Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 22

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Player and managerial statistics

It seems that player and managerial statistics is lacking in baseball player and manager articles. There is currently only is batting average, home runs and runs batted in and these are showing only as career stats. It would be good to show notable statistics on a season-by-season for selected statistics. Kingjeff (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that managerial record could be added as a fourth stat on these pages. I often add it myself when I come across such a page. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "season-by-season". -Dewelar (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Season-by-season statistics would be like the statistics from 2008, 2009 and 2010 showing up. Kingjeff (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about adding it to the article's prose, I heartily support it, as long as it isn't given undue weight. If you're talking about adding a table of statistics within the article, that has been discussed and rejected as a violation of WP:STATS. If you're talking about putting it in the infobox...well, that's just evil ;-) . -Dewelar (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about a table. But I think if we can keep it to the most notable statistics, then undue weight shouldn't be an issue. Kingjeff (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles all contain links to the Baseball Reference pages for the players, which provides that information. I don't see a need to duplicate that here. Spanneraol (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Spanneraol Wikipedia should just be a collection of websites with that kind of philosophy. Baseball Reference should be used as a reference. And there would not be a duplicate of the Baseball Reference tables. As mentioned above by Dewelar, there is an issue with undue weight. This would be the case if Baseball Reference tables were duplicated. If we select the most notable statistics, it would be a good size table. Kingjeff (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I foresee that editorial judgment to select the most notable season statistics for presentation in tables will generate lots of articles with big tables ;-) P64 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Editorial judgment would not be an issue. I think there should be a standard table. There should be consensus about which are the most notable stats. Kingjeff (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that managerial record could be added as a fourth stat on these pages. I often add it myself when I come across such a page. (quoting Dewelar)

What label do you use? Do you link the label? Win-loss record is not appropriate. Is "Manager Win-Loss" good enough, unlinked? --P64 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I will put "Managerial record" unlinked. If someone has another suggestion I'm open to it. -Dewelar (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion numerous times. A complete replica of a players stats is a massive (and rather obvious from the policy name) violation of WP:STATS. And a partial recreation, except in extreme cases like mentioning stolen bases for Rickey Henderson, is complete OR. Stats need mentioning where they matter, but that should be in the form of brilliant prose and not simply lists of meaningless data. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A complete replica would be unreasonable. A notable stat like Batting average is not a meaningless data. Kingjeff (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well first off, as you said, it's already included. But yes, random points of data are meaningless. Great, batting average, but for how long (Career 1 AB or 10000)? Did he walk a lot? How much power? Was it double or HR power? How was his defense? Was that more based on range or tools like a throwing arm or turning the DP? Did he steal a lot of bases? Great he stole bases, but what was his success rate? How well did he take the extra base? The complete statistical picture of a player requires a baseball-reference amount of data, which as you say is unreasonable, and less than that it's just picking and choosing which is OR. Outside of the most basic Triple Crown'y numbers and notable records (as with Rickey Henderson), keep them to prose IMO. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable stats aren't random.
People are at a baseball player's article to read up on a player. Not to go into this big indept analysis on a player's career.
In this paticular situation, the only way picking and choosing can be original research is if we have a table showing career highs and career lows.
A statistics table is obtainable if we all could show some boldness and be reasonable about this.

Kingjeff (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to include it in the infobox, since it's just a single line, but these massive stats tables that have taken over so many articles in lieu of prose aren't necessary. — KV5 • Talk • 11:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they would be massive. Even if they are massive, it's the size of the table vs. the size of the article that matters. Kingjeff (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And in so many cases, it had become the norm to have a giant statistical table and barely any prose. That's why they were removed before. Most people would rather update a bunch of numbers, because it's easy, than a bunch of words, which take work and thought and references. Our focus should be on article prose in articles, rather than tables where a list is not necessary. We aren't ESPN, and we aren't Baseball-Reference. Those sites exist to supplement our work; that doesn't mean that we need to copy them. — KV5 • Talk • 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think saying, "We aren't ESPN, and we aren't Baseball-Reference" is just excuses for being lazy. Those sites don't exist to supplement our work. We use those websites for references to support our work. Who said that a table would be big? Kingjeff (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being called lazy. It's a lot less lazy to write an actual article than to pump in a table full of statistics. Look at some of the tables for these players and managers. They are gigantic. They take up too much room in articles that should be written with words. — KV5 • Talk • 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically calling you lazy. Overall, this is the attitude of a lot of people in this project. The statistics table doesn't take up too much room. The statistics table is something that I think would go near the bottom of the article. The statistics table would not replace writing an article. A statistics table would be something that compliments the rest of an article. Kingjeff (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in a perfect world, a small statistics table would complement an article, but in the real world of Wikipedia, people ignore writing because numbers are easier to play with. Your opinion that it "doesn't take up too much room" is just that, an opinion, and one that I don't share, especially in the cases of players with long careers. In my opinion, the statistical tables serve to hinder article growth, because it falsely inflates the size of the article to the point where people don't believe that more prose should be added. — KV5 • Talk • 19:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Kingjeff: I noticed you were looking at/editing the page for Jim Fregosi before bringing this up. If you're using that as an example, that table is way too big and ugly. -Dewelar (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Killervogel5, does this mean that your opinion is worth more and override other opinions? Statistical tables don't hinder anything. Dewelar, I wasn't using the Jim Fregosi article as an example and I disagree with you on your assessment of the table. Kingjeff (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth. My opinion merely reflects the past consensus. — KV5 • Talk • 21:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With which part of my assessment do you disagree? That it's too ugly is, of course, a matter of personal taste, but that it's too big is firmly established by past consensus on this matter. -Dewelar (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Kingjeff, it's been established here by consensus that these tables are not a good thing. We've compromised with small summary tables like the one found at Derek_Jeter#Career_statistics. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The statistics table meant to summarize his accomplishments is as large as the prose section detailing his managerial career. I'd say that's easily too big. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to call each other lazy, which doesn't fit the person who undertakes either task on a notable scale.

Fregosi's table: I think it's attractive and properly relegated to the bottom; I would drop it further if the "See also" were important. On substance I'm with the consensus. That is a lot of repetition of what is readily available elsewhere. It's selective (wisely) only in featuring his manager rather than player career! (It doesn't summarize, it enumerates.)

Jeter's table: With its three rows and explanatory footnotes, that is as long as any table that breaks up the article should be. Line "2009" includes his current midseason OPS+ 101 (vandalism?). The totals mix four-digit numbers with and without commas. I prefer no commas but I'm not bold ;-) P64 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not supposed to be his midseason OPS+, that's his 09 OPS+ so yes it's wrong (corrected it). 101 is his 2010 OPS. As for the Fregosi table, it absolutely is a summary, it repeats and restates exactly the same things (what happened in the seasons he managed) numerically. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Killervogel et al that there's no reason to put them in, when people can just instead read the articles or click on the reference links. I remember we had this discussion with Albert Pujols' article, and his had complete hitting, pitching, and fielding statistical tables, which was completely ridiculous and slowed down the page tremendously. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox statistics

I know we've been over this several times before, but is the project still of the general idea that the infobox should contain Triple Crown statistics only unless there is a valid reason to include another statistic (i.e., franchise or major league record) or to exclude one of them (i.e., a player hit no career home runs or had no career decisions)? — KV5 • Talk • 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Prior discussion here. — KV5 • Talk • 13:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess. Most of the baseball world still thinks AVG, HR and RBI are the ways to evaluate a hitter, which is a damn shame. I'd love to teach them about OPS, but I have neither the time nor the patience. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then again, maybe speedsters like Michael Bourn and Willy Taveras should be judged by AVG, R and SB, as that's more appropriate for their playing styles than HR and RBI. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO it should be at least triple-crown...then additional stats if it's appropriate to the player. Let's not set a "rule" though. —

Hence the prior suggestions that we use common sense to figure out whether it's appropriate for a player to have other statistics shown in his infobox. Obviously our infobox has the ability to show six statistics for a reason, but that doesn't mean that players need to have all six filled in without a good reason (showing doubles, for example). As to Muboshgu's concern about ways of evaluating players, I agree, but I don't think this is the place to start bucking trends. — KV5 • Talk • 14:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with pretty much everything here. The Triple Crown stats are still the most familiar and should be the norm, but there are some players for whom other stats should be added, as well as a few where they might be replaced by others. I think XLee96 is right, though, that a hard-and-fast rule is probably not a good idea. -Dewelar (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Might I ask why? Bright-line rules are a lot easier to follow and then discuss exceptions, instead of wrangling over who gets what because some editors think that either they all need to be filled in or that certain players deserve special treatment. — KV5 • Talk • 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If we have a "bright-line rule" that permits exceptions (as you seem to accept in your first post), then the inevitable arguments will be over the exceptions unless the exception line is just as bright. I don't see that being a particularly easy line to draw. -Dewelar (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's fairly clear to me, but that's likely just from my perspective. I can see how others might prefer to discuss deletions than additions. — KV5 • Talk • 16:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are similar to KV5, and I support a "bright-line" rule when it comes to Triple Crown stats. The discussion should be whether or not additional stat fields should be used, not whether a different stat should be substituted for a Triple Crown stat. I don't see any good reason to substitute a Triple Crown stat, especially when there are three other fields available to add any applicable stats. I think sometimes editors get in the habit of putting in the infobox only stats that reflect favorably on the player, but it's not our job to push a particular POV. It should say in Michael Bourn's infobox that he only has 10 career home runs. His lack of power is just as relevant to him as a player as Ryan Howard's abundance of power. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The instances in which I can see substitutions are limited. The largest one is 19th-century players, for whom RBI are occasionally incomplete or missing. Also, short-career players might have zeros across the board, which wouldn't necessarily be as useful as having stats where they did compile totals. -Dewelar (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with both the statements above by Masonpatriot and Dewelar, especially on the players with short careers. I have encountered this many times on my current project, and it's certainly more helpful to note that a hypothetical player who appeared in 4 games had 1 double and 2 runs scored than no home runs and no RBI. — KV5 • Talk • 16:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the 19th century baseball players I have tried to stick with the "triple crown", but as stated above, RBIs are incomplete, maybe runs scored would be better to use in those instances, as it was a more valued stat back then.Neonblak ^talk - 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion on infobox career statistics points out seeming the lack of tangible evidence to best describe the career contributions of light-hitting defensive specialists, such as Jim Sundberg. While their batting statistics were relatively low, they were valuable to their teams in ways that's difficult to show in an infobox. However, I realize that that's the way baseball has always been and offensive statistics rule the roost.Orsoni (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's anything against showing fielding percentage or something like that as an exception for a player who specifically warrants such a piece of information, but you are right in that offensive statistics do always seem to be the word of the day, so to speak. — KV5 • Talk • 11:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a .995 career fielding percentage just isn't as tangible as 600 home runs. It's a shame that there isn't a way to highlight defensive contributions, but baseball has always been driven by offensive numbers, batting .400, hitting 60 home runs, etc. That's just the way it is.Orsoni (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Playing time is the most important major league career category. For MLB careers, every team season is listed in the Infobox so the number of seasons is redundant. It isn't so informative as games anyway.

About 5% of "major leaguers" played one game; about 20% played less than 1/20 full season (3200 of 16600 as of a few years ago); about 50% played less than 1/2 full season (8200 players). For this class I suggest Games (or Games played) as the first career statistic.

For many players it may be reasonable to specify Games pitched rather than Games. For some it may be reasonable to specify both. For players such as John McMullin and Bobby Wallace, with significant subcareers as pitchers, I would end their listings with Games pitched (37 and 57). --P64

IMHO, the template allows for up to six stats, and at editors' discretion they should be used. That's why the template affords that flexibility. The idea that triple crown stats are even the most significant ones is a somewhat pre-SABR dated notion. True, there was a time that the major newspapers would not reflect OBP and SP. That has changed, some years ago. That we would move backwards makes no sense to me. And, unlike newspapers, as is said in many wp discussions, we do not have the same size limitations. Not that anyone could seriously protest that reflect two or three additional numbers would weigh down an article onerously. So -- in accord with what I believe were other discussions on this over the year -- I feel strongly that we should allow editor discretion in this regard (at bare minimum). Anyone militating to delete OBP must be from the pre-Moneyball generation, and might well enjoy the book as summer reading.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The template allows for up to six stats for special circumstances. For instance, players like Bob Caruthers, who spent substantial time as both a hitter and pitcher, or Rickey Henderson, whose records in several non-TC categories are particularly defining. While OBP and SLG might be more reflective of a player's value (while simultaneously not being as reflective of that value as, say, win shares, total average, or WARP, depending on your flavor preference), the TC stats for both hitters and pitchers are still the most used and most familiar to the casual reader. They provide the snapshot of a player that is, at least for the time being, the most approachable, which is one of the goals of an infobox.

As far as Moneyball goes, that was about something bigger than just OBP. Beane (at the time, anyway) saw OBP as something that was being undervalued by other teams at the time, and therefore something he could exploit using limited resources. Not to say that it isn't valuable, but it wasn't the be-all, end-all, even to Beane. After the book came out, and perhaps indeed even before that, OBP became more highly prized and therefore more expensive, meaning that Beane needed a new "market inefficiency" to exploit. These days, defensive metrics might be considered the "new OBP" from that perspective. -Dewelar (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all points. While I'd love to shove sabermetrics down the throats of the "old baseball people" (especially Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan...), we can't. It's meaningless to the casual reader. In fact, OPS (which I've seen on some of these pages) is an artificial stat, which assumes that OBP and SLG are equal, which even Moneyball points out is not the case. From a readability aspect, I don't think it makes sense for pages like Ike Davis and Danny Valencia, two examples of players with not all that much playing time (as of this point) under their belts to have all six stat lines filled, just because we can. That should be reserved for those who would benefit from them, such as those who hit and pitched or have records in non-triple crown stats, as Dewelar mentioned. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. — KV5 • Talk • 16:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlike some editors have inferred in their edits on articles, we have not come to a consensus of, "triple crown stats only". If a player has 9 home runs and 1000 hits, I'm not going to leave the hits stat out. Vodello (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It sure seems like an overwhelming opinion at the least. 1000 hits and 9 HR might be a good reason to include an additional stat, but edits like these make no sense. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is more like "triple crown stats by default, others only with a really good reason which you'd better be prepared to defend" :-D . -Dewelar (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll be sure to word it that way in the future :) --Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Extremely well-put, Dewelar. I think that sums it up nicely. — KV5 • Talk • 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Vodello. And -- as Muboshgu knows, from reaction he has received elsewhere to his deletions -- there are other editors who have not opined here who disagree with his view.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but it would seem that these editors are a minority. And it's not my view, it's the view of the majority. Please someone convince the rest of the world to stop talking about BA and RBI and start talking about OBP and SLG. I believe that anyone who wants to follow baseball should be made to read Fangraphs on a daily basis. If only I could enforce that. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If they don't discuss here, Epeefleche, how do we know that their opinion even exists? WP:SILENCE can be the worst enemy of editors who don't speak up. — KV5 • Talk • 18:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Mu --Funny you mention Fangraphs. A few of us oldtimers were involved in a discussion of it a few years back. That led to the indef banning of an editor who kept on disruptively deleting its stats. That's what led directly, btw, to our current baseball template, which includes Fangraphs.

We don't have to convince the rest of the world of anything. In 1878 it was thought that the the triple crown stats were the most significant three. That's fine. Most of us still like knowing what they are.

That shouldn't be a limitation on allowing editors to reflect a mere three more numbers in the template. And indeed the template allows for it. It is not just followers of Fangraphs or SABR that find OBP, for example, to be of interest. Indeed, in the past two decades more and more print newspapers, even though constrained in size, have begun to reflect OPB and the like. We are not turning the world on its head if we say "Let's reflect the three triple crown stats, and up to three others, at editor discretion". Indeed, that's how we have operated for years. This isn't about requiring the world to not look at BA or RBIs (we can still reflect those). Or about requiring readers to read Fangraphs. It is only about allowing editors to take advantage of the remaining three categories, and add up to a mere three numbers, that may well be of interest to some number of readers--just as we added Fangraphs to the template years ago. This is not IMHO "clutter" by any means -- it is quite limited in the amount of material added.

@KV -- You are completely correct. As to those editors who did not see the comments. My remark was not meant to be directed at any editors other than those who received mention of (or saw) such objections. We would all be better served if those editors were invited to add their comments here as well, so that all interested editors can see them.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I don't think that I agree with your assessment that the additional categories aren't clutter. Obviously this is just my opinion, but with all of those extra statistics in there without a reason, it really does look cluttered, or at the very least unnecessarily elongated. The "editor discretion" portion is what I worry about; although nearly everything on Wikipedia is subject to editor discretion, there are some editors that operate with less discretion than others, and fill space just to fill space. I think that's what we're trying to avoid. — KV5 • Talk • 18:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Views of other editors. Please consider the views of three other editors, that have just now been shared here, on this subject. I agree with the three of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@KV -- 1. You think three numbers are clutter. I don't. Subjective, but they could barely be less obtrusive. 2. If the editor discretion is the real concern, I'm glad you've raised it. Let's try to come up with rational ways to limit it somewhat. For example, we could mandate that if the additional 4 and 5 slots are filled in for batters, at editor discretion, that they be for OBP and SP. And that if the additional 4 slot is filled in for a closer, that it be with his saves stat. I have further thoughts, but even just accepting those ideas would close out a full half of your "editor discretion risk" that the #s would be some never-before-heard-of stats. The main stats are generally reflected for example on major RSs leaderboards. The only exceptions from that might be someone w/league-leader-type stats that are off-leaderboard (Ron Hunt comes to mind, as an example). If that's what your issue is, we can largely address it with a collaborative approach. Deleting OBP -- which the RSs have reflected for many years now -- is simply retrograde.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oswalt and Happ

This trade's not official, but there's a lot of buzz. Would someone else mind reverting the navbox so I don't get myself in trouble? Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 20:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Trade is done. All outlets reporting DONE DEAL. Would be sloppy reporting if it weren't. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And news outlets are never guilty of sloppy reporting? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5420095 Read quotes directly from Oswalt. Will start tomorrow. It's done. And yes news outlets are guilty of that a lot, but when EVERYONE is reporting it it is a different animal. I've been on Wiki a long time. I know the policies. We all must work together! --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and we all must work together to make sure that WP:CRYSTAL isn't violated too. Until trades are completely official (announced by both teams and all physicals passed), they shouldn't be made as such. — KV5 • Talk • 02:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Buck Showalter

So he was hired today, but won't take over until August 3, leaving Samuel to manage the team through the weekend. Do we change the page to note him as the active manager? I need a ruling here. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes to changing. Like players who are traded in midseason, you can't expect him to get there and start managing right away. Oswalt is now a Phillie but probably won't arrive til tomorrow. He's an Oriole today. I'd also use the example of when Showalter was hired as Dbacks manager. It was 2 years before they even played a game. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're examples aren't apt in this case. Oswalt is on the Phillies' active 25 man roster, while there is no such thing for managers. Oswalt will, as you say, probably take a day to join his new team, but Showalter will be taking almost a week. Furthermore, Juan Samuel is managing the Orioles until Showalter takes over, making Samuel the active manager until then. When Showalter was hired by the Diamondbacks, there wasn't anyone else managing the team. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can find out that Showalter's contract begins Aug 3rd opposed to that just being his first game, then we should make note of that. --Airtuna08 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with mentioning that a five year player from the 50s was on a minor league all-star team?

Someone dropped by the article Milt Bolling and while his edit summary said he was deleting the career highlights because, "going 4-5 in a game is no appropriate for career highlight field," the editor also removed this statement I inserted in the Early Career section, completely failing to mention it in the edit summary that he removed this.

"His quality play earned him a spot at shortstop on the Piedmont League All-Star Team."^[1]

^ Cahaj, Joe; Carraway-Hinckle, Tamra (2004). Baseball in Mobile. Arcadia Publishing. p. 72. ISBN 0738515825. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

Bolling's triple crown numbers for his MLB career are 19/94/.241. He was named to a minor league all-star team, and a reliable source backs it up. Why was it removed outright? There is not much that can be said about this player, considering his lack of achievements and little access to many news archives of the day, so why should his top professional career highlight of being selected to an all-star team be deleted? Sorry, I'm just having Johnny Spasm deja vu here, where every baseball article not named Ty Cobb has to be a stub, and all notable information backed up by reliable sources is "fancruft". Vodello (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's talk about his minor league play in the article, I don't see anything wrong with it at all. — KV5 • Talk • 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Vodello and Killer.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a somewhat brief section summarizing each of his first five full seasons in the minors, which is almost half of his full professional career. I'll make sure that it is not removed. Thanks for the input. Vodello (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's sourced, it should stay. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys I just wanted to chime in here... my intention with that edit was to remove the game mention from the career highlights in the infobox, but I don't actually recall making the other edits (especially the ones to the section headers which are just plan incorrect, and not something that I would do). It's possible that I clicked on an earler version of the article and edited that, but beyond that, I'm dumbfounded. Sorry for any confusion, as I stated before, my only intention was to edit the infobox. Also, Vodello, if you just came to my talk page to ask what was up, I gladly would have cleared up any confusion. As a userbox says on my user page, I reserve the right to completely screw up my edits. :) - Masonpatriot (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

nbsp's in statistics?

I've read the guidelines about inserting non-breaking spaces multiple times (WP:NBSP), but it's not very clear to me when they should be used. It seems that units of measurement are a clear-cut case, to keep the numeral and the unit together. But how about baseball statistics? Do we want to insert non-breaking spaces between stats like "32 home runs", "50 saves", and "29 innings pitched"? Would a baseball statistic count as a unit of measurement in the spirit of this guideline? A little guidance would be great. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

At FLC, we usually insert it between the number and the first word of the statistic. So "29", nbsp, "innings pitched" with a link and no hard space in "innings pitched". Alternatively, you could just use {{nowrap}}. — KV5 • Talk • 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It also looks good to use nbsp at the beginning of a cell entry that would otherwise be displayed flushleft, too close to the left borderline. For example, nbsp should precede subheadings such as "National Association of Base Ball Players" or "Negro Leagues" or "As Manager" in the infobox list of teams.

;  National Association of Base Ball Players

; National Association of Base Ball Players

(The former gives a little more space than the latter. The initial semicolon seems to give the bold face, same as bracketing the words with '''.) --P64 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Baseball portal link being added to pages

A new user, Bribo3, is adding the Baseball Portal template to a bunch of random baseball-related pages all of a sudden. I don't know the exact protocol here, but can someone who does (and knows how to use bots) address the issue? Thanks. -Dewelar (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it an issue that the portal links are being added? I'm not well-versed on the Manual of Style or and policies regarding portal links. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of what I'm wondering, too. I looked through a bunch of portal-related pages, but nowhere did I see any kind of guidelines on what pages should have a link to the portal. For all I know, the link should be on every single page. -Dewelar (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What is considered an 'acceptable' career highlight for a player with a short MLB career?

I've had a few sourced removals lately under the career highlights section with summaries that imply that a player's top single game performance for his career is not notable. Milt Bolling has a career statline of .241/19/94. The only highlight of his MLB career was a game with two home runs and five RBI, his only multi HR game of his career. That is his highlight. Does his highlight not belong in the highlight box? Do we just leave the box blank? Thanks-- Vodello (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't like the use of single game performances in the infobox, unless of course it's a perfect game, no hitter, cycle, or something else major (like 20 K's in a game, or Mr. October's 3 HR game). I think that section should otherwise be reserved for major awards. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu... the highlights section should be for major achievements (individual or team) that are appropriate for an infobox, a first-glance look at the player for a casual reader. Not every player's career warrants the use of the highlights section of the infobox, so it should just be taken out for those players. Something like the Bolling example belongs in the prose (FWIW, even then, I still think an editor has the burden of showing why something a commonplace as a multi-hit game belongs in the prose). - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with assessments above by Mu and MP. — KV5 • Talk • 19:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the previous three editors, most particularly with Masonpatriot. Never, ever leave the box blank -- remove it entirely. -Dewelar (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

To look at it from a slightly different perspective, I think career highlights that are notable within the broader context of MLB history are most relevant. This implies a sustained high level of performance evidenced by a major award, or a highly exceptional individual performance like a no-hitter. (Sorry, hitting for the cycle is not particularly notable from a performance perspective; rare, yes, but not a highly exceptional performance.) Isaac Lin (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

For a large number of players, just having gotten there is their career highlight. Casey Wise is a good example of a guy with no discernible batting talent who nonetheless stuck around for awhile. And what about Moonlight Graham? Being used as a character in a novel some 7 or 8 decades later doesn't really qualify as a "career highlight". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okee dokee, I'll keep it under consideration. Thanks Vodello (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Switch or Both

I see an edit trend is picking up steam regarding player infoboxes. Instead of leaving the "Batted: Both" the way it reads, they are being changed to "Batted: Switch". To a life-long baseball fanatic like myself, it doesn't make sense. Imagine the following sentences if you're like me: "Jorge Pasada bats switch" or "Mickey Mantle batted switch for his entire career". A "switch-hitter" is said to bat both in the baseball universe. Besides, the reliable resources used for baseball information, Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference, both use "Batted: Both" or "Bats: Both". Might as well come to the project to get a ruling on this.Neonblak ^talk - 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Neonblak here. "Both" is the more correct usage here. -Dewelar (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The standard is "both". Hopefully they haven't messed up to many articles with this change. Vodello (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard? I dont remember there being an agreement that it should say Both, but I could be wrong. Personally I dont mind either way, but most infoboxes say Switch, so I dont know if it is a standard.--Yankees10 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All I know is that whenever I see the full word used, whether it be baseball-reference, retrosheet, the baseball cube, or 1960s Topps baseball cards, the word 'both' is used. I just go by from what I've seen from 50+ years of history. I do not believe in changing "both" to "switch" at this time per traditional standards. I hope whoever is changing these has stopped. Vodello (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no standard.... MLB.com uses 'S' for Switch.... ESPN and Baseball-Reference use 'B' or Both... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we don't use single-letter abbreviations. If we did, "S" would be OK. -Dewelar (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much to read here, but this is the small bit of discussion that occurred in April when I asked the same question. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe there should be a standard, a non-sports fan might be confused between the difference of "Both" and "Switch". I'll go whichever way it is agreed. I officially throw my vote to "Both".Neonblak ^talk - 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Switch, but am indifferent and will follow whatever the consensus happens to be. — KV5 • Talk • 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Killervogel5--Yankees10 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the "both" camp. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Both" has been the standard in print for many decades. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

L-R-B vs. L-R-S, the latter reminds me of the old joke, "He hits three ways: Left, Right, and Seldom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, I wonder if the use of "S" might be a result of the possibility of confusing "B" for "R" in print. -Dewelar (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's possible. The problem with "switch" is it becomes a mixed metaphor. "Switch-hitter" means "bats both", i.e. "both left-handed and right-handed". You don't say "left-hitter" or "right-hitter", you say "left-hand hitter" or "right-hand hitter". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, either that or it means the person hits people with a switch ;-) . But yes, that's what I meant above by saying "both" is better usage. -Dewelar (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen 'Both' used outside of America. Not here anyway, always switch. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 04:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Major League Baseball

Hi, for you information: I put the article up for good article reassessment because I think it currently fails the good article criteria. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for us. There's a lot of work to be done, but this is one of our articles that should absolutely be FA down the road. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable "Guidelines" for hidden lists in baseball record list articles

Hi I'm one of those editors that update stats for baseball record list articles (i.e. hits list, home run list, strikeouts list, etc.). Most of these articles have a "hidden" list. Although some people disagree with the hidden list, like user Muboshgu, I'm not here to discuss about keeping or deleting the hidden list. On the all-time hits list, user Katydidit keeps expanding the hidden list of the all-time hits list to 10, or even 11. The general consensus is showing the top 5 closest to making the list, then hiding the rest of the players. I reverted Katydidit's edits about three times, but now I am tired of doing so. I've left a section on his discussion board but he's not responding. So can we please get a "rule" so to speak to settle this? And is there a way to get Katydidit to participate in the discussion? Thanks. Jonathansuh (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents here, which have been added on article talk pages. I don't see what is gained by listing who is the "closest" to cracking certain lists. Who is closest to 500 home runs, 300 wins, 300 saves? Sure. But for pages where it's top 500 home run hitters or whatever it is, it should be only the top 500 and that's it. It ends up being the top 515 or however many, which isn't the name of the page.--Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I just looked at 3000 hit club and I see it now has only the players with 3000 hits or more, while 500 home run club includes some players with 400+. I think this should be standardized one way or the other, preferably including only the people who meet the criteria. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the way I understand it, is that having it hidden allows for easier keeping track of who is about to crack the list so you can update the list when they do easier. It is very easy to lose track of the hundreds of players there are and how close they are to cracking the list. Doing it with a few hidden players makes this easier. It could be done on the talk page too...but that would make it visible and more of a mess. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The article title clearly defines the criteria, so it should be strictly adhered to. Just my opinion, though. — KV5 • Talk • 19:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The criteria is being aheared to. These are hidden HTML comments invisible to the reader. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it. — KV5 • Talk • 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:HIDDEN, one appropriate use of hidden text is "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future (such as when a known event will occur). Larger amounts of information should be prepared on a subpage of the article's discussion page or in user space." I think this would fall under that guideline. -Dewelar (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But is there a reason to unnecessarily expand it? — KV5 • Talk • 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think some of them are too big. There are players who won't reach those milestones for years, if ever. I removed players from the hidden list on the Top 500 home run hitters page who aren't active any more. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)...and that's where we need to establish a guideline -- how close does someone have to be to go on the hidden list? Should it be a set number of players, or should it be within a specified distance from cracking the list? I would lean toward the latter. -Dewelar (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd say Melvin Mora and his 714 RBI's shouldn't make the cut at List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 RBIs‎. I'd say, off the top of my head, 100 or 200 hits away, 50 HR's away, 100 RBI's away, 10 triples away? Close to that? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's in the ballpark (no pun intended) of what I'm thinking -- it should be in the neighborhood of what could be accumulated in a full season. -Dewelar (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'd say go with it. At the absolute outside, no one who is more than a major league record season away from accomplishing the feat should be included. — KV5 • Talk • 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So, going back to my original post, what do we do with Katydidit?? He just won't talk. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted a link to this discussion on Katydidit's talk page. If he wants to contribute to the discussion then he can. -Dewelar (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd lean toward making an 'almost' listing within one season's number away from the criteria posted. Then the problem is: what is a 'one season' amount for each category? It varies too much for an individual player. It really doesn't need to be standardized to any set number of players or the number-away at all, since it is only an idea who is climbing the ladder fastest in the category, and some of the players below the number *are* hidden to the public anyway. Not everything on Wiki needs to be standardized to a one-number-fits-all. There is something to be said for diversity. Katydidit (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We can be liberal with the definition of a season's amount. I set the cutoff on the 1,000 RBI page to include players within (approximately) 150 RBI's. I think I erred on the side of overinclusion to prevent underinclusion. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It can even be varied on the fly if necessary. If someone is on pace for, say, 30 triples, and they're within that amount of the list, then go ahead and add them to the hidden text. -Dewelar (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about a final resolution on this issue. I believe the "Closest to" players *should* be shown to others. What's the point of keeping it a big secret, anyway? Katydidit (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe we were even discussing this aspect of things yet. However, the visible list should certainly be shorter than the hidden one at the very least. -Dewelar (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to call out Katydidit's bias here. He undid my edits on 2000 hits and 4000 total bases, but not on 1000 RBIs. Why? Well, I suspect it's because Albert Pujols already has 1000 RBI's so he's not being removed from the page, but he's not yet at 2000 hits or 4000 bases. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go. — KV5 • Talk • 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ben Paschal/archive3

If anyone want to comment, contructive criticism is welcome. Secret ^account 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Access to archives.

Anyone has access to the Sporting News or New York Times archives, I need extra information on Ben Paschal, Dickie Kerr, and other baseball articles I plan to expand. If it requires a password just email it to me. Please. Thanks Secret ^account 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind Paper of Record is back up, NYT archives could be helpful. Secret ^account 16:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Paper of Record's back up? This announcement just made my week. Time to dive into my topic that I haven't touched in months then, lol :D Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea but it's very glishy not like it used to be, search doesn't work well, especially with the older articles. Secret ^account 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

[Edit] bunching on Roy Oswalt

Anyone know how to fix this please? I tried {{FixBunching}} but it doesn't play nice with the Medal templates. The final two parameters of the ibox template appear to be the culprit, but I can't figure out a fix. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved the medals table to the section where the Olympics are discussed, so maybe that will help some. — KV5 • Talk • 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Elegant solution, why didn't I think of that?! Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible collaboration idea

I've been thinking of throwing around a collab idea with another WikiProject, and I thought I'd note it here first to see if it's worth the time. I was thinking of having us join up with the Film project to work on some of the baseball film articles. Upon looking at our most popular pages, a lot of films show up, so they're definitely ones people read, so it would be beneficial. They could handle the format/structure aspects while we could handle the, well, baseball aspects. I figure this would be a November/December thing to do, since the season will be over. Is this something that sounds like it'd work, or is it not worth it since it might not work out? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, although I wouldn't be much help. Love baseball, hate baseball movies. Too predictable. Seen The Natural (many times) ---- that's about it. Wknight94 ^talk 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Coaching info in infobox

Over the last couple of weeks there has been edit wars with me and User:Beast from da East on numerous articles of former players that are currently coaching about the coaching info being in the infobox. He claims that there was a consensus on here, but I have not seen anything suggesting that there has, nor has he provided me a link to the discussion, despite me telling him I will stop if he provides it, leading me to believe that he is lieing. So my question is should we include this info? My opinion is that it shouldnt for a couple reasons. My first reason is I dont consider this info important enough to add. I mean is anybody really gonna remember Rickey Henderson for his coaching stint with the Mets in 2007? My second reason is because it makes the infobox much bigger than it should be and takes up half of the page (ex. Don Zimmer). My third reason is because I'm not sure if this info is even easy to find. Is there a website that shows a persons coaching history? I think there should be consistency with the infoboxes and if the info isnt added for older players, why should it be added for the newer players? So hopefully we can build a real consensus on this.--Yankees10 01:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Last discussion about this issue that went on for any length is here. I was just reading an article about coaches by Keith Olbermann, and indeed there really isn't a good resource for it. I recall him mentioning that he had to comb through the NY Times archives to compile a good list. -Dewelar (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that link, I didnt realize it was that far back. There doesnt seem to be a consensus like the user claims.--Yankees10 03:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the MLB team websites have coaching history listed. When I was doing the rosters for the older baseball season pages I got much of that info from old Baseball Digests that are all on Google books. So the info is available. I don't really have a problem with adding this info to the boxes. Spanneraol (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's more important to allow the infobox to summarize important features of the player's professional career than to always insist on consistency. For example, Dave Duncan's coaching history is probably more important than his playing record, so I'd strongly support including it in his infobox. On the other hand, for Rickey Henderson, it isn't so important, so I have no problem leaving it out. BRMo (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I can totally agree with that, Dave Duncan should definitely have the info since he is much more known as a coach than a player--Yankees10 05:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether to include the coaching history in the infobox, except if it was a major aspect to the person's career. But coaching history for fairly modern individuals you can find at Retrosheet, click on this and scroll to directory of coaches. For Rickey Henderson, Dave Duncan, and Don Zimmer were names brought up. My opinion would be that Henderson's one season as a first base coach should be left in the narrative only, since it is such a small blip on a very long playing career with significant amounts of career and seasonal highlights.Neonblak ^talk - 08:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what Yankees10, is anybody gonna really remember Rickey Henderson for his brief stint with the LA Dodgers? Does that mean we get rid of that team in infobox because he wasn't with the team for a long time? Of course not. How do you know nobody is going to remember Rickey for his coaching sting? For all we know there are a bunch of little kids who did not get a chance to see him play that first saw him as coach for the Mets in 2007. I never got a chance to see Willie Randolph play, but I do remember him as a coach for the Yankees for all those years and you know what? He won four World Series titles as coach, so how is that not notable? Guys like Dave Duncan and Don Zimmer are best remembered to us as coaches, so what if Zim has a long coaching history with a bunch of teams, we don't have a problem with long playing careers with a bunch of teams (ex: Rickey Henderson, Russell Branyon) And what about someone like Harold Baines, a player who had a long playing career but won his only World Series title as coach in 2005, which is something that is in his highlight and awards section, so why can't we have his coaching history in the infobox?

If we can have the manager history in the infobox, I see no reason why we can't have the coaching history. Both managers and coaches are part of the roster and if you really think about it coaches have a huge impact on the game, the coaches are responsible for the development of the players. Beast from da East (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The website is called TheBaseballeCube, people. You can find a persons entire playing, coaching and managerial career at that site. Beast from da East (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In the end, the question isn't whether or not the information exists. The question is whether or not it's pertinent enough to dedicate a portion of the limited amount of information that is supposed to be included in an infobox. My view is similar to that of BRMo: include it only when it is particularly relevant to the person's baseball career. -Dewelar (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dewelar. Rlendog (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So just for example, would you guys think Mark McGwire would have the info?--Yankees10 03:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about today, then yes, it could certainly be mentioned in his infobox because it's his current job, which gives it relevance. The answer changes when the situation changes. -Dewelar (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok yes, I can definitely compromise on a current coach having the info.--Yankees10 03:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Coaches are considered part of the roster, which is why they wear the uniform. We also include them in the roster templates and the World Series templates, so it would only make sense to include it in the infobox Beast from da East (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly what is your problem? We are currently discussing whether this info should be the infobox and you continue to add it, despite a consensus not being reached yet.--Yankees10 00:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that their is a definite consensus for current coaches... but not yet for past coaches.. Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and thats why I didnt revert on Larry Bowa or Mark McGwire, etc, but I did on Ozzie Guillens page because of no consensus about past coaches, but apperently "Beast" doesnt understand that.--Yankees10 00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In Ozzie Guillen's highlight section it mentions his 2003 World Series championship, which he won as a coach for the team, wouldn't it make sense to add his coaching history so we avoid confusion. The article barely mentions his coaching career and what little it does have is incorrect (Expos in 2001 and Marlins 2002 to 2003, not Expos in 2002). We should have the coaching history for all players that have coached no matter how many years. Beast from da East (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you can add that if the conensus is that it should be there, but as of right now, there is no consensus to add the info, so dont do it yet.--Yankees10 01:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And, honestly, World Series championships shouldn't be listed in player infoboxes to begin with. They're a team accomplishment, not an individual one. Even if it is, how hard would it be to add "(as coach)" to it? -Dewelar (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually disagree with you on that... I think World Series championships should be in the highlight section. Winning a world series title is definitely a highlight of anyones career. Spanneraol (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a highlight to the player, yes, but is it a highlight in the encyclopedic sense? I do not believe so, but obviously others disagree. Indeed, as I recall the last time it was discussed the consensus was to allow it. I still disagree with it, but have accepted it for the time being. -Dewelar (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's more a team achievement than an individual achievement, being a member of a World Series team is just about the highest measure of success a player can attain in MLB, apart from being elected to the Hall of Fame or winning the MVP/Cy Young award. It certainly bears mentioning. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bears mentioning where, though? And did Joe Ayrault really gain a higher measure of success than, say, Ron Santo? -Dewelar (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since we're talking about the infobox "career achievements" section, I meant that. And I'm not sure what your example is meant to say - Joe Ayrault didn't win a World Series. And even if he did, it doesn't mean he had a more successful career than Ron Santo. A World Series title is just one of the highest measures of success that you can hope to attain, but it doesn't necessarily make you more successful than everyone who didn't win a champshionship. If you want to conceptualize it, I'd view throwing a no-hitter/perfect game as one level, being an All-Star/Gold Glove/Silver Slugger/etc as the next level, winning a World Series/MVP/Cy Young as the next, and entering the Hall of Fame as the top level. All the different components of each level combine to paint a picture of the person's career. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I disagree. -Dewelar (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So the consensus pretty much seems to be coaching info for current coaches only, right?--Yankees10 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see that as a consensus. For example, after Dave Duncan retires, he'll have spent 11 years as a player and 32+ years as a coach, with a much larger career impact as a coach. I wouldn't support removing the coaching info. BRMo (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah guys like that who are only known for their coaching career should still have the info, but guys like Harold Baines, should they really have it still?--Yankees10 03:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly where one draws the line, but if Baines retired now, I wouldn't have a problem dropping the coaching info. If he keeps coaching for another five to ten years, I'd favor keeping it. BRMo (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: consensus -- We have one person who supports putting all coaching information in, none who unconditionally support "current coaches only" (including yourself, who agreed that Dave Duncan should have it in there), and everyone else favoring something in between. I'd say the verdict is "needs more discussion". -Dewelar (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Championship team membership in infobox

Outdenting / making a new section to elaborate, since this is becoming a separate discussion...

I'm not trying to denigrate the value of being on a World Series (or, indeed, pennant) winner. Obviously, such an event is highly significant in the context of a player's own view of his career, and indeed most players would probably say, at least in the media, that just being on the team is an honor. However, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to present the events of a person's life/career with a focus on what was important to the person.

In my opinion, simply being a member of a team that accomplishes something like this is not, in and of itself, enough of a highlight in the context of an encyclopedia to warrant inclusion in an infobox. World Series MVP? Of course. Had a clutch hit/pitching performance in a WS? Probably. Just being on the team? No. I would put it on par with an actor who just happened to appear in a film that won the Oscar for Best Picture. Would you put in the infobox of every member of the cast of, say, "Titanic", that they were in the film just because it won Best Picture? -Dewelar (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

An Oscar for Best Picture and a World Series Championship? You're comparing apples and oranges. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? -Dewelar (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how we can compare a player in the World Series to a second assistant of Tom Hanks. The player has a ring. It is a career highlight and achievement. Vodello (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(From the opposite perspective) I don't see how we can compare someone who appeared in a Best Picture winner to some team's seventh reliever. Appearing in the year's Best Picture is a career highlight and achievement. The fact that they don't have a piece of jewelry to commemorate it isn't really germane. -Dewelar (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actors/directors/producers/film personnel don't have information about films they have worked on in their infoboxes, so I don't see how the comparison of if we were to edit the infoboxes of film personnel for award-winning movies ... to baseball players playing for championship winning teams... is valid. Whether you like it or not, sports athletes are judged on whether they won championships. It's a determining factor in the minds of many journalists and media members whether that player was as successful as other players. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, some star players are, by certain segments of the populace, judged on whether they won championships. Backup catchers, scrub relievers, and third base coaches are not. Is Fran Healy really considered more successful than Biff Pocoroba because Healy happened to be on the '77 Yanks? -Dewelar (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone claiming that a World Series championship is the only measure of success for a player? It's one measure of success, just like career statistics are, as are individual awards. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone claiming that appearing in a Best Picture is the only measure of success for an actor? It's one measure of success, just like number of roles played are, as are individual awards.

Nope, still not seeing the difference. -Dewelar (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thousands of people work on a movie... only 25 men can be on the World Series roster. To be one of those 25 is a notable achievement. Each of them contributed in some significant way to winning that championship. Spanneraol (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why I specified "actor" above. Hundreds of people (maybe even thousands, not entirely certain) work for a baseball organization...only (x) number of people can have speaking parts in a film. To be one of those (x) is a notable achievement. Each of them contributes in some significant way to winning that Oscar. -Dewelar (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of people appear on screen in a film... "waiter x" has no real contribution to the success of the film.. while the 7th reliever most likely got some key batter to pop up to get out of a jam along the way.. These situations are not similar. Spanneraol (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The 7th reliever was called on by his manager to do a particular job, and he did it. The actor who played "waiter x" was called on by his director to do a particular job, and he did it. Why are the two lines said by that actor in a scene less important than what the seventh reliever -- who probably didn't even pitch in the World Series itself -- did in game 93? -Dewelar (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think whats getting lost here is that the infobox is only supposed to include the most important information about the subject of the page. ie the things that need to be known in a quick glance. So the question is, is being on a championship something you need to know about a player quickly or is it better talked about completely in the prose. I think player infoboxes are already pushing the limits of minor trivia in the infoboxes with listing all the awards and stats....I think adding championship teams would make it even worse. There is a reason the baseball player infobox is often criticized as an eyesore. If you are going to add championship teams they were on I would probably remove something else. The infobox is already trying to tell too much about the players, its only supposed to be a summary. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For all the times I've seen the argument "the baseball player infobox is often criticized as an eyesore", I've never actually seen said argument, at least not here. It doesn't have to be tiny and color-free to be useful. — KV5 • Talk • 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. That's what I said in my first post. Other editors have been trying to run red herrings, which I have amused myself by following :) . -Dewelar (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet it seems that a majority of editors, at least those who have commented, still believe that a World Series championship is a notable event in a player's career and worthy of inclusion in a summary thereof, red herrings or no. Do I think a lot of infoboxes need to be trimmed down? Sure, but don't remove something like that. Remove the useless awards and other junk that don't really have any bearing on a player's career. — KV5 • Talk • 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I can understand adding them, if you remove the other minor awards and the like. I'm of the opinion that really the only major such accomplishment that should be listed is the hall of fame, however I can see the argument for championship teams. His other notable accomplishments will be explained in the prose of the article. I think too many people (no one specific) have a tendency to try and replicate the article in infoboxes in all areas of wikipedia not just sports. Really the infobox should have the #1 accomplishment listed, anything below that should be left to the prose. But that is just my humble opinon. -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DJsasso, how many times have you called the MLB and NFL infoboxes an eyesore? You are entitled to your opinion, but I've never seen anybody complain about it except you. You use that excuse everytime someone suggests for the NHL infoboxes to adopt a similar style to the MLB/NFL infoboxes. It's okay to have some color instead of being bland and tiny like the NHL infobox.Beast from da East (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because you leave the conversations after you start them. The MLB one actually isn't that bad. The NFL one on the other hand is the worst on the wiki. The only person who has actually suggested we adopt another one has been you. And you have been shot down numerous times...both at the hockey project, and at the sports project when you suggested everyone use the same one as the NFL. Anyways this had nothing to do with colour, but with the amount of information being displayed. You also might want to read up on the accessibility guidelines which does indeed say colour can be a problem. -DJSasso (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The MLB and NFL basically use the same format and I'm pretty sure Thumperward also suggested a change not too long ago. The fact of the matter is you are the reason why the hockey project is vastly different from the Big Three (NBA, NFL, MLB). You are the reason why the NHL infoboxes are the way they are and you are the reason why all the Stanley Cup team templates were deleted. The other three sports use the same basic design and all have championship team templates, so why can't the NHL have the same. If you have a problem with the colors, highlights or stats section, each could be discussed and deleted from the infobox, but you always, and I do mean ALWAYS, shut it down. Shame on you Djsasso, shame on you. Beast from da East (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure it takes more than one user to form a consensus. If it was just me who felt that way it would have changed by now. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sportswriter prose

I've noticed some articles are written in the style of sportswriters, using euphemisms such as "blasts" or "bombs" rather than home runs. While this may be suitable for knowledgeable baseball fans, I think we should edit articles for readers who are newcomers trying to learn about the sport.Orsoni (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found that if there's not a lot of writing in the article, that trimming out journalistic terms is easy, but if you have an article with a lot of writing (like a team season article that's actually got words instead of just a game log), it's hard not to be redundant and dry. This can be solved by linking those "sportswriter"-style terms to the glossary of baseball. — KV5 • Talk • 11:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would recommend avoiding hyperbolic phrases (so "bombs" and "blasts" would be out), but after a few mentions of the basic terms, using some jargon with links (e.g. "round-tripper") can help add a bit of variety while helping newcomers learn some additional synonyms. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei vs Republic of China

In the last few hours in particular, but every so often over the last several days, weeks and months there have been several changes made to various international baseball articles revolving around whether the articles' prose and tables should refer to Chinese Taipei or Republic of China (and occasionally Taiwan). Rarely is it over the team itself, particularly since the move request a few months ago, but there are still issues over which name should be used for the geographic location. The best example I can think of for this is on Intercontinental Cup (baseball) in the results table: at the time of writing this, the "Final Host" column refers to Republic of China, while the "Medalists" columns refer to Chinese Taipei, with each showing the differing flags for the two entities are shown alongside the respective entities. I'd like to see some sort of consensus formed one way or the other. There's already consensus for the team name itself, but which should we use for the location?

My personal feeling is that we should use Chinese Taipei in both cases. That way the articles are more self-consistent, and less likely to confuse readers. Also, I think we should eliminate the references to the geopolitical issues on every article. Let the Chinese Taipei article handle all of the details of where the name comes from, why its used, etc. Afaber012 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I second this due to the political status of Taiwan. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 10:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We should be doing whatever the IOC, and by extension IBAF, are doing, as they are the quintessential official sources for information on international baseball. Chinese Taipei. — KV5 • Talk • 11:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Template: Professional Baseball

Should have done this a while ago.
There's been a long-standing dispute at this about where to categorize the now-defunct Hawaii Winter Baseball, namely whether it belongs in the Oceania section based on purely geographic concerns, or in the Americas section as it was Major League Baseball affiliated. Input welcome.oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The template is organized geographically by continent. Geographically, Hawaii is not part of North America, it is part of Oceania. BRMo (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Many winter leagues are Major League Baseball affiliated. Hawaii should be sorted into it's geographic location, Oceania. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 08:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make this clear. Please bring all comments to the template talk page, where the discussion is ongoing. oknazevad (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Phillies colors don't match

How come the red in some of the Phillies templates is so different than the red in the Phillies infobox? On certain stub pages, this difference is really stark. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the red in the infobox matches the uniform colors, but the Phillies haven't always used that shade of red in their uniforms, so the navbox red is a hybrid of the current red and the old reds. Plus, the red in the infobox is disgustingly glaring. — KV5 • Talk • 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That the red in the infobox was painful to my eyes was my line of thinking. I thought the current shade was closer to the navbox, but you would know better than I would. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The second reason is the primary one, but that's why I chose the red that I did for the navs. I think I might have gotten the info from SSUR. — KV5 • Talk • 20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yankees-Giants rivalry article

Requesting help in improving this start class article. Thanks. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced that this should exist, as there aren't any reliable sources in the article as of right now. — KV5 • Talk • 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree with KV5. The Giants and the Yankees have only played each other a handful of times in history. Hardly the basis of any form of rivalry, particularly since the Giants moved west and have never met the Yankees in any significant games since then. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not even 1962 World Series? Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think there was a rivalry, back when the Giants and Yankees shared the Polo Grounds. They basically booted the Yankees when they became a bigger draw than the Giants, thanks to Babe Ruth. Is that enough to establish a rivalry? I'm not sure. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Subway Series already exists - merger. — KV5 • Talk • 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with KV5. There's not really a separate rivalry outside of the old Subway Series match ups. oknazevad (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have a page about the rivalry from a historical perspective, as it was significant in that context (especially in the 20s and 30s). Given that, I'd say the page as it stands gives undue weight to the "Recent developments" section. -Dewelar (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Subway Series" hardly covers the topic. For one thing, I doubt anyone ever referred to the 1921 or 1922 World Series as "subway series", since both teams played in the same ball park. And even after the Yankees moved, you hardly needed to take a subway (or even the el) to travel between the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium. And even putting aside the 1962 World Series and the far less relevant issue of interleague play, there has been more to this rivalry than just games. At least some sources have Ban Johnson moving the Baltimore Orioles to New York to ultimately become the Yankees in retaliation for the Giants signing future Hall of Famers John McGraw, Roger Bresnahan and Joe McGinity along with starting first baseman Dan McGann] from the future Yankee franchise in the middle of the 1902 season. And have the Giants refusal to play the 1904 World Series in part due to the possibility until the very end of the season that the New York Highlanders would be the opponent, and they didn't want to legitimize them. And even though in the 1950s the teams played only one World Series, there were rivalries even then, not the least of which was which team had the best centerfielder between Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Template needs fixing

Can someone who knows template writing take a look at Template:Negro League franchise and fix it so that it doesn't display template source text when the Logo and Caplogo variables are empty? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I copped some code from another template and it seems to be working OK. No harm in someone more knowledgable checking what I did, just to make sure I didn't break anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Bill Terry

I have just made a significant expansion to the article on Bill Terry, which was criminally short for an article on a Hall of Famer. Can someone check it out and reassess it? -Dewelar (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So ordered. — KV5 • Talk • 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, C-class is about right. With some better referencing it's probably B-class, but that's not my forte. -Dewelar (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that was the only weakness I saw in the article when checking it against the B-class criteria. — KV5 • Talk • 00:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rlendog (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I had that article watchlisted for a while I could get the sources and expand it a bit more. Thanks Secret ^account 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Paschal

Ben Paschal currently needs a good copyedit in order to become a featured article, anyone up for the challenge, I'll work on a baseball article of your choice if the FAC is successful. Thanks

Secret ^account 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rookie Leagues

Hey everyone! I have found out that the Dominican Summer League Teams actually have official names, and the DSL whatever isn't it. The MinorLeagueBaseball.com site is not the offical site of the Dominican Summer League. You can even go to League Information, and it will say that http://dominicansummerleague.com/ is the official site. On that site, as they start fixing up the statistics pages, if you click on them (they have the 1st division listed like this now), it will say like "San Pedro Blue Jays", not "DSL Blue Jays". I think they should be changed to be like that.

Also, the AZL Teams are definitely not called "AZL Cubs" and stuff like that. Under the official league information, it lists them as"Mesa Cubs" or "Arizona Brewers", and stuff like that. Jntg4Games (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd stick with what is listed on the standings pages. AZL is short for "Arizona League" and is the standard abbreviation for these clubs. The Dominican League page mostly lists the teams as DSL Teams... sometimes they are listed by where their home city is... but those aren't official. I'm for staying with the current names. Spanneraol (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, they are official actually. The Milb.com is the official site of the Minor League Baseball organization. The official league sites, however, have the city names in most cases, the state name in others. Jntg4Games (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The "official" name is hard to ascertain considering the DSL website uses both names and the AZL doesnt have its own website. In any event, we should use the names that are most likely to be searched for.. which we currently are. Spanneraol (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

LMB Academy?

http://www.lmbacademia.com/index.php

Does this fit into the scope somewhere? It is a Mexican League Academy League, with each team being affiliated with 2 Mexican League teams. Jntg4Games (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1969 season infobox

Just as a heads up, I have fixed this infobox so that the television and radio fields will no longer display unless they're filled in. It just looked weird to have it on teams from before the technology even existed :) . -Dewelar (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has nominated the alternate infobox (the one with a GM field) for deletion/redirection here. I'm not sure why we have this either. If anyone wants to add the GM field to the base infobox, go ahead, otherwise I will do it when I have a few minutes. -Dewelar (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I had made the alt version back when I was making the season pages cause I couldn't figure out how to make an optional field in the main one.. If someone can fix the original one then I'm ok with it going. But I wouldn't want anything to be deleted until all the pages are updated and fixed. The tfd is also trying to delete the pre-1969 ones altogether and they were made for a reason.. so that would need to be fixed also before deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the only difference is that there are no fields for the division. If that's the case, I can change the base template to make them optional as well. -Dewelar (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to get all the fields in this template into optional form, but the one I'm having trouble with is the division field. The problem is the double-bullet, which seems to be fouling up my efforts. The closest I can get to the current appearance is at Template:MLB yearly infobox/sandbox. Can someone who knows a bit more fix this -- or, indeed, can it be fixed? -Dewelar (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I used a colon indent instead of a double-bullet in the sandbox; how about that? — KV5 • Talk • 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Better. Now we just need to get rid of that white space between the League and Division lines. -Dewelar (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Other than some completely inelegant and brutal hack, you've lost me. — KV5 • Talk • 19:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty much the conclusion to which I'd come as well. Sadly, everything I've learned about coding this stuff comes from looking at other people's examples, and I haven't yet run across another template that uses that particular style. -Dewelar (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this. Might it be worth converting to {{Infobox}} at the same time? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a question for the project at large, I'd say. I haven't really looked at it to see if it would work for our purposes. -Dewelar (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

I've gone ahead and added the GM field as an optional field to the two base templates. We should now be able to safely set the two alt versions to be redirects to those. I'm still at a loss on how to handle the division field format, though. KV5's kludge is still the best approximation so far. -Dewelar (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, for those looking to play with this in the future, note that the GM field is called something different in the two versions of this template. It is called "general manager" (singular) in the pre1969 box, and "general managers" (plural) in the base box. I presume that, if we ever do combine things, the latter is correct, as it matches the "managers" field, but it will have to be addressed one way or the other. -Dewelar (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you can just do a switch to allow the template to accept either field that way you don't have to switch all the templates, that being said a quick AWB run would fix it anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Liga Tabasqueña

I found this professional league in many sources, and proven to still exist by finding 2010 standings and stuff. However, I can't find the official site. It translates to "Tabasco League" in English and is a Mexican AA league. Jntg4Games (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they do not have a site, but the full name is "Liga Tabasqueña de Béisbol Instruccional", and there is another league: "Campeonato Estatal de Beisbol Chihuahua". Jntg4Games (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Site: http://www.autoridaddeportiva.com.mx/ltbi/index.html Jntg4Games (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you should be adding all these minor Mexican leagues to the professional baseball template. A Mexican AA league is not equal to an American AA league... and none of these are MLB affiliated, if anything they should be listed as independent. Need some discussion on this first. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the Other Minor Mexican Leagues (Northern and Northwestern) Leagues were there, so I figured they belonged there. I'll put them in independent, as this template is for all professional baseball leagues, which they are. Jntg4Games (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Games on this one, if they're professional then they're professional, whether they compare to MLB standards or is affiliated with is beyond the point. As for the Mexican Academy, it doesn't seem to be a professional baseball league from what I can gather from the website. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 23:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is professional, and affiliated with the Mexican League. It's actually hosted on Minor league Baseball.com's server BTW. However, the only European Leagues that are actually professional of the ones listed are the Italian, Dutch, possibly Bundesliga, possibly Division de Honor de Beisbol, and possibly Elitserien. I'm pretty convinced that Bundesliga, Division de Honor, and Elitserien are all amateur, but have no proof. But the Irish League, British National League, and Division Elite are DEFINITELY amateur. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, about the Irish and British leagues, and I'm pretty sure you're right about the others. Actually, someone removed the German league, saying it was amateur, only to be reverted. I think that section should be thinned out of even doubtful leagues. After all, its professional leagues, not "top level" leagues.oknazevad (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The IBL (Serie A) and Honkbal Hoofdklasse are professional, several sources say this. The Bundesliga, Austrian and Spanish leagues are semi-professional with the rest being dominantly amateur. Leagues should be classed non-professional unless proved otherwise. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 09:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, I made the right move then. Jntg4Games (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indirect Signpost note

The most recent News and Notes section of the Wikipedia Signpost included graphs and coverage of the most-linked sites (displayed a couple different ways) from the Wikipedia main article-space. Coming in at #17 is baseball-reference, far ahead of it's parent sports-reference (used for Olympic articles and the like). In one way this speaks to the breadth of our topic and our coverage. I will say, though, in working on tie-breaker articles (as I have in recent months) I've come to recognize the value of additional sourcing beyond baseball-reference. I was (and still will be at times) perpatrators of over-reliance on b-ref through lists (which, being almost entirely stat-based, really only need a stat website). I don't think heavy use of a source as strong as B-Ref is bad (or good) per se, but just something to think about as the clear core-source for our project. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This includes both citing BR as a reference and posting the link in {{baseballstats}}, correct? It's a great reference for some basic stuff, but should not be considered a replacement for actual news stories, which provide more narrative. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It includes every time we link to B-Ref in the article space. — KV5 • Talk • 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

150 wins 150 saves article – should this be a redirect?

I stumbled upon 150 wins 150 saves just now, and it seems ridiculous to me to have an entire article for a "list" of only 2 people that have ever achieved this feat. I think the stat is noteworthy, sure, but not for its own article. I wanted to make WP:Baseball aware of it so that you all can reach a consensus on where this information should be relocated (and then, I'm assuming, redirect the article to that spot). I concentrate on college basketball and NBA articles, so I'm not familiar with this WikiProject's standards. Welp, have fun with this. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to AfD it. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely AfD. This can easily be marked with a footnote on the List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins and in the Save (baseball) article. — KV5 • Talk • 11:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD for sure. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -Dewelar (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been listed. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this article worthy?

There should be an "Is this article worthy?" section where people can post ideas for articles before writing them. Then the other members of the project could chime in to say whether they believe if it is worthy or not. This would be especially beneficial for those articles that might or might not be cut-and-dry worthy, like minor league managers, players, scouts et cetera. Alex (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Really the only question you should need to ask yourself is can you find multiple reliable independant sources about the subject. If you can't the article shouldn't be created. Regardless of what the subject is. If people actually tried to source before creating, we wouldn't have to answer those sorts of issues. Yes, thats harder for subjects 100 years ago. But there really isn't any excuse for it for anything from the last 40 or so years. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are also other considerations. For example, although news events have lots of independent, reliable sources covering them, Wikipedia is not a place for news coverage. Isaac Lin (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My point was more that you shouldn't be creating an article without sources. I admit I read into his recent edits to see why he was asking the question and saw things like "inheirently" notable in some of his recent conversations, of which nothing is. News events are a different issue, I was more speaking to his examples above as well. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Some editors have turned that around, where they consider anything with reliable sources as notable (that is, the existence of reliable sources is treated as a sufficient condition for notability, as opposed to a necessary one). I just wanted to ensure that no one (in contradiction with Wikipedia's notability policies) tries to use your statement as justification for this practice. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference.com is a source. So is The Baseball Cube. But they cover EVERYONE, even Joe Schmo who had only four games in the minor leagues. Sometimes notability isn't cut and dry, which is why I proposed this idea. Look, for example, at Ernie Jenkins (baseball). Minor league individuals are not inherently notable. However, he might be - he did lead four straight teams to league championships as a minor league manager - but then again, he might not be - he managed in what appears to be a lot of lower-level leagues. Alex (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources for the purposes of notability. Reliable sources for notability requires actual news or magazine articles etc that are significantly covering the subject themselves. Stats sites like those are never considered good enough to determine notability. A good read through WP:RS might help. Theoretically (though extremely unlikely) you could find a major league player who doesn't meet WP:GNG because he was never actually written about apart from statistics or routine game coverage which don't meet the requirements of WP:N. For the most part notability is pretty cut and dry, you either had news stories about you specifically or you didn't. If you didn't then you don't get an article, if you did then there are a few other things that need to be considered but in general you probably do get an article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of a flaw to this, though. Looking through WP:RS, I don't get a clear idea of how small a media source can be and still convey notability through its publication. I mean, I'm sure you could find thousands upon thousands of articles from local papers about various minor league figures. Also, especially in the early days of the minor leagues, there were often multiple local papers, even in small-ish towns. Even for myself, growing up in the 1970s, there were multiple papers that covered the town where I lived, which had a population somewhere around 35,000. -Dewelar (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that is a perpetual debate on GNG. On where is the line on local sources drawn. Some people argue you can still be notable if you are only notable in one town. ie which is why any mayor is considered notable. Whereas others think you need news articles from other cities. Current GNG allows local sources to give you notability as long as they are from more than one source. So multiple papers as you mention. -DJSasso (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, then I'd guess that any minor league manager (or at bare minimum those who managed a full season) would pass GNG, as would a larger chunk of players than we're allowing through via WP:NSPORTS. That's a pretty big can of worms to open. -Dewelar (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats why I always suggest people go to WP:GNG and try to get something added about local sources rather than complain about athlete. Because athlete was actually more strict than GNG is. Someone started a discussion while NSPORTS was being created, but I don't think it ever went anywhere because basically every situation is different so as you suggest people think its better to just take it case by case. A can of worms indeed. -DJSasso (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

nods That's likely because trying to establish a lower bound for what constitutes a reliable source is an even bigger can. Not something I'd want to touch with a ten-billion-pixel cursor. -Dewelar (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

José Bautista

There's a bit of something going on at the article José Bautista (utility player). An editor got an admin to move the page to José Bautista (fielder), and I moved it back. The same editor accused me of vandalism for doing so, and tried to get another admin to move it back again, but apparently failed. Only after that did a discussion get started on the article's talk page as to whether or not the article should have a different disambiguator. I've proposed a couple alternatives if it's decided the page should be moved, and would appreciate any input folks would like to provide. -Dewelar (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found a page on Wikipedia named Position Player. This could be a viable option seeing as a position player may play infield, outfield or catcher, but doesn't include pitcher. This would clearly distinguish it from Jose Bautista (pitcher). Unless the article is at error, it seems to directly be referring to baseball which makes it a suitable alternative. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Objective44 (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Baseball-Reference, Bautista's positions are "third baseman and outfielder". He has played more than 300 games at third base and less than 200 at any other position. I'd say it's pretty clear that this should be at José Bautista (third baseman), as he's barely played first or second bases, and has never played shortstop or catcher. I don't think the "utility player" designation is appropriate, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) doesn't have a specific guideline about this. Another potential option would be José Bautista (infielder/outfielder), along the lines of John Coleman (outfielder/pitcher). — KV5 • Talk • 11:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "utility" shouldn't stick. He's played almost as much OF as 3B so far. I'd be okay with either (third baseman), (outfielder), or (third baseman/outfielder). --Muboshgu (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would use "utility" since he hasn't had a clear majority of games at one position or the other. Remember disambuators are supposed to be as simple as possible. So something like (third baseman/outfielder) is too complicated. Though personally (and I know you guys try to avoid it) I would use (baseball, born 1980) or some version thereof which follows #5 on your naming convention page. (baseball b. 1980) being what I would choose since it avoids POV arguments over what dab to use. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the year of birth might be the way to go here. "Utility" sounds too much like a guy they'll stick anywhere, which is not really the case here. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We've overlooked the obvious. Since the plain title José Bautista is a disambiguation page (and rightfully so), the page should be moved to a title using his middle name; hence: José Antonio Bautista. Why this disambiguation technique isn't mentioned in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) is a bit baffling. This eliminates any squabbles about position or role, and is a relatively simple title too. Mind matrix 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the middle name is a violation of WP:COMMONNAME. -Dewelar (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not a sensible interpretation of that policy. The policy states that a common name should be used, but if disambiguation is required, then it should be as precise as necessary, no more, no less. (Read the Precision and disambiguation section of the policy.) In this case, disambiguation is clearly needed, and what I've proposed is the most sensible and simplest form for disambiguation. Mind matrix 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "sensible interpretation". It's certainly the most straightforward interpretation of the policy.

I looked through both WP:PRECISION and the general disambiguation guidelines and found nothing that addresses use of middle names in general as a disambiguator. I wouldn't support its inclusion in our naming conventions -- while it might be an easy form of disambiguation to choose, it is not a meaningful one in the context of the wiki community. A clunky method that communicates something is preferable to a smooth method that doesn't. -Dewelar (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! From WP:NCP, the section on middle names and abbreviated names: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." -Dewelar (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this is where WP:PRECISION (policy) and WP:NCP (guideline) disagree in a way. This is fairely often debated. Most people I have seen in the past feel that as long as the common name is a dab page then adding the middle name isn't an issue. Because people will type the common name and then just pick the one they want from there. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a disagreement, actually. Nothing in WP:PRECISION contradicts WP:NCP on this. Beyond that, there is still the issue of usefulness. When using autofill, for instance, using a meaningful disambiguator might allow the person to bypass the dab page altogether. Also, in order for the middle name to be at all helpful, the dab page actually has to have descriptions of the pages in question, and too many of them don't. -Dewelar (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not using a middle name because there's a potential that the dab page may not be fully specified is the wrong solution. The correct solution is to ensure that the dab page contains sufficient information to direct the reader as appropriate. Anyway, this tangential discussion belongs on the naming conventions talk page. Mind matrix 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to my mind, the correct solution is primarily to ensure that the disambiguator itself contains sufficient information to direct the reader (via wiki-generated search box autofill) as appropriate (if possible, of course) -- which middle name fails to do, and in fact hinders -- and secondarily to do as you suggest. But yes, this belongs at WP:NCP. -Dewelar (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an objection to inclusion of that sentence on the talk page (though most editors there disagree with the objection). Frankly, I find this stance surprising, since a middle name provides the easiest and simplest form to use for disambiguation, and also the clearest from a usability perspective. The disambiguation page will be the primary landing page for anyone accessing WP using the common name, so there should be no issues using the middle name. It's absurd to believe that someone is more likely to directly access José Bautista (baseball, born 1980) than they are to access José Antonio Bautista. It's even more absurd to believe that they'd access either of those over the plain title (ie - the dab page). More explicitly, why should we assume that a reader is likely to know the player's birth year, but not their middle name? (And vice versa, of course.) Mind matrix 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See my response to Djsasso above for my answer to the first part of your post. The reason a birth year is better than a middle name is that a birth year will give an indication of when the player was active, which is something the searcher is much more likely to know. Hardly "absurd". -Dewelar (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know on hockey articles if the middle name is known and there is more than one player with the same name we switch over to middle names per what Mindmatrix quotes. At which point if we don't know the middle name we go to birth year. Didn't realize we had his middle name, I must be blind. I am sort of surprised that isn't on your naming conventions page, as for alot of projects thats the #2 step if you can't just use (baseball) or whatever. At which point it then moves on to more trickier dabs like birth or in your case positions in the game (which I personally frown on for reasons this particular discussion exposes). -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's "not sensible", as the policy clearly states that what is reported in the majority of reliable English-language sources should be used. Besides Baseball-Reference and other statistical sites, which usually contain all of that data, most sports sites like ESPN and Yahoo!, in their news coverage of any player, use simply first and last name. — KV5 • Talk • 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they do, but that's because their article titles use an index, hash, or identifying code. Their disambiguation techniques clearly avoid this issue altogether- if they named articles clearly, as does Wikipedia, they'd be facing the same problem we do. (Moreover, the text of the article clearly uses the common name.) Mind matrix 16:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Right but its Jose Bautista that is reported not Jose Bautista (utility) or whatever. Once you have to disambiguate, common name pretty much goes out the window because you are no longer able to work with the common name. Which is why WP:PRECISION which is a policy allows you to then not have to rely on common name any longer. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the year of birth angle works best in this case. Spanneraol (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, couldn't you just come to the agreement that the middle name should be used. Is there an unwritten law here forbidding everyone from editing the WP: baseball naming convention page or whatever its called? You could just add in another rule for baseball stating middle names are second priority or whatever. Problem solved. Objective44 (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a written "law". It's called consensus. The baseball naming conventions are the result of an awful lot of wrangling and discussion among the members of this project. Your dismissal of that work demonstrates your lack of understanding of the basic concepts of Wikipedia itself. -Dewelar (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that was written by a subset of members participating in the project at that time. For example, I would have emphatically objected to the rejection of middle names as valid disambiguators had I been participating in that discussion. Further, standards and guidelines can change, so I don't see why there is such strong resistance to a proposal to investigate or consider new possibilities, especially when the proposals are sensible. I believe that exclusion of middle names for disambiguation from the general naming conventions is unfortunate and ill-conceived. I'll reiterate that, in this case, I think the use of a middle name is the best option available, and that I find the other proposals currently being debated to be inferior from a usability perspective. I'll leave that discussion for NCP, though. Mind matrix 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's been discussed on a number of occasions just within the time that I've been active with the project (approximately the last 2.5 years). I know because I've been a part of a few of those discussions, and have edited the page myself at least once based on those discussions. Some minor tweaks have resulted, but overall the consensus has been that they're fine as they are (consensus subject to change, of course). Even if WP:NCP adopts the middle name as part of its guidelines, we have no obligation to abide by it. Also, since most people are opposed to your position here, at least among those involved, you're drifting into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. If anyone else supports using middle names, let's hear from you! -Dewelar (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why make something more complicated then it already is? I have no idea distinguishing players between middle names, it should be year of birth or position. Or both if needed. Why are we talking about middle names? Come on.. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 04:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of year of birth, but FYI - the page was just moved to (outfielder). Canada Hky (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's better than "fielder", but not as accurate. The rationale is wrong. "Utility player" and "everyday player" are not mutually exclusive. -Dewelar (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Woah, guys I didn't think that this discussion would be this long and controversal. Bautista is listed as an outfielder and plays mostly right field and third base, UT means he plays multiple postions, and yes he could play everyday as an UT but most guys are just back-ups, unless you include Ben Zobrist. To me UT means he plays more than two postions on a consitant basis. Ositadinma 17:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the alternatives to "utility player" (as noted here and on the article's talk page) would be "outfielder/infielder", which is clunky, or year of birth, which is...acceptable, but pretty far down the list. Most utility guys are backups, yes, but in recent years there's also been Zobrist, Chone Figgins, Nick Punto, and last year Willie Bloomquist. -Dewelar (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To me utility player is any player that plays more than 1 position regularely. (ie not just a couple games here and there but has played many games at more than 1 position). -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but none of those guys had to be disambigued, see the problem. Agree that outfielder/infielder is too clunky and UT would not be acceptable for a guy who hit forty homers. Date of birth - okay, but you have to change the other Bautsita page too. ??? Ositadinma 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

40 homers doesn't change the fact he plays more than one position regularely....which is pretty much the definition of utility player. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A utility player is a player who can play several different positions, from Utility player. Several means more than two since, couple means two in my definition of the English grammer. The article also mentions about UT infielder and UT outfielder. Ositadinma 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Several means multiple. 2 is multiple. But either way that is not my point. My point is how well a player plays does not change the fact he plays more than one position. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case it's not a matter of "Does he play more than one position regularly?" because right now, he doesn't. The question is actually "Has he played more than one position regularly?", which in this case, he has. — KV5 • Talk • 17:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, thats what I mean. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just cuz he plays RF and fills in a 3B when a Blue Jay is hurt, doesn't make him a UT player. Pujols played LF and 1B earlier in his career, is he a UT player?

I'm not talking about playing well, a guy who is a UT player plays several positions on the diamond, i.e., SS, 2B, 3B and OF would be a UT guy, not a player who just plays OF and 3B when I guy gets hurt (Although he played 3B on a consitent basis earlier in his career). Ositadinma 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Playing 300 games at one position and 200 games at another is not just filling in for someone hurt. Remember the title of the article should reflect his entire career up to that point, not just the current year because current year is a case of recentism. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Entire career? Heck, Bautista was the Jays' regular third baseman for a month THIS YEAR. -Dewelar (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So what should the name of the article be people, not going to discuss this anymore about a one-hit wonder? Ositadinma 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To me a player should be disambig. at what position he played the most games at or was the most notable at, i.e., Ruth was a hell of a pitcher, but more notable as a hitter (If he were to be disambig.). To me, Bautista, we still don't know how to list him. Ositadinma 18:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. He could very easily be back playing third base next year. "Utility player" is a compromise at best, but I think it's the best compromise we've got. -Dewelar (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty much is exactly the point and why we can't use out fielder or third baseman yet. We don't know, which is why utility player is the best compromise we have. Other than to switch to birth year. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for switching him to OF, didn't see the dicussion here. Ositadinma 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with moving to (baseball, born x) for both just in case he changes positions again; this way we don't have to keep moving the page. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the most stable option, though perhaps less clear in title than one with a position. I honestly have no preference, as long as it's not "fielder", which isn't an accepted disambiguator according to the project's conventions. — KV5 • Talk • 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we should either leave it as is, or go with birth year. He is playing third base today, so this isn't anything that is going to be settled on the diamond anytime soon. Canada Hky (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go with birth year. It's the way we've handled having two Frank Thomas's. The elder Frank Thomas played a few different positions, so it works to list him as Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1929) and the younger at Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1968). --Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with using birth year. It's objective, won't change and is unambiguous, making it the best for a disambiguator. It also has precedent.oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for photographs and images

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of baseball people if it contains the template {{WikiProject Baseball}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.--Traveler100 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Brian Anderson (right-handed pitcher)

Similar problem as Jose Bautista above, I'm pretty sure this should be reverted back; he was an outfielder for many seasons but just started converting to pitcher recently. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this as well, and I would agree. I see that his infobox says "Pitcher/Outfielder", which is even more obviously wrong, as he has yet to pitch in the majors. -Dewelar (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But he is a pitcher, regardless of the level at which he is pitching. Currently, the title "outfielder" is misleading as is "right-handed pitcher". --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it that big of a deal to rename it Brian Anderson (outfielder/pitcher)? I think we could just use common sense on this one. He is both a pitcher and outfielder. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He has yet to pitch in the Majors... his whole career to this point has been as an outfielder... it should stay there. Spanneraol (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, his major league career has been as an outfielder. He is still active, but in the minors where he is now a pitcher. Much like Adam Loewen who is both a pitcher and position player, although he has never made a major league appearance as such. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

His career as an outfielder is what makes him notable. That he is currently pitcher should be mentioned in the article, but not as part of the article title, nor in the infobox. Calling him a pitcher is nothing more than blatant recentism. -Dewelar (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. His career as a professional baseball player is what makes him notable. And as a professional player, he has played outfielder and now plays pitcher. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

~~It's also not recentism to cover the fact that he changed his position. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)~~

Resistance is futile. I'm dropping it. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Starlin Castro

With the kind of player he is, why is his page deemed insignificant and have barely any info on it? And whenever I add something, people delete it. Jntg4Games (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

His page can certainly have info added to it, but it needs to be sourced. Near as i can tell, you are trying to add the following blurb "Castro became one of the most popular Cubs almost instantly after his 6-RBI MLB debut. He has been labeled as "Savior of the Franchise" by many, a title that will be difficult to live up to." Stuff like that is an opinion and violates NPOV unless you can source that to some credible article. Spanneraol (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand why that was deleted. But if I uodate his stats or add the youngest player in the National League succession box like Jason Heyward has, they delete that too. JNTG4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.240.129 (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably just that someone's being lazy and using undo/rollback instead of manually editing the article, thus wiping out everything you did instead of just the fluff. -Dewelar (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've added the succession box. Part of the problem is that you did it wrong -- it goes year-by-year, so Heyward is no longer part of the succession at all. I also fixed Heyward's and F-Mart's pages. -Dewelar (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Herb Brett and Duke Brett are same person.--KANE SUE 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of; information from the former merged to the latter and the first has been deleted/redirected. — KV5 • Talk • 13:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FSN Baseball Report

The article FSN Baseball Report has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references did not sufficient content to meet the requirements of WP:N, I was not able to determine if the show is still aired. Fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of FSN Baseball Report for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article FSN Baseball Report, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FSN Baseball Report until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

1937 St. Louis Cardinals season

FYI, this article has been nominated for deletion. -Dewelar (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. It was very reassuring to see that the article had 11 supporters who wanted to keep it versus zero people who agreed with the potential deletion. Support for the article was so overwhelming that discussion ended after only 15 hours. What an outrageous waste of everybody's time! Monowi (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We really need to find out why people are trying to pass off the phrase, "Wikipedia is not a sports almanac," as though it is a guideline and part of WP:NOT. The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, something that most brand new users read on their talk page, says this on the very first pillar:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.

Administrator Stifle posted on my talk page that WP:NOT trumps the five pillars of Wikipedia, and therefore Wikipedia is not an almanac. However, he again failed to tell me where WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a almanac, after I had asked him previously on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2005 Little League World Series. This is a mess. Why is he allowed to do this? It's clearly spreading to other users, as they are now using it as a deletion rationale even though it contradicts the very foundation of what Wikipedia is. You can't say WP:NOT trumps WP:FIVEPILLARS when WP:FIVEPILLARS says Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs and WP:NOT says.. nothing about almanacs!! Deletionism is really starting to get out of control if they're now trying to kill the very first thing new editors read on their talk page. Vodello (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Especially when the Five Pillars, by their very nature, trump everything else! Just keep on it. The incorrect assertion about not being an almanac must be countered at every opportunity.oknazevad (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no use fighting Stifle. Especially alone and not being an admin. Vodello (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't all powerful. Their opinions do not carry anymore weight than any other user (though some forget that and like to act like they do). Frankly, if an admin is making incorrect assertions about the 5P, bring his behavior to WP:ANI. The 5 Pillars are the foundational purposes of Wikipedia. everything else is subject to them.oknazevad (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I know admins aren't all powerful, but Stifle is one of those admins with many, many friends, willing to back him up even if it means defying the five pillars. I'd rather not risk my account getting blocked by taking this to WP:ANI. Vodello (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey now, I'm an admin and I agree with you! :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its because people consider sports almanacs and almanacs in general to be different things. I think the idea is that WP:NOTSTATS is what they are trying to get at. Which is essentially what a sports almanac is, a listing of statistics. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is funny, because I remember the old World Almanacs I used to buy in the '70s having lots of sports statistics. The only thing these pages have that they didn't are the rosters (well, and the game logs, but those aren't on every page). -Dewelar (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying they are right, I !voted keep. I am just pointing out what I think the reasoning for people is. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I know :) . I'm just pointing out that even by their own reasoning, they're wrong. -Dewelar (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I missed this AfD, but I am glad that the correct decision was made. I am an admin and I think it was a very poor nom. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball teams by population

Anyone see a purpose in this list? I don't. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No I see that as a non-notable dissection. List-cruft basically. I would put it up for deletion -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This thing definately needs to be deleted. I don't even really understand what it is about. --Torsodog^Talk 01:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just nominated it for deletion. If he wants to contest the WP:PROD, he can defend it at WP:AFD. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note for the purposes of the project talk page that the List of Major League Baseball teams by population is vastly different now. All original research has been removed and the connection between population and teams has been better established. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I DO see a purpose. How many times during the year do you hear the term "small market teams"? This list quantifies that concept a little better. If they decide to delete it, I might just download it so I'll have it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] Cahaj, Joe; Carraway-Hinckle, Tamra (2004). Baseball in Mobile. Arcadia Publishing. p. 72. ISBN 0738515825. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

[1]