examples: [2][3]) I'm not finding these types of evidence to support a 1916 birthdate in these papers. To make matters more confusing, the Social Security Death Index gives a birth year of 1917. What should I use, or is there a definite way to figure out which one is right? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the original edition of the MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia (1969) shows 1916. That doesn't mean it's correct, it just mean it was thought to be correct 40 years ago. It's possible new info has emerged since. I wonder if SABR could be consulted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a possibility. I'll likely stick with 1916, since that's in most books and reference sources. Could always be that he was thought to be born in 1918 originally and it was found wrong. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrosheet has the following information on this fellow: Born July 20, 1916, Salix, Iowa, Died April 21, 1959, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Buried at Good Shepherd Church Cemetery, McKenney, Virginia. Link is here.Neonblak ^talk - 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Flags on rosters

Outside of NFL and MLB roster pages, teams have their players place of birth indicated with flags. Even the NBA with far fewer foreign born players has the place of birth indicated with their respective flag. With baseball already rich with foreign born talent[4] and with the minor leagues increasingly packed with more foreign talent than ever,[5] is there any support for having this recognized on rosters boxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballclarity (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so far as I'm aware. In some cases, we're trying to work the flags out of articles per MOS:FLAG: "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things... Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Baseballclarity knows my point on this - see his talk page for more detailed info.

Also form MOS:FLAG: "Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality." Same could apply with roster templates. Ositadinma 18:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But I would suggest we refer to the Manual of Style where it specifically refers to sports people[6], not musicians, writers or other famous people.

"As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes.

Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality.

Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise.

Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chose to represent.

If a sportsperson most usually represents a specific country (e.g., Germany) but has represented a larger, supernational entity on some occasions (e.g., Europe) it may be more appropriate to use the national flag; this will often need to be determined on an article-by-article basis.

Subnational flags (e.g., England rather than UK) are traditionally used in some sports, and should not be changed to the national flag without consensus."

So it is appropriate to indicate nationality, since baseball is a sport that has international competition like soccer, basketball in cricket. The neutrality issue clearly applies outside of sports. For me, where this difficult comes from is identifying players who haven't participated in any of the international competitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballclarity (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"For me, where this difficult comes from is identifying players who haven't participated in any of the international competitions." - Which is why we don't use it to begin with. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is more about international competition with soccer. The only international competition with baseball is with the WBC, and that is like every 4 years with many US players not wanting to participate cuz it messes with their Spring Training/perparing for the regular season. MLB is not a international organization like FIFA. Ositadinma 19:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Olympics did include baseball (and hopefully will in the future), and the Baseball World Cup also exists. However, I agree with Ositadinma fully. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the IBAF is involved in the WBC and the IBAF acts as the FIFA type organization for baseball.

"If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used."[7]

One of the eligibility rules for international baseball competitions is stated as place of birth. So, as the MoS stated, we use the eligibility stated by the governing body.

"Q: Who is eligible to play in the World Baseball Classic?

A: A player is eligible to participate on a World Baseball Classic team if:

The player is a citizen of the nation the team represents. (Additionally, if a player is qualified for citizenship or to hold a passport under the laws of a nation represented by a team, but has not been granted citizenship or been issued a passport, then the player may be made eligible by WBCI upon petition by the player or team.)

The player is a permanent legal resident of the nation or territory the team represents.

The player was born in the nation or territory the team represents.

The player has one parent who is, or if deceased was, a citizen of the nation the team represents.

The player has one parent who was born in the nation or territory the team represents."[8] Baseballclarity (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So are Mike Piazza and Nick Punto Italian or American? How about A-Rod or Raul Ibanez, as mentioned above? What about Francisco Cervelli? These guys may have played for this team internationally, but it doesn't mean they're from there, and it caused more confusion and fights than it's worth. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick Punto would have to be identified as Italian because that is the national team he represented. The flags don't represent the nation but the national team. He played for Italy in 2009 because he met the criteria for eligibility I just posted from WBC.com

A player can change representation as is done in soccer and as was done by A-Rod. A-Rod played for the U.S. in 2006 but changed to the Dominican Republic for 2009, although he got injured before the WBC and didn't play. We would have to go with the most current representation. In absence of a stated representation, we would then identify the player based on which country he is eligible to play for. Because citizenship isn't public and you can have multiple citizenships, birthplace would have to be the eligibility criteria referred to. Baseballclarity (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your talking about the WBC now? What flag would a player have if he has never played international ball? Ositadinma 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG : "If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used." Baseballclarity (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but yet again MLB, like the NFL, are not internantional organizations, like the examples you mentioned. Just cuz the IBAF is involved in the WBC (which involves players in MLB/MiLB and international players not in MLB/MiLB doesn't mean we need flags) Same with the Olympics. Also you would not consider A-Rod as an international player cuz he particapted in the WBC. Ositadinma 20:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But the WBC, though created by MLB, is sanctioned by the governing body of baseball, the IBAF. The sanctioning of the WBC by the IBAF means a lot. The WBC almost lost the sanctioning when it looked like Cuba might have been barred from participating. Baseballclarity (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Due to communism and Castro = Cuba Ositadinma 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet no objection was made about China participating. It was just politics in sports where it has no place. I'm glad an agreement was reached so Cuban baseball players can compete and compete well. I hope for 2013 defectors from Cuba can participate on the national team. Not that Cuba's team isn't good as it is now. (Baseballclarity (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

China didn't allow Soviet missile launchers to be constructed less than a hundred miles from the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

China fought against the U.S. in the Korea War and killed American soldiers. My point was that we shouldn't punish Cuban players because we don't like their government's foreign policy, just as we don't punish China for its policies through the cold war. It was a failure on my part to think that such a statement wouldn't distract from the issue of baseball. (Baseballclarity (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Just a side comment, the Olympics only has minor league players since it falls during the season and players aren't going to play for their country in the middle of important early pennant races and the Baseball World Cup is a minor tournament that most baseball fans have even heard of. Ositadinma 19:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just leave the roster alone - see the baseball notability agruement - otherwise it it going to turn in to that. Ositadinma 19:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, so far I'm the only one supporting flag use and I don't think I've changed anyone's mind so far. Baseballclarity (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Because everything is always compared to the World Cup. Liédson da Silva Muniz[9] is a Brazilian soccer player playing for Portugal. Governing bodies of sports tend not to be too critical over eligibility, as is the case with baseball in allowing Nick Punto to represent Italy. Although going forward, we should expect Italian born players like Alex Liddi to carry the role of representing Italy instead of Italian-Americans. Baseballclarity (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's only with one player. I am finished talking about this, so I don't support adding flags, but you can ask more editors about their opinion. Takes more than three to form a consenus. Ositadinma 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss it. And yes, hopefully more editors will add to the discussion. (Baseballclarity (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Personally, I like the idea of having the flags shown. There is an increasing level of participation in both MLB and MiLB, with numbers of players born outside the US hovering around the 25-30% mark in MLB, and the 40-50% mark in MiLB. I think it would be a relatively simple process to decide the flag shown for a given player: if they've played at the international level in a Baseball World Cup, Baseball at the Summer Olympics, World Baseball Classic, Intercontinental Cup, a World Junior or World Youth Baseball Championship, or at any of the numerous continental tournaments, then the flag is decided by whichever international team they played for. If they've played for more than one country, it may require some discussion in a case-by-case basis, but generally I would think it would be the last nation they played for. If they haven't, it would then go to a declaration of intent to play for a particular country, or to their place of birth.

I think as a starting point though, any international participation should be noted on the players' articles, probably in their infoboxes, and any issues that come up about sporting nationality can be handled on their talk page. I also think that this might help to broaden the minds of participants in this Project: maybe this is just me, but it often feels like this should be renamed to WikiProject MLB. There are plenty of national leagues played outside the U.S. that are not part of MLB's minor league/winter league setup. Some of those leagues include players and teams that rival and sometimes surpass the standard of baseball played in the States. As you can see from my above comments, there are much more than the three previously mentioned tournaments that provide opportunities to represent one's country in baseball in events that are sanctioned by the IBAF.  Afaber012  (talk)  23:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think such a priority list to determining flag placement is entirely workable if the community is ready to support and implement it. It is according to what the MoS stated regarding flag use for sports. And I agree further about the competitions, there are international tournaments hosted by the Netherlands, there are regional competitions, the world baseball classic. These are events that feature minor leaguers who now play at the Major League level. Adding the flags is an appropriate recognition of the international contribution to baseball. The very reason flags are posted on rosters in other leagues is to show readers and fans the service players may contribute to national teams. (Baseballclarity (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

I agree with the majority that adding flags are a bad idea.. remember we had them originally and then removed them... MLB teams do not compete in international competitions... and only a small number of the players have competed in those competitions. Also, if you look at the historical rosters on all the team season pages... the early years were 99% american players... all the rosters should use the same uniform style so if we changed them for the current teams we would have to change them for all the past seasons... which is a major undertaking and personally I think the rosters just look better without the flags, which are kindof cheesy.. so I remain strongly against changing policy regarding the flags. Spanneraol (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I also must agree that adding flags like this, while far from a horrible idea, is not one that we should pursue. I think including the national flag can be interpreted incorrectly too many times (citizen, birthplace, current residence, nation competed for). It is great for representing individuals in international competition (like the Olympics or World Championships), but is not really good for things like MLB. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the flags really look that bad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Indians#Current_squad

People say it would be confusing but you could just as well argue that people might be confused and assume that all MLB players are American, when they aren't. I've look at cricket teams, hockey teams, soccer teams, basketball teams, and they proudly display their collection of international talent. MLB and NFL remain without them which I feel wrongly puts MLB at the level of the NFL. MLB is the American pastime but it has become the pastime of countries on three different continents. NFL can't say the same. I guess this is my final appeal, to display MLB rosters for what they are, teams that attract world class talent. (Baseballclarity (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

I think that it is a distinct minority of people who will jump to the assumption that a lack of flag defaults to "USA" (at least I really hope they do). Anyone wanting to know about nation of origin, current citizenship, domiciles, etc, could go to the article on that person and look to see if all three are the same or some combination. Not to mention the problems of people with dual citizenship or similar circumstances: would Rod Carew be Panamanian or American (or given he was born in the PCZ, I'm not even sure what the right flag would be)? What about Sammy Sosa? Would Roberto Clemente get marked with an American flag (he was born an American citizen), or one from Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico very often competes internationally in athletics as a separate entity from the United States) ... keeping in mind that MOS:FLAG specifically prohibits subnational flags from being used unless directly relevant to the article. Bert Blyleven was born in the Netherlands and has coached their national team in the WBC. I really believe that sometimes trying to put too much information into a place becomes more confusing. I mean, to be honest, when I look at a baseball roster, I am far less interested in what country they or their ancestors came from, and am more interested in their hitting/pitching prowess or whether they throw/bat left or right handed.

Also, and I am speaking ignorantly here, perhaps in cricket playing nations (and this may apply to other international sports) there are rules about the number of foreign born players ... so knowing the nation of origin is very important. However, I cannot see that just because Indian cricket teams (as an example) display flags like this that by default it is good idea for MLB teams to follow suit. I have no doubt your intentions are good, but I think that the choices of flag are not always as easy as one might think. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"there are rules about the number of foreign born players" - I don't know about cricket, but this is true of the NPB. However, I don't think that flags are necessary in those article either. If anything, a small notation of their foreign status could be added instead and the reader could go to the players' articles to see what country they are from if they are interested. --Torsodog^Talk 14:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 World Series/archive2

Can other reviewers please stop by? The last FAC closed due to staleness and while Y2kcrazyjoker4 has been great in heavy copyediting and reviewing, we need more voices!! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Galaxycityfc

Any admins around to help me deal with Galaxycityfc messing up the roster templates? Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Final warning has been issued over the talk page vandalism. The roster templates aren't blockable until 3RR kicks in (there's a lack of civility, but one could make a good faith case for the edits s/he's doing there).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Projects page

Not sure if this is a useful idea or not, but throwing it out there. It might be a good idea to have a page of active projects that users are working on, so others can pitch in if they would like. It could help bring about more featured topics potentially. For example, the awards topic could've went there, and we can now put in the seasons or manager lists if we'd like. It'd give more visibility since I'm not sure how many view this page in search of that. Is this something we want to try or will it just be more clutter for us? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

CFD

FYI, in case project members were interested in commenting. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for switch-hitters

Is there an accepted convention on the value for the "Bats" field in the infobox for a switch-hitter? Isaac Lin (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that, in general, I've seen "both" and "switch". I'd tend to believe that "switch" is the better usage, but I think either is fine for now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that switch is the better usage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I think that we should take the assessment template, make a new one, and change the examples to articles within our scope. A similar thing has been done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Rin tin tin (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

History of baseball is two sentences long

It is not marked with a stub template. It seems to serve only as a conduit to other history-type articles on the subject.

I may be wrong, but is this the right way to do it? It's a rude contrast with History of basketball. Tony (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly. Each of those bulletpoints should have a subsection and summary associated with it to be an actual article. Right now it's basically a category. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is still an unsatisfactory situation, don't you think? Tony (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Logo Images

I've noticed that something has happened to the MLB Infobox template, and the logos are no longer centered as they used to be. However, the latest edit of the template was in October of last year. Does anyone know what could be causing this issue and how it can be fixed? --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, i can't figure that out either. It still says center-aligned, so maybe something in the wikicode itself? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting back to the previous version by Ositadinma seems to fix the problem. (I tested in in sandbox mode, but haven't reverted the actual template.) Perhaps we should direct this to Ositadinma and Thumperward. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Zambrano

Just note that I restarted a page request move for Carlos Zambrano. His page was originally moved back in October to Carlos Zambrano (baseball) with no discussion. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you'll review the previous move discussion, that's probably going to be a futile gesture, as both players are participating at the top level of their respective sports. That being said, I totally agree with you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Rod Scurry

User:207.69.137.15 added the following 2 flags to Rod Scurry's article after I personally expanded the article and included 7 additional sources and 5 links to websites with career stats to back up all which I added:

I sent the following question to his talk page: "What specifically on Rod Scurry's article do you feel needs more sources? As far as I am concerned there isn't a single fact in that article that needs more sourcing." How long should I wait for a response to this question before removing these flags?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Anything that has statistics needs a source. So all of the Yankees and Mariners sections, and most of the Pirates (which apparently includes HS?) as well, still need inline cites. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My first problem is the lack of inline citations. The claim, "leading Hug High School in Sparks, Nevada to the state AAA championship" - which of the 9 references am I supposed to click on to verify that? Even though inline cites on every sentence may look ugly, that's how facts get checked easily. The very next sentence too: "he was a highly touted prospect" - oh? Later, I see a claim of "emergency starts" - how were they emergency starts as opposed to regular starts? There are a few WP:PEACOCK issues as well - pitched "effectively" during his time with the Yankees. The 1-2 record further up is "poorly", but 2-2 is "effectively"? Wknight94 ^talk 12:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he was selected in the first round of the draft by the Pirates seems to verify that he was a highly touted prospect, but OK. Also, as to what is and is not effective, I don't think it's a stretch to say 0-2 with a 5.79 ERA is ineffective for a starter (they were also 0-2 in his no-decisions). 2-2 with an ERA two runs lower is effective for a reliever. Certainly effective enough to make the team I would think. In any case, the line about leading his high school team to a state championship is more or less a direct quote. I'll local that source, and source that line, though I agree that inline cites on every sentence look ugly.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugly but necessary in an encyclopedia edited by school children. Your 0-2 with 5.79 ERA is not in the article. Just say that, or something like "the team went 0-4 in his starts" and leave the peacock terms out. Was 2-2 and a 3.46 ERA effective for a reliever in 1985? If a source doesn't say so, then we're taking the author's word for it. Just leave the word out. Wknight94 ^talk 13:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wknight: while I'm passing though, please use en dashes for scores (2–2, not 2-2), per WP:MOSDASH. Tony (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? You mean on a project talk page? I use whatever is on my keyboard - anything else is bot work. Wknight94 ^talk 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it, and in my opinion, it's in remove the flags shape, but I won't until I get the go ahead.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Be advised

New discussion on notability standards for professional athletes: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement. Stop by and give your $0.02. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, our notability standards are a little more stringent than WP:ATHLETE. I wouldn't worry about it too much. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that the proposals are tougher than our standards... they are proposing that it should take a year of MLB service time to become notable.. and eliminating all athlete stubs.. Spanneraol (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Important figures

I was looking at some MLB templates, and realized that every team's template has a "Important Figures" section. I removed them from a few, before coming to the Project (because I realized someone would have a hissy fit). These "important figures" are inherently POV and unsourced, and they should be removed from every template. If a figure is that important, they've had their number retired (which will be linked in the template), or they were part of a championship team in some fashion (likewise linked). These sections exist only in the baseball and basketball templates; hockey and football have eliminated them for the reasons I've stated. I just wanted to give you a chance to remove them yourselves (since I am not a project member). Thanks. Anthony (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never really liked those sections because people tend to add current stars who really haven't achieved any sort of lasting contribution to the team. If we keep that section, it should really be limited to Hall of Fame members, players whose #s have been retired or team record holders.. not just whatever guy is a current favorite. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be removed also. There was some discussion here: Template talk:Detroit Tigers a few years ago. I'm changing my position from what I wrote there though. Even if there is criteria, if it is selected by wikipedia users, it's still OR. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's not OR if you change it from a random title like "Important Figures" to something declaring that criteria like "Retired Numbers". That criteria, BTW, is I think the best one. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Retired numbers" doesn't really work for players who played before numbers became common - e.g., John McGraw or Christy Matthewson for the Giants. A "Hall of Famers" section could work, although some common sense would be needed for players who played for multiple teams. Rlendog (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Most of these templates already have a retired #s section, I think we should either delete the section or rename it as "Hall of Famers" and list the Hall of Fame members from the team. Spanneraol (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• But then what do you do about players who are not in the HoF but still made a lasting contribution to a team (two that spring to mind instantly for me are Del Ennis and John Kruk, who are really big in Phillies history but not Hall-of-Fame-caliber players)? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• You mention them on the team page or other such appropriate place. Remeber navboxes are not supposed to be a link to everybody and anybody. Only the pages the users is most likely to go to next after they read the article they are currently on. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's not the only point of navboxes, but I know better than to have this discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Are Ennis and Kruk on any list together to demonstrate the lasting contribution you claim? Even some fan-favorite list in a reliable source? Off the top of my head - and as a very non-Phils fan - I would've thought Tug McGraw and Pete Rose and Greg Luzinski - maybe even Lenny Dykstra - would have come before Kruk in a list of big non-HOF Phillies names. That's as far back as my Phils knowledge goes but surely there are other names further back - Chuck Klein? Cy Williams? Wknight94 ^talk 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Klein's a HoFer, and Williams is a member of the Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame, as are McGraw and Luzinski, which would probably be an additional qualifier. Rose isn't allowed to be inducted into anything, so that's kind of a contentious issue. Ennis is a Wall of Fame member as well, but Kruk is not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ennis & Kruk were both all-stars with the Phillies... so maybe the section could list people who were all-stars with the team? Hall of Famers & All-Stars? Though for some teams that might make the list rather lengthy.. We should come up with some sort of standards for inclusion in any event. Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Klein's in the HOF. I must have missed a memo... In general, there definitely needs to be something more definitive than "Important Figures". Even HOF is tough - I hate that Mays and Spahn and Berra, etc. are listed at New York Mets#Baseball Hall of Famers when they played like 2% of their careers for the Mets. Ridiculous. Wknight94 ^talk 14:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do think that consideration needs to be given for team honors like the Brewers Walk of Fame, Twins Hall of Fame, Philly Baseball Wall of Fame as well, especially if they have defined objective selection criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as its objective criteria. ie a list someone else created not us. (like a walk of fame) Creating random criteria for inclusion is OR. Whereas the walk of fame is objective fact. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I like that. I'll trim the Yankees list into just those honored in Monument Park. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'll trim out non-WoFers from the Phillies template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Make sure you change the name of the section to whatever the criteria you used. ie "Phillies Walk of Fame" or whatever the official name is. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, are we not including record-holders and such too? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say include record holders --- but under a different heading. I have no problem with multiple lists. But as Djsasso said, use the name of the list as the heading - don't just say "Important figures". If we start seeing multiple lists with a lot of redundancy, we could combine with little markings to say which list each person is on, but that's not as aesthetically pleasing to me. Just my opinion anyway... Wknight94 ^talk 17:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that was my thoughts as well. If you label the section clearly you avoid future battles with future editors trying to add anyone they think was important. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What about subgroups (one for Walls/Walks/Team Halls of Fame, and one for record holders) within an "Important figures" group? That makes it eminently clear who we're talking about. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think I see what you mean. That could work. If you have the time you should throwup a mockup of one in your sandbox or something. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@KV5: Sure, that sounds fine. Wknight94 ^talk 18:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Already done at {{Philadelphia Phillies}}. I think it looks good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it. Wknight94 ^talk 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really a fan of the right justification of the headers. But other than that, it looks good. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@DJSasso: Yeah, that's because of {{Navbox subgroup}}, and I don't think I can adjust the alignment there. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I did the same with {{New York Mets}}. I think it generally works well, although it potentially ignores important current recent and retired players and includes some oddball record holders. For example, Bill Duggleby for the Phillies; I wouldn't be surprised if there were 500+ Phillies people who users would be more likely to want to navigate to. One other criterion that ought to be added is award winners. So, for example, if Johan Santana wins the Cy Young with the Mets this year, he would be added to the Mets template. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What counts as an award? Anything in the awards topic? What about batting titles, home run championships, and so forth? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What I had in mind was the Awards topic, particularly Cy Young, MVP, Rookie of the Year, Manager of the Year, World Series MVP. Rlendog (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am trying to reopen the debate about minimizing templates. But this pretty much brings up why templates can become a problem. They get more and more bloated while losing what good use they had. I think if you start adding award winners as well you are going to to start pushing the limits of indiscriminant. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

We might consider subnavboxes like a lot of the college teams do, if we're going to consider adding that much stuff. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How many players have won awards without being included in other categories (e.g., Hall of Fame, team record holder)? I doubt it would be more than a few per team, if that many. For the Mets, for example, I can think of three, Jon Matlack, Donn Clendenonn and Ray Knight. Rlendog (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I started deleting the sections from the templates before seeing this part of the discussion. I stopped just before I got to the Phillies, which is where the changes are starting. I don't mind having the Important Figures cover Walls of Fame and record holders, so long as they're specific and can be sourced. I understand that not every team is going to have all of these sections, but c'est la vie. I will stop with the deletions until we finish standardizing the templates. Anthony (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I got a little busy and didn't have the chance to fix the Yankees template until now. I think I should also change the term "Important Figures" into "Monument Park Honorees", and I think other teams' should be changed for WoF like Philly, or the wall they have up on Eutaw Street in Baltimore (it's an awesome ballpark, one of my favorites, and there should be good sourcing on things like those). These sections should be deleted from team templates that don't have anything to source it on, like a team museum or some other official acknowledgment that would've been covered in the press. Most franchises stop at retired numbers, and that's fine, but WP templates should in those cases stay that minimal as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I think we need to get rid of the "important figures" label altogether. If we leave it there, then somebody else can just come around add another sublist. Let's just make them all main lists. 2) I don't like adding Hall of Fame members. Sparky Anderson is listed on the Tigers navbox, but he went in as a Cincinnati Red. That opens the box for more original research. Retired numbers or "walks of fame" should be the only names listed on the navbox. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really OR, I think, because you can restrict it only to players inducted in a certain cap. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Only a few teams actually have their own Walk of Fames... Should the other teams just have no lists or go with Hall of Fame? Spanneraol (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

{ec)That is what I think. Really I would rather none of the templates have sections like this at all. But, since I know y'all are more template happy in the baseball project. I would suggest just doing this for teams that have such quantifiable lists. Doing it on teams that don't have anything like that would end up falling into the OR trap. -DJSasso (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Are you questioning that Sparky Anderson managed the Tigers and is in the Hall of Fame? (2) Per the Hall of Fame website, which is a reliable source, Anderson's primary team was the Tigers [10]. So how does this "open the box for more original research"? Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anderson wasn't inducted in the HOF as a Detroit Tiger. Mickey Cochrane WAS inducted as a Detroit Tiger but doesn't show up on the reference you provide. We're 45 minutes in to this "new plan" and there is already a discrepancy. There will be a ton more issues in the same vein of the "what color should retired players infoboxes be" debacle of a few years past. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly a discrepency. Anderson managed both the Reds and Tigers successfully for a long time. Hence there are going to be references in reliable sources to him both as a hall of fame manager of the Reds and of the Tigers. As these would be reliably sourced, there should be no problem including him in both templates. Rlendog (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And the same is true for Cochrane with the Tigers and Athletics. Rlendog (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But they're not sourced on the template and it would look silly if they were. This is going to be a can of worms.... Stick to things that are unambiguous. HOFers and record holders are not. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is. They are not sourced in the template, but neither is anything else on the template. That Mickey Cochrane is a Hall of Famer who was with the Athletics and Tigers is widely known among baseball fans and is easily verified by anyone who has doubts - more easily in fact than other items on these templates, such as the lore and culture sections, and more easily than items on many other templates. Rlendog (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Record holders

Now that I see a record holder list in practice, it should not be included on this navbox. There are hundreds of records a team can have and there could be hundreds of players listed. The Tigers list is incomplete since it doesn't show all record holders. What records are important enough for their holders to be listed on the template? Who knows? It's OR. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The team records articles should be the guide for that. I know that we have at least one featured to use as an example and a guideline. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There is some discrepency in the number of obscure records various team lists have, which I think gets to X96lee15's issue. If all the team record lists were featured lists this may be less of an issue. When I went through the Mets and Tigers, there were some recordholders in their lists that I just couldn't add to the templates without feeling silly, so I didn't (but I suppose if someone else added them, I wouldn't revert). Maybe if we could source the records to a team's official site, rather than a Wikipedia list, it would be better, but I don't know how many silly records (e.g., most wild pitches per nine innings) team websites generally include. Rlendog (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability Discussions

A heads up... The long winded discussions at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement about scrapping WP:ATHLETE seem to have led to a drive to re-explore the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) concept that some of us were involved with a few years back.. Discussions ongoing on both talk pages that are of interest to the editors here. Spanneraol (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Navbox controversy

I have been debating with folks at WP:HOCKEY about navboxes. Can you please make sure that I am representing the baseball position on the policy User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought WP was moving towards deleting "championship team roster" templates. And naming your sandbox page "Hockey mafia issue" is not going to win any favour with anyone, IMO :) — X96lee15 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, there has been a move towards deleting them. And he really shouldn't have called his page that. It is a blatant personal attack against editors at WP:HOCKEY. I have warned him to tone it down or he will be reported to ANI. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes: Major versus Minor

When a player has been cut at Spring Training and sent to a team’s Triple-A affiliate, is it still appropriate to use the {{Infobox MLB player}} template? Or, is there a more appropriate one for minor leaguers? If it is okay to still use the {{Infobox MLB player}} template, should not the team name and number be changed to reflect the minor league team? I want to make these changes to a particular player’s wikiarticle and wanted to make sure of the correct use of the infobox first. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox MLB player can still be used, and typically they're just left as is, since they're still in that team's farm system. By all means note it in the player's article though that they're in the minors now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I’ve noted in the article that he’s in the minors, but shouldn’t I change the team name in the infobox from New York Mets to Buffalo Bisons, for instance, and the jersey number accordingly? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I looked through 10 or so bio articles to double check myself, and all were consistent, they remained with the major league team. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I really wasn’t sure what to do. The confusion for me was that, while this player had been a starter for a major league team, he was never a starter for the Mets and was only part of that major league team during 2010 Spring Training, despite having a Mets jersey number (now changed since being sent down to Triple A).

New Query:  What happens with the player who is with the minor league affiliate, but has never made it to the big show? For him do we then list the team name as, for example, Buffalo Bisons and use his Triple-A jersey number? Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

He is still in the major league teams system, so it stays. Spanneraol (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Would the rule be that once a guy gets to the majors, his infobox stays majors forever? That kind makes sense, but I wonder if it's explicitly stated somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if its explicitly stated anywhere but even most of the minor league player articles use that MLB infobox because the minor league players are still the property of the major league franchise. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses! But, I seem to have created a bit of confusion with my second enquiry. I understand what you have all told me regarding a minor-league player who has played at the major-league level. And, I am grateful for the information. My second question was asking about the player who plays on a team’s Triple-A affiliate, but has never played a single second at the major-league level. For him, in the infobox, surely I list the minor league team name for the team = parameter and his corresponding minor league jersey number for the number = parameter. Is that correct? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the current practice, but it is indeed to use the major league team for any minor league in their system. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But, how do I do that in the second instance, for a player who has never logged a second with the major-league team? The only jersey number he has is the one given him by the minor-league, Triple-A affiliate! As an example, I cannot indicate in his infobox that Dillon Gee — who is with the Buffalo Bisons, the Mets Triple-A affiliate — is with the Mets and has number 18. Why? Because Ryota Igarashi is actually playing in the big show with the Mets and has that same jersey number! Surely, then it would be more logical for Dillon Gee’s team name paramater to be shown as Buffalo Bisons, number 18. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be incorrectly showing two players with the Mets who both have the same jersey number. Only one of them is actually with the Mets, using that number. The other, while having the same number, is with the Bisons. That is, it is factually incorrect to say that the New York Mets have two players, both with the number 18, when in fact they have only one, the other being with the Buffalo Bisons. Is it appropriate that an encyclopedia have factually incorrect information?

Why don’t we see if there is a consensus for changing these two parameters — team and number — to their minor-league values for any player whenever he is not in the 40-man roster of a major league team? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You list him as belonging to the Mets with no uniform # listed. If he is on the 40-man roster and has a uniform # assigned by the team you list it.. otherwise no #. The information is not incorrect.. he is in the Mets system so he is listed as a Met. In the article you list the team he is on. That way he has the Mets colors and all. Thats the way its done on all the minor league articles. Spanneraol (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer you are looking for is minor league information was determined to be not notable, which is why it doesn't go into the navbox in any way (other than Minnesota Twins minor league player articles for some odd reason). Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks Spannerol! But, I still need to understand the application of the “rules” to the second instance. (Unless I am too dense to realize that you actually have already provided the answer!) What if he is with the minor league team and not on the 40-man roster? In my example above, Dillon Gee is not on the Mets 40-man roster and has never played above the level of Triple A, notwithstanding having been drafted by the Mets in 2007. Would I list him as team = [[New York Mets]] leaving the number = field empty? Or, given that (a) he is not on the 40-man roster and (b) never played with the major league team, do I list him as team = [[Buffalo Bisons]] and set the number = parameter to 18? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Spike, the 1st scenerio.. It would be New York Mets, no #. Spanneraol (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I get it. And that is what I will do. However, just because this is how it is done now, why can we not consider changing this approach? The only reason given for listing a non-40-man roster player as being part of the major league team rather than as part of the minor league team (i.e., team=New York Mets instead of team=Buffalo Bisons) is that it ensures that the infobox has the right colors. Surely colors are not why we write and maintain encyclopedic entries! Rather, we do so for factual accuracy. Listing the non-40-man roster player as being part of the minor league team rather than as part of the major league team (i.e., team=Buffalo Bisons instead of team=New York Mets) would provide the factual accuracy that encyclopedias require. Baseball sources like Baseball Reference and Baseball Cube do not list players like Dillon Gee as playing for the MLB team. They list them as being part of the MiLB team. Players like him have no major league stats. Yet, at Wikipedia, we list them in their infoboxes as major league players. Why can we not give some thought to improving this? Let’s ask ourselves: WWEBD: What would Encyclopedia Britannica do? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all or nothing.... do you think it makes sense to do it for every single player in the minors? Probably not.... It's been determined that just playing in AAA is not considered notable according to various Wiki guidelines (but playing within a Major League organization can be, as long as you have other things that are notable). Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We discussed minor league infoboxes not long ago here. I'm not sure any consensus was reached, but several editors (including me) wanted to include the minor league teams. BRMo (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I can give you some more reasons also.. players move up and down within the minor league structure frequently but dont change the organization they are a part of all that often.. especially during a season.. It provides stability to the article to keep the info box stable. Also, it really isnt't notable that he is currently with Buffalo.. the fact that he was drafted by the Mets and is in their system is much more notable. Spanneraol (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • To that I must strenuously object. AAA baseball certainly doesn't rise to the level of notability of MLB, and probably not to the level where every AAA player can be presumed to be notable. But to say that simply being drafted is more notable than playing at the AAA level is absurd. Powers ^T 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's what anyone is trying to say. I think the point that Spanneraol was trying to make is that within the context of minor league players who meet WP:GNG, their parent club is more notable than the farm team. Like I've said before, I personally don't agree with that position, but I think that's the point Spanneraol was trying to make. Correct me if I'm wrong. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so that seems to be four of us who don’t agree. Why not have one of us write up a brief proposal outlining a new approach to using the {{Infobox MLB player}} template for Triple-A players who are not part of the parent team’s 40-man roster and put it to a !vote and see if a new consensus emerges? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edinson Volquez

Here we go, get ready for vandals/quick-stop editors. PED suspension. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the "quality" of the edits in the last 30 minutes on that article... semi-pro, 1 week. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Side note, anyone else think it's idiotic that you can serve a suspension while on the DL? How can you count games as part of a suspension from playing when you are already ineligible via the disabled list? Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Because it's all about the Benjamins... he loses 50 games worth of pay. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, except it practically encourages people to cheat to recover from large injuries (which is really the larger impact of PEDs, as much as people whine about some magic ability they supposedly grant to hit HRs). If you're going to be on the DL for 30+ days why not just take the PEDs? You get caught, oh well, no games lost, and if you don't you can recover faster and maybe even get a bit stronger. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

50 games (almost 1/3 of you pay) is not exactly a minor penalty, whether you are active or injured. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's 1/3rd of a season, roughly. You get 4 games in the NFL, 1/4th. Pretty similar amounts just on a different season schedule. Plus again, it can be 0 games if you're on the DL anyways. And suggesting that a partial-loss of one season's worth of pay will do anything to counteract the use of drugs that earn you millions is silly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

HOF website update

Hey all. The HOF updated their website sometime recently, and as a result broke all links coming from Wikipedia (specifically, anything using {{Bbhof}} in the external links section. I've updated that template to accept a second parameter (nid, for name-id), which should be used to replace the current parameter id (for an example, see my edit to Ernie Banks. Once this is done, we can eliminate the id param from the template, as it's now useless (I left it in for now to avoid breaking pages that use it). I'll leave it to the project members to update other articles. Mindmatrix 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping maybe a bot could be recruited to do this, as updating List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (again) will be a real chore. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you can figure out the pattern by which the links changed you can do it with a find/replace in 2 seconds. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that they switched from numbers to names from what I see looking at that diff. Won't be a simple task of seach and replace this time. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yep. Looks like they tried to make things more logical and just ended up screwing us in the process. At least the bios are finally back up now... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about you all, but I would love to get our notability guideline (which until now was an essay) to be an actual guideline that should be followed so that we don't have to have the argument that minor league players are fully professional anymore. This would make a bright-line rule that's easy to follow. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that is basically what this discussion is. However, in the discussion the practices of baseball got some scrutiny in that you can't delete someone just because they were in the minors. If they pass GNG then they still qualify for an article. ATHLETE is/was only meant to be a mark at which point it can be assumed that sources exist. Not a criteria for exclusion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. GNG trumps all, which is why players like Domonic Brown have articles. It's traditionally been more along the lines of "Oh, this player is a professional because he gets paid to play baseball". But that means that every person who's ever played from Rookie league up to the Show, and in any independent league, qualifies for an article. This does a better job of setting that out and making it easier to follow than "has played at the fully professional level of a sport". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, WP:NSPORT was the way I have always wanted to go. I was in the discussion the first time we tried to make this a guideline in 2007. I am glad I helped steer them towards reopening this topic. What alot of people wanted to do was remove ATHLETE completely. -DJSasso (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I did see that (would have created a real crapshow)... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's up to one of us, if we disagree with anything our project notability criteria say, to speak now or forever hold his peace until consensus changes. I think the guidelines at WP:BASE/N were pretty well-defined. Should questions be raised here or at the WP:NSPORT talk page? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here or there. The reason for the warning at each project is so that people here know that what you all have created might end up being edited there. Personally I would suggest the baseball project discuss any changes here and then move it there. Y'all are considered the experts. Trying to discuss on that talk page can (and probably will) just turn into a giant mess. Better to be solid in what you as a project think before submitting it to the scrutiny of those there. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll try to pull together an outline of my own thoughts so maybe we can spur a discussion. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone update me on where we stand on this? At one point the "fully professional" was the test, which I for one understood to include all minor leagues, for example. Has that been changed officially? I gather it may have been, but I'm not clear. Thanks much.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE says fully professional which most sports take to mean any league that is completely professional (ie everyone is paid) minor league or major league. The baseball project has recently rejected the idea that that "fully professional" means minors and majors. Instead they refer to WP:BASE/N as for what it means. That being said, as long as the player meets WP:GNG the other two are moot. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

KV5, I would recommend raising any concerns/changes at the WP:NSPORT page to keep it centralized. I've also asked all the other sports-related wikiprojects to comment. Just drop a note about the changes on the talk page, and be bold. If the baseball project agrees with those guidelines, I can't imagine that community consensus will be much different. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. OK. I don't think I really have any concerns. If it's a minor case of semantics, then I'll worry about it here or whatever, and if it's something major, I'll take it over there. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pitchers who can hit

Does anyone know if there is an article on this subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. But here is another question. Is there an article on position players who have pitched?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's huge. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 00:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Editor

User 71.192.238.221 undoes my edits on List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits, then does the edits again by himself. For example, if I update Derek Jeter's total season hits to 23 from 21, the user reverts it back to 21, and then updates it again to 23. I don't know what to do about him. Please help. Thanks. Jonathansuh (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit odd. Why not leave him a note?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei baseball team

FYI, Chinese Taipei baseball team has been requested to be renamed at WP:RM, see Talk:Chinese Taipei baseball team

70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

List's of Major League Baseball players from nations

Just want to clear up a discrepancy here. When a player is 'from' a country as per the title above, does it imply birth or residence in that country. Examples are Michael Nakamura, Phil Stockman and Chris Snelling, all very much Australian and lived the majority of their life there and are 'from' there and were residents before getting professional contracts, but are born overseas. An example of being Australian, but not 'from' Australia, I think could be more accurately described with the case of Kevin Jordan. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 00:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bump JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I have done a lot of work on List of Major League Baseball players from Japan, so I feel as though I can at least speak about Micheal Nakamura—I have him on the Japanese list. I put a note in that article that (hopefully) clarifies the criteria for making the list. Basically, they must have been born in Japan to at least one parent of Japanese ancestry. Nakamura fits that criteria, so he's on the list. Personally, I think it's a pretty good criteria. Just my two cents. --Torsodog^Talk 04:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, Henry Peploski is listed on the players from Poland page based on his birth in a place called Garlin, Poland. I can't find any evidence that such a town exists. All Google results for Garlin, Poland point to pages about Peploski. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly Garlin in Germany, or Garland in Poland. It could have even been renamed something else, or become abandoned since Peploski's birth. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 04:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Westy. Many towns in that part of the world have been re-named from WWII on.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Baseball to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 432 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cross-sport uniform template policy discussion

Please come discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Stat Updates

Hi. Over the last season, I noticed that some users update stats for players at the end of the day, while I prefer to udpate them live. I don't think there is a rule for this, and there has been some conflicts about this issue, so can anyone help us settle it once and for all?? Thanks Jonathansuh (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, if I had my way, the info box stats (I assume that's what you are referring to?) would only be updated at the end of the season.. It's way too haphazard any other way.. and the current season stats are available most of the time on the season pages. But if it's a choice between updating at the end of the day and "live" I would certainly go with the former.. Spanneraol (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Stats should only be updated at stable times (to new users who ask, I recommend either at the end of every month or – my preference – twice per season at the All-Star Break and after the end of the year). There is absolutely no reason that statistics need to be updated live, as it creates inherent instability in our articles. If there is someone who insists on updating the stats every day, it really doesn't hurt us (especially if someone hits a milestone or something), but it has to be done completely, meaning that the date of the stats and all of the statistics in the infoboxes need to be updated. If this is referring to stats tables in articles, those should be removed because there is consensus against their inclusion. If there is someone who refuses to update stats properly, we do have talkpage warnings for that kind of thing (I'll get them moved into the mainspace eventually, but for right now, it's User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-1, User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-2, User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-3, and User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-4, which redirects to {{uw-v4}}. Just subst them onto the talk page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't think I was clear enough on this, but what I was talking about was pages like List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters and List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins. The Home Run List is usually updated live, but the wins list is updated at the end of the day. Jonathansuh (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Same concepts should apply across all project articles unless there's some persuasive reason not to. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The one argument for live stat updating (even on player pages) is there will be notable events like Barry Bonds #756 or whatever that will likely cause huge traffic to the article rather immediately, and it's probably better to have the correct info listed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Right, that's the great thing about not being a paper encyclopedia, but still, the every day thing gets out of hand on a lot of articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• End of the year, with the exception of said big events, sounds good to me. Baseball-ref, MLB.com, ESPN, Yahoo! all have live stats if you want them. There are just too many players to do it by hand. blackngold29 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• But you see, that's the problem. What defines a big event? And even if you could define it, we would wind up with the stats for 500 HR, 3000 H, 3000 K, 300 win guys updated mid-season and everyone else un-updated. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth on player pages and stat leader pages the hockey project doesn't update stats till end of season. The only page that gets stat updates are the season pages. It helps alot with not confusing readers as its consistent across pages and doesn't suffer from some pages being updated up to game 23 and others being updated to game 67 etc etc. I think that would work very well here. As for how we handle big events. Sometimes we have a small section at the bottom of the list stating such events occurred during the current season but at the top of the page we make it clear the actual list itself is only accurate as of the end of the last season. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That would also be a perfectly acceptable solution. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now. Seems to me this wikiproject is over-regulating things. As long as there's an "as of" date in the infoboxes, then whenever the stats are updated it should be OK, IMO. When A-rod, for example, hits his 600th HR, I'd hate for the stats edit in the infobox to keep being reverted, citing this discussion here. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue has resurrected at Roy Halladay. Do we have consensus on this or not? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow - so this is ridiculous. You want to set a rule to revert all legit edits to an player article... why? Pretty sure you guys are overstepping your boundaries with this. As long as someone updates everything in the infobox and the date - it should be fine.... Otherwise, you might as well lock every player page and update them yourself at the end of the season, because you are attempting to create a really stupid situation that prevents anyone from ever updating pages. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if you update one page then you have to update every page or it leads to reader confusion because you can't compare players if one player is updated to game 57 and another player is updated to game 78. It's worked pretty well in other sports. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac is what comes into play here. We aren't supposed to try to replicate the statistical coverage that you would get in such situation. That is what sports sites do. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well thats' the point of the date being so prominent.... get rid of all stats completely if you're going to make such a big deal out of it like that. Not letting people update pages (which is the whole point of wikipedia!) is just dumb. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The dates being there doesn't solve the problem of quickly looking at two pages and comparing them. Personally I don't think stats should be in the infobox at all, as the infobox should just be key information and I don't think stats fit that mold. But if they are going to be there I think you should just add them and if you feel strongly about it, somehow denote that they are as of the last season. The point of wikipedia isn't to just update everything or anything. There are many such restrictions on what should or shouldn't be updated on all kinds of pages. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And in looking at the Roy Halladay article it does appear that we denote it to be the end of the 2009 season. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that's because Killervogel5 keeps all Phillies related articles that way, because he thinks a policy is already in place. That isn't the case with players on any other team.... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Have I ever said that there is a policy? No. Please do not put words in my mouth, per WP:CIVIL. I have referred only to the consensus already in place here instead of policy, in which you did not participate until today. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

WHAT F'N CONSENSUS? All I see is a small discussion that went nowhere.Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility, please. If you don't think that the above discussion constitutes a consensus, then please provide other reasoning. Please don't undermine the discussion that did take place by saying it "went nowhere", because several editors participated and provides several different sound reasons for changing the way this project handles statistics. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a major Wiki-Nazi thing. You have absolutely no right to tell people they cannot properly update a page containing information that can be updated. The stat pages that are sourced are updated daily... Yes, people should update everything or nothing - when they don't do that it's annoying. But to just start watching and reverting every sinple player page when someone updates the infobox stats? How does that make any sense from the standpoint of what the purpose of wikipedia is supposed to be? Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And what purpose do you think wikipedia is supposed to be? Wikipedia specifically has a criteria that says its not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. One of the things that most other sports projects follow is that we try not to be an up to the minute stats database. We leave that to other sites whose sole purpose is to do that. You don't have to watch and revert every player page, you just revert when you see someone has done it. One thing the hockey page does is they add a HTML comment in the code that is only visible when you edit on pages where people are constantly trying to update that says something along the lines of "Statistics are not updated until the end of the season." That way when people go to edit them they see the message and then don't edit them. Eventually people stop trying to update them except occasionally. And something to note blahblah is that on wikipedia silence is considered consent. So as far as this discussion goes, no one objected in almost a month. Therefore it was reasonable to assume it had consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If its not a collection of stats - then get rid of them completely. You don't have the right to revert people updating them while they're there. This is a significant policy change here - not something that should be resolved in a minor conversation here... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to get rid of them completely, its not an all or nothing scenario. There is a perfectly reasonable middle ground. And as long as there is a community consensus, then yes they would have the right to say that. More people should hopefully comment yes, but lack of comments usually does indicate that most people don't care. In other words its not that significant. And its something that is done with a number of other sports, so its not actually all that significant a change. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"This is a significant policy change here - not something that should be resolved in a minor conversation here" - Although this is not a change in policy, merely a change of consensus, everything on Wikipedia is determined through conversation and discussion. While DJSasso and I disagree on a lot of issues, this is something on which we are in complete agreement. There is a large gray area here; it's not simply black and white. The long and short of it is that many participants in this discussion were in favor of simplifying the process by establishing a consensus to update stats less often where before there was none. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I do appreciate the desire to avoid churning the statistics daily, as it adds a lot of noise to the history, I do see an argument for updating them when an event occurs that is notable enough to be mentioned within the article text. If the stats are not also updated, they will be inconsistent within the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

72.197.207.250 - Chase Headley

I'm tired of trying to get thru to this IP... someone want to assist? Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, looks like he's stopped thanks to Epeefleche. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD on Bill James book

Some people of you who frequent this page may be interested in the AfD on Bill James' 2002 book Win Shares (book).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Closed as a keep. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Chanhassen Red Birds

Is this notable? SGGH ^ping! 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to tell in its current state, without any references from reliable sources. Could be a candidate for PROD or AfD, if no reliable coverage can be found. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually think we need to crack down on amateur teams. I see so many unsourced ones that it's concerning; there are so many professional teams that don't have very good articles as it is. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

At what point is an amateur team notable? I have done a lot of work on amateur teams in Australia (such as the Greater Brisbane League), where I believe there is significant enough coverage to make it notable. Also, this may be slightly off-topic, but baseball notability guidelines state that a baseball player is notable if they "play at least one game in any top-level national league (active or defunct)." I am assuming then this would make all players of the defunct (and now new) Australian Baseball League and Claxton Shield notable? JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think so (answering your second query).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Coaching history

Is it possible to add the coaching history in the infobox (for example Willie Randolph before Yankees10's revision). I don't see any reason why there can't be a coaching section, they are clearly part of the team and deserved to recognized just like managers and players. Beast from da East (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with adding this info. Spanneraol (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseball stubbing

Do you know anyone who likes to stub out baseball articles? I am experimenting with All-American articles and have created 1991 College Baseball All-America Team. I am trying to figure out if there is anyone who likes to stub out redlinks if I start creating these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Make sure your naming conventions are correct, we don't use the term "baseballer". Not sure if all these players meet the notability requirements either. Spanneraol (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Many played MLB and some just played mLB. I think both meet the requirement of professional baseball player even if they only played AAA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Players who only played in AAA and not the majors are not notable enough to have their own articles.--Yankees10 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have delinked the AAA guys.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What about career minor leaguers who play in the Olympics?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Olympic play satisfies WP:ATHLETE. But, as always, WP:GNG is the overall controlling force. So, for example, Pat Venditte is notable because of outside coverage despite no ML or international play. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My query is WRT 1992 College Baseball All-America Team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't name the player articles (Olympic baseball).. it should still just be (baseball) as a disamb. Spanneraol (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hall of Fame Project Idea

I got bored a little while back and made a table of all those in the baseball Hall of Fame. The table is here. I bring it here to ask if this is something we want to keep somewhere and gradually work on it, or if it's not really of use and I'm just wasting my time. Admittedly this would probably be a permanent project, no way we have the capacity to make all of them FAs. If we can get some more to that level though, that would be nice. I think the source section is particularly useful, we can add sources in that others may not think of and help collaborate if some editors end up having different sources and the like. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be a long-term drive, that's for sure. It's good to keep tabs on these things, at least. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

True. What might be a better project idea is at the start of each year, we do FA drives for those that got inducted and get them to that status before they're inducted. So for this year we still have time to improve Dawson. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to help too. Jonathansuh (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If and when I get back into editing at a higher level (been taking a wiki-break lately), I could definitely switch over to working on 19th-century Hall of Famers. Several of them have huge amounts of material to draw from, like Cap Anson and George Wright to name a couple.Neonblak ^talk - 08:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• King Kelly was a goal of mine a while back. I'll probably get back into it at some point. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The vandal that wouldn't quit

Look who's back for a few choice edits. (Well, to be more accurate, the editor has just come back to baseball.) See this archived discussion for other IP addresses used by this editor. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

info box honors

Why do players like Drew Storen have long lists of goofy honors in their info boxes? Is the "Indianapolis Star Super team" really notable enough for the info box? Or the "Hendricks County Flyer Athlete of the Year"? Usually only Major League honors go in the box. Spanneraol (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnny Spasm adds them and if anyone removes them he reverts there edit. He does this with a lot of other edits that he doesnt agree with also.--Yankees10 02:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a really bad idea to have High School awards and dubious college honors in the MLB info box.Spanneraol (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree.--Yankees10 02:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We'd already discussed this at Pete Rose. They should be removed. Infobox is limited to the MLB awards topic and All-Star appearances if I recall. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but he has decided not to listen. He doesnt do it to the Rose infobox anymore but every other article he still does.--Yankees10 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Then just remove them. A single user working against consensus can't make a lot of progress against a large concerted multi-user effort. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If he continues after you revert him, he can always be blocked for disruptive editing, but make sure you don't get yourself in 3RR trouble when you revert him. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I think that's probably the best course of action. If there are multiple editors who disagree with his changes and revert them together, it becomes nearly impossible for him to work against consensus. Cooperative editing at its finest. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed them from the Twins prospects on their 40 man roster, and I have those pages watched. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

FINALLY..... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If I'm going to be discussed at length like this, you all could at least have the courtesy to let me know. That said, thank you Muboshgu for letting me know. Yankees10, you never cease to amaze me.

I created Drew Storen's article right after the draft. He was a first round draft pick, and there was nothing to put in his infobox other than high school honors and items of that nature. It seemed a logical thing to include; I'm creating an article for a guy who is a first round pick. Doesn't it at least make some sense to include amateur awards he's received to justify the early selection? Yankees10, do me a favor and don't answer that question.

I would NEVER include high school awards and awards of that nature with a major leaguer, and certainly not one at Pete Rose's level. Yankees10, if you have evidence to show otherwise as you claim in this debate, by all means, enlighten all of us.

As far as minor league teams and minor league awards go, there was a debate a while back; I don't have the link handy, where it was determined that this was indeed appropriate information to include in the player boxes of minor leaguers with no major league experience. However, as Muboshgu and I recently discussed, there probably is also a consensus contradicting that one as well. I personally like it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember a discussion about minor league teams being allowed in infoboxes but I don't remember one about awards. But, I have only been following this talk page closely for about a year. Prior to that it was sporadic. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I find the comments on contributors above to be unnecessary. I also recall the same discussion as Djsasso, but I haven't heard anything before now about minor league/amateur awards. That being said, the same rules apply to all articles, regardless of who the person is. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, we seem to agree on minor league teams. Let's open up a debate on awards. Yes? No?

I say yes UNTIL he has major league experience. For example, Wizardman recently removed the minor league honors from Wilson Ramos' infobox. That seems appropriate. Likewise for Drew Butera, Drew Storen and any other article I created for a minor leaguer. For that matter, even if I didn't create the article, and that article's creator included minor league awards, then remove them once he hits the majors.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't put any awards in infoboxes, that is the sort of thing best left to the prose. However, if you are going to have awards in the infobox I would probably only list the most important of those awards, which in my opinon would only be MLB ones. Ideally I would just list entry to the hall of fame in an infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the infobox says career awards and highlights, and since the infobox is also a major league infobox, it should be limited to major league awards, preferably those under the scope of the awards FT. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point in adding things only to take them out later. If something is notable enough to be in the infobox. Thats why I also disagree with Johnny about the minor league teams. Things should either go in there or not.. If the event/award/team is notable it should be included.. if it isn't than it shouldn't. Notability is not temporary. Spanneraol (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, infoboxes aren't about notability. They are supposed to summarize the key points of an article. So if the key points of a minor league player are his minor league awards then perhaps they should be there. But I would probably create a new infobox for minor league players in that case or rewrite your MLB infobox to be generic for more leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be open to a minor league players' infobox which could also solve the semi-dormant issue of the major league teams in the infoboxes of minor league players. It should have common parameters to change over easily to the MLB infobox, though. I could take a stab at whipping something up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Spanneraol. Wikipedia is all about adding information and removing it later. I think what was notable about Drew Storen when I created the article a year ago was important information to anyone interested in reading about this first round draft pick a year ago. This information clearly gets less and less notable with the establishment of a major league career.

Articles about minor leaguers are for avid baseball fans. Fans interested in seeing what is on the farm for their favorite baseball teams. I believe the more information provided, the better.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually all articles are supposed to be written for people who know nothing about the subject. In other words non-fans. This goes for any topic from politics to music to sports. You are supposed to assume your reader knows nothing about baseball or the player themselves. It is supposed to contain information that will always be relevant to their biography, and not just trivial facts that are interesting at the time, but rather something someone is likely to want to know in 100 years. -DJSasso (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is setting too high a bar to require an editor to judge which facts will always be relevant, since without a crystal ball, it is impossible to determine what future events will make past incidents more or less important when viewed within the overall context of the subject's life. (Note this isn't an excuse to include trivial, non-notable information today; it just means that a warranted fact today may not always be warranted in future.) Isaac Lin (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnny, how is the "Hendricks County Flyer Athlete of the Year", whatever that is, really a notable award? ... KV.. I don't see the need for a new info box.. how would it differ? Would you include both boxes? Because the current ones with the MLB team listed remains my preferance as I like to see which organization the players belong to.. their minor league team changes often several times a year. Spanneraol (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Was "Hendricks County Flyer Athlete of the Year" one of the highlights I had for Drew Storen? I'm not even sure. In any case, may I point out again that I created that page and listed those awards a year ago right after he was drafted. Such information is notable for a first round draft choice we know very little about (in my opinion anyway). I whole-heartedly agree that it should not be in his infobox right now. My preference for these articles is that they remain fluid, and what is notable at one stage of a person's career would become more trivial later, and thus removed.

When major league infoboxes first began being used for minor leaguers, I didn't agree with it, but I've actually grown to like it, and agree with Spanneraol on that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that honors from college and minor leagues don't belong in major league player infoboxes, I also would like to add a reminder that Wikipedia aims for a global point of view. Thus, I hope there's consensus that, where appropriate, infoboxes should include honors received from other top-level leagues or international competitions such as Nippon Professional Baseball, the Negro leagues, and the Baseball World Cup. I mention this because I've seen these types of awards deleted in overly zealous efforts to "clean up" player infoboxes. BRMo (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you that honors from those international leagues should be included. Spanneraol (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The question does remain, however, as to what career highlights should be attributed for minor leaguers.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are minor league honors, put them in prose. This is an encyclopedia, after all, so we are all about article-writing. By the by, foreign honors are cool with me too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the difference is in putting them in prose or putting them in the infobox. Either way, this information will be removed eventually once the player develops a more relevant resume. My understanding of an infobox is that it is to give an overview of a player's career. If the highlight of a player's career up to this point is that he was a Florida State League All-star, then that is the highlight of his career, and it should be part of that overview.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason to remove minor league information from the prose of the article of a player who's in the majors and developed further. The infoboxes should be standardized across the project, and minor league awards don't need to be part of it. — KV5 • Talk 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Derek Jeter, for example, won a slew of minor league awards. After what he's accomplished in the major leagues, it would be ridiculous to include them in his infobox. If it is the intention of the infobox that it remains standard (and I do not believe it is), and does not contain information that will eventually be removed (I don't agree with that, either), then I guess we shouldn't include minor league awards in the infobox (we're now up to 3 items I don't agree with). Do we pose this as a question to WikiProject Baseball's entire audience, or does this debate settle it?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the entire audience. There is no reason the minor league awards shouldn't be in prose, as the article would be incomplete without it. But they don't belong in the infobox, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — KV5 • Talk 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a better way to say it. I agree. - Masonpatriot (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)