Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson

Check it out and leave criticisms if you have time. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As I continue to celebrate...

...I have nominated 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season for GA. Appropriate considering the championship. Reviews from any and all project members who have not contributed significantly to the article would be appreciated. If you'd rather not participate formally in the GA nom, you can leave suggestions for me or other contributors here or at the article talk. This would also be the first GA for WP:PHILLIES since it actually started (though we inherited one upon creation). Cheers! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why in the footnotes section after d, does it have the word "tying" repeated? I've this in other articles too. 69.136.60.6 (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Expatriate players categories

I've been having a discussion with Djsasso regarding the purpose of categories such as this one. He was removing these categories from some players, with the edit summary "no longer in japan", which I thought was incorrect, not by definition, but by how these categories are being used. In current usage, they seem to be used to catch all such players who have played in Japan, ever, and that is how I have treated the category to date. However, is this the purpose for which these categories are, or were, intended? As Djsasso has pointed out, this is not the traditional definition of expatriate, so perhaps a renaming is in order. Anyone have any ideas? -Dewelar (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Category:Major League Baseball players from Japan doesn't change, the matching form would seem to be Category:Nippon Professional Baseball players from the United States. Rklear (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll propose another question pertaining to this subject. If a player (Ex. Aaron Guiel) is in the Category:Canadian expatriate baseball players in Japan, should they also be in the Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan? Jackal4 (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, one should not be in the parent category of the sub-category they are in unless there is an extenuating circumstance. -Djsasso (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

It seems apparent to me from the "Reggie Sanders" discussion above that every time this issue it either ends without a change or it turns into "jousting with man-parts" as KV so eloquently puts it. However, one thing that does happen is that it pops up again at some point. I see the situation as if we have three options: (1) Keep the current format, formulate a formula to determine when a player is "retired", and be done with it. (2) Create a new template based on a current one, likely from another sport. (3) Create an entirely new template of our own, while solving the problems that are apparent with the current design. So this discussion doesn't turn into another one similar to those in the past we're either going to set a timetable for discussion, unless there is a runaway candidate. I am going to create three subtopics, to go with my three said options. I encourage everyone to add pros and cons that they see about each proposal, along with a discussion. I would like to set a tentative timetable of one week (ending November 25, 2008) at which point we can move onto the next phase. Hopefully in that week one option will emererge as the favorite, if not we can extend phase one. Though it may help, I hesitate to say we're going to vote because it is discouraged, but after a thorough discussion it might have to be a last resort. If you have any comments about the discussion please add it below, but try to keep any discussion about a specific template in its own sub-section. Thanks! Black ngold29 04:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the below discussion, I've decided to merge options II and III. Even if we base it off a current template, we will have to have some new elements or alterations. If you would like to base your model on another sport please create a bolded heading as per below. Black ngold29 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Option I: Keep current format, set guidelines

We dont need to go through the trouble of making new infoboxes just because of this issue.--Yankees10 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why is there such a huge problem in the discussion above? It seems to me unifying the templates would solve this issue. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see at all how it will fix the problem, we dont need to make a new infobox just re-name and make fixes to the Template:Infobox MLB retired--Yankees10 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Heres what I personally think we should do: change the name of the infobox to Infobox MLB inactive, and have guidelines so that after one year of a player being a free agent, then we change it to this infobox.--Yankees10 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, a suggestion! Does anybody else support or oppose this solution? I don't care which option we select, but I think it's pretty evident that saying: "Wait a year, then he's inactive" is a lot less trouble than a whole re-design. Black ngold29 01:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am neutral either way; obviously the first solution is easier, but maybe not the best solution over the long term. I believe that Option II/III below is the best long-term solution, but it requires a lot of work. So I will support whichever motion passes. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Both are viable solutions; that's why we're discussing it. This isn't a pissing match. We're not seeing whose is the biggest. No one is "right" or "wrong" while trying to arrive at consensus, unless they are breaking rules, which no one is right now. So explain, please, what you think is better about that particular solution. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just think it is much easier and better if we keep this infobox and just make the minor improvements, I personally like it and think that it is the best option.--Yankees10 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yankees10 obsession with retired userboxes is well-documented. One year is not a realistic threshold given that Tommy John surgery can easily wipe out 2 seasons (Rodrigo Lopez, Russ Ortiz, Vance Wilson). They are obviously still active.--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop saying that it is an obsession, its not obsession its common sense. Notice that I said that if a player is injured than they should still have the active one.--Yankees10 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I say we go with Yankees10's idea of changing the name from retired to inactive.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Iamawesome is a sockpuppet of Yankees10.--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No actually he is not, look into things before accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet--Yankees10 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As evidenced by the Reggie Sanders discussion, an attempt to keep the status quo and set guidelines will be futile, because I don't see how any definitive guideline could be created considering the nature of the "retirement/inactive" topic. I do not favor this option. Monowi (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Option II/III: New template

I don't understand the exact difference between 2 and 3, but option 1, the status quo, certainly is not acceptable in any way.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused, does Option II mean that one template will be created for players in all statuses? I think this would be the best option, with a status field which could be active, retired or inactive (based on above discussion of what retired versus inactive means). Hardnfast (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Option I is not the status quo, because there is no current formula to determine who is retired when, so that's the addition. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

With Option II, I meant it would be like "adopt this sport's template" with Option III we make are own original one. Now that you point it out they are pretty much the same option, perhaps we should eliminate II or III? Black ngold29 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

One template, using "inactive" in place of "retired", or just simply stating "current team = none". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Will this one template just cover playing careers, or will it include info on a player who goes on to be a manager, executive or umpire? I'm not thinking of a sports model here, but of something more like Template:Infobox Officeholder, which follows a politician around through multiple jobs in his/her career, essentially stacking one box on top of another. Rklear (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to take that into consideration, good idea! Black ngold29 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I like this particular idea immensely, and would put strong support behind a hybrid of the two ideas here; merge the morphable concepts and elements of the Officeholder template with the style and sports-appropriateness of the Ice Hockey template to create a single infobox that I think would be immensely helpful to this project. Now, who's going to make the bot to replace all of the other boxes...? Anyone...? *sigh*... KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You won't need a bot, the templates are so similar with input it's not funny! You only need to change the infobox MLB player (like i propose below) to allow for a couple of different options in the input. Which means a redirect of MLB retired to MLB player will work fine instead of a bot replacing the templates. —Borgarde^talk 01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to base model on Ice Hockey (blackngold29)

My personal favorite other sport is Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player it is simple and doesn't have all the Achievements that make some people's infobox gigantic. It is the same for current and retired players. Black ngold29 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Propose a merger of MLB retired and player

Note: Example shown of a merged template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Infobox test, with the merged template code located at Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox.

I propose a MERGER of the MLB retired and MLB player. It would be located at Template:Infobox MLB player, and the retired template would simply redirect to the player template. It would require a little updating to the code which I cannot since I am not an admin. But I had a go (this is far from finished) at Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox where i have added an MLB final game field - which is the only field different in the retired template! The only thing if someone could please take a look at the code is that I need a way for the current team field to go away when nothing is selected. Also, I need someone to take a look and make the option "awards" also allow for the option "highlights" instead, since this is what the retired template used for the same thing.

Now I think the priority should be merging, and if required a cosmetic change can come later! So please no arguments that is looks too ugly or something, that can all be fixed once the merger is complete. An example of the two shown next to each other is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Infobox test. —Borgarde^talk 01:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one other field different on the Retired template, which is "deathdate". -Dewelar (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good option to me, like my proposal it would not change once the player retires; we will have to have a criteria for how long to wait after adding the "last game" date, because that basically declares the player as retired. It woul obviously be easier to remove that if they come out of retirement since it keeps the same template. The deathdate should be a pretty simple fix. Black ngold29 02:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If we were to do this than I think we would have to change the color of the free agents--Yankees10 02:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's gonna take me a bit longer than I thought to get those other fields, this code is written in a way I'm not used to. So hopefully if I can't someone else can figure it out. —Borgarde^talk 02:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go and got deathdate in there which is working fine, I'm currently working on if Nothing is selected to remove the "team" on the bar. And in reply to Yankee, the free agency colour can be changed if this is a concern, not really a template issue. —Borgarde^talk 05:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am not being a pain, but can we also make the jersey number an optional thing for just active players--Yankees10 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just did that, tell me what you think please. —Borgarde^talk 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note, the "team" field should not be used at all if there is no current team. —Borgarde^talk 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the issue of "awards" also being name "highlights" as well. So there is no problem with that now for a merge to take place. —Borgarde^talk 05:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea. One unified template would hopefully make things easier for the editors of this project, and stem the tide of debate that is seen in places like the Reggie Sanders dicsussion. My suggestion for this proposal is that since the team colors were removed from the Retired Template, we could also remove any coloring from the new unified template, even if the player is active & playing for a particular team; my logic is that is would increase the consistency across player articles, and stem off any coloring debate if the player is a free agent. Another suggestion is that instead of a "Final Game" category, it could be called something like "Last MLB appearance" as a first step towards addressing the "retired/inactive" debate. Monowi (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the no colors, thats why I don't like the idea of merging these infoboxes. I dont like the idea of having to read the infobox to know if the player is retired or not and not having the colors would be even harder to see this. At least with the colors you can see that a player is still active. I like that when you look at the current retired infobox you can tell the player is retired just by looking at it, unfortunately with merging the templates you have to read it to see that he is retired.--Yankees10 05:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As an editor you understand that, but a simple reader who wandered to the page would have no idea just by looking at the infobox. I support the colours being removed as well, but am not going to take the colour issue further myself. If it's decided they should stay then so be it. —Borgarde^talk 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the colours thing isn't directly related to this template and can be taken away easily. It uses Template:MLBPrimaryColor and a secondary colour one to determine them. —Borgarde^talk 05:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From the standpoint of the infobox, is there any practical difference between "free agent", "inactive" and "retired"? I contend that there is not. You're either under contract with a team, or you're not. Saying you're a free agent amounts to self-promotion in hopes of getting a contract. Failing to announce retirement nurtures the same hope. And even retirement does not rule out a comeback. I am inactive and retired, and I could argue that I am a free agent. It's just that no one will sign me up or call my own agent. (Maybe it would help if my agent wasn't primarily an insurance agent. And maybe it would help if I had ever actually played major league ball. Whatever.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Main difference I think is that a "retired" player would show a "final game", an "inactive" player probably should, but a free agent who does not fall into either of the other two categories should not. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One solution would be, at the end of every season, post the most recent game the player has played in. Then you're covered. If the guy is obviously still active, or is a free agent considered likely to sign with someone (Manny Ramirez would be a good example), then just leave it blank, and it won't display, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well BB, that's how the merged template (Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox) will work. If the last game parameter is undefined then it won't show. —Borgarde^talk 08:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to try and gain a bit of consensus here, is anyone AGAINST the proposal I have put forward? —Borgarde^talk 08:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Im against it, not because you did a bad job, just that I dont like the idea.--Yankees10 17:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this merger. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this merger as well, at least in concept. I reserve the right to withdraw my support if I don't like how it turns out :) . -Dewelar (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am Agaisnt the merger. I dont get why they should be merged just because of this little issue. Both the NFL and NBA have there retired infoboxes based on this one and now we are just merging it and this is the only major sport that wouldnt have seperate infoboxes. I think this is a total mistake.--Yankees10 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because things are based on this doesn't mean we shouldn't change. What it means is that we as a project have been at the forefront of Wikinnovation in the past, and there is no reason that we shouldn't continue to be. Just because something is a certain way now doesn't mean it shouldn't change. Wikipedia is not paper, and it's not immutable, unchangeable fact. Things change; it's life. If criteria never evolved, we would be stuck in the past and nothing would ever change. That's why we have consensus, so that we can discuss and things can evolve piece by piece. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually think WP:FOOTY (soccer) are doing the best job at maintaining infoboxes, they have one infobox for all leagues, and you hardly see a football biography without an infobox. I think this is the way we should eventually go, but I'm not pushing that now, merging these infoboxes is the right step. —Borgarde^talk 02:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that WP:HOCKEY has a single box for retired and active. -Djsasso (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the concept of a merger: as there is no functional difference between the merged infobox and the two separate ones, I prefer one template over two, which requires less maintenance (no need to swap out one infobox for another when a player's career ends). As the colour distinction is being preserved with the current proposal, I don't see any other issues in this thread regarding a merger. (I understand there may still be disagreement on terminology for a player's status, but since the merged template can cope with whatever consensus is arrived at, this does not need to hold up a merger of the infoboxes.) Isaac Lin (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger. In fact, I support the NHL template (see above) which merges active, inactive, retired, and whatever else all into one. Black ngold29 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger of the templates. Monowi (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So the only difference is that there is only one infobox now? Active players still have their team's colors and inactive/retired players have no colors? If that's the case, then I support this merger. Jackal4 (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is enough support to go ahead and make this change now. I'll request the templates be updated. —Borgarde^talk 08:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There would need to be things taken care of still. I didn't realize the discussion was going on but i dunno if i like the idea. Mlb player looks nicer, but it's missing some things found in mlb retired. The two should've been streamlined before any merge. Wizardman 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What's missing? —Borgarde^talk 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I thought was missing in the transition was something I forgot to put in the infobox in the article I was working on. You guys are fine. Wizardman 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New combined NPB - MLB infobox

After the above discussion on infoboxes and the result of them being merged I have looked at a further option of one infobox for every player. The template essentially looks identical, the colouring will still be auto, retired/inactive blank. The template is located at Template:Infobox baseball biography and I've been testing it on NPB player articles and it seems to be fitting in fine.

Examples of a joint MLB/NPB usage are on Ichiro Suzuki and Daisuke Matsuzaka. I mainly created this because I've noticed for a while the pure MLB bias in the infoboxes of Japanese players, even if they are icons in Japan. (Suzuki being part of the Meikyukai - One of the Japanese Hall of Fames, and if like me you've ever been over there, everyone loves him no matter what team they support).

A combined infobox will allow all of this information to be present and will no longer make them purely MLB biased.

This will also work for any professional league, not necessary just NPB, can be extended to all top level leagues. —Borgarde^talk 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

Hi, I'm not a member of this project, BUT, I am a member of WikiProject Arena Football League, and we have a player named Aaron Boone, as do you guys. I recently created a page for Aaron Boone the Arena Football League player at Aaron Boone (American football). I would propose that we move Aaron Boone to Aaron Boone (baseball) and create a disambiguation page at currenty page, Aaron Boone. Cra sh Underride 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. Aaron Boone the baseball player is much more known and notable.--Yankees10 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This would be the same if, for instance, there was a minor league baseball player named Randy Moss. He'd be Randy Moss (baseball), and Randy Moss would keep his own page. -Dewelar (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at most of the disambiguation pages, most of them have one that is VERY well known, and then the rest you don't know who they are. So, that agrument doesn't carry any weight. Cra sh Underride 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As a counter example, we have Ryan Bowen, a basketball player, but Ryan Bowen (baseball), who is, not even a minor leaguer, but a former Major League Baseball player. No disambiguation page there, nor is one needed. There are a lot of examples like this as well. -Dewelar (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Bowen should be moved to Ryan Bowen (basketball). Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, OK, so that might not have been the best example, given that Ryan Bowen isn't that notable. A better example might be Jim Tatum vs. Jim Tatum (baseball). -Dewelar (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Tatum should be moved too Jim Tatum (Football coach) so that everyone knows WHICH guy the article talks about without havin' to wonder if they'll have to go to another article. (Would have replied sooner, was at a funeral.) Cra sh Underride 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, of course, Mike Tyson should also be moved to Mike Tyson (boxer). Perhaps George Washington should be moved to George Washington (politician) as well. There are baseball players by both of those names, too. Your arguments fail to convince me thus far. -Dewelar (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know with hockey we always go to (ice hockey) unless there is a clearly superior (in terms of notability) person. ie Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux would never have the (ice hockey) tag attached unless someone else just as rare came along. Anyways what I am getting at, unless they are hands an above a superstar (in terms of notability) compared to the other people we always go the disambig route. To use the Ryan Bowen example above we would have Ryan Bowen be the disambig page and put the brackets after both of them, because both made the major leagues in their sports and neither was a hands down household name. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why I started out with the "minor leaguer" example above. Aaron Boone is a Major League Baseball player, active in 2008, who has had at least one highly notable moment on the national stage fairly recently in the 2003 ALCS. Aaron Boone (American football) is a minor league football player whose NFL career is so nondescript as to barely rate a mention on his page. From that page, I don't even know if he ever even appeared in a major league (i.e., NFL) game. Given that minor league baseball players have been ruled not to meet WP:ATHLETE unless they were particularly notable, the information presented in his article may not even qualify him as notable enough to get a page. I'd say that's a disparity in notability that would rate keeping the pages as they are. -Dewelar (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also disagree with this move, FWIW. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the Bowen move, but definitely disagree with moving Boone per the reasons above. Wizardman 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dewelar, an athelete has played at the PROFESSIONAL level. I'll have you know, the Arena Football League is not a MINOR league. They are a PROFESSIONAL league. They are NOT the "farm system" to ANY league. Besides, Aaron Boone (American football) has been in the NFL. So get that right, right now. The AFL is not an "minor league." And George Washington, WTF?!? He's the only one with that name on here, not counting George Washington Carver, so what does that have to do with anything? Cra sh Underride 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You realize that the baseball minor leagues are professional leagues, right? Did you also know that there are a number of baseball leagues that are independent of affiliation with any major league club? The Atlantic League of Professional Baseball is one example. Despite this, they are called "minor league" because, well, they aren't the highest professional level. In that regard, the AFL is analogous to an independent baseball "minor league" because it isn't the NFL. Perhaps it's more analogous to the Mexican League, actually, or the old CBA in basketball.

Here's a test: how many players would still be in the AFL if they could get an NFL job? If the answer is zero, or fairly small, then it doesn't matter what you want to call it, the AFL is de facto a minor league. The fact that Boone is a small-scale star there after totally washing out of the NFL pretty much demonstrates that. Also, just because he was on an NFL roster does not mean that he played in the NFL, any more than the baseball minor leaguers who get called up in September and don't get into a game played in MLB. His page never mentions whether or not he appeared in an NFL game. If he didn't, then at this point, based on the baseball and basketball comparisons, he fails WP:ATHLETE.

As for George Washington, I'm talking about this player. Do you think, when a page is created for him, that someone will come and propose the move I mention above?

In any case, there's another solution. Create Aaron Boone (disambiguation) with links to both Aaron Boone and Aaron Boone (American football). No moving of pages necessary. -Dewelar (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Crash, the same thing can be said of others playing in Major League Soccer, or even better, how about the National Lacrosse League or the Women's Professional Football League, all of which are the "pinnacle" of their sports here in the USA. Don't they get paid to play professionally, too? Yet, there's no one trying to argue that they deserve top billing over someone in the major professional sports leagues of the United States and Canada, of which there is only four: NFL, MLB, NHL, and (unfortunately) NBA. The AFL is getting more recognizable, true, but it's still a 2nd tier sport. And as good as David Beckham is at "football", MLS is still 2nd tier as well. Sorry you have an inferiority complex about it, but it's the truth. Does it mean they don't work hard, or sometimes harder, than players on the "Big 4"? Not at all, and I actually am a fan of the Soul myself. But I realize its place in our society, and until there's a nationwide movement to change that, it will always be 2nd billing to the NFL. Dewelar meant nothing derogatory by it, but his point is right. Prove why the AFL player is better than the MLB player, and then, maybe, a dab could be discussed. Eagles Fan In Tampa 22:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that the wheel is being reinvented. The reason that the George Washington page is not a DAB page is because the American founding father is the primary topic. Per WP:DAB#Is there a primary topic?, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." Further down, it states, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". - BillCJ (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked through that section, and it's a bit murky. "Primary topic" is really a term of art here, and the whole article could use some streamlining. It reads like legalese. Anyway, I don't think "extended discussion" means "an extended period spent trying to convince one person", so my original opposition stands. -Dewelar (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IceFrappe

Can someone please assist in dealing with this user? His only purpose at this point is to revert a set of my edits and try to sound like what he is doing is valid. See Template:CurrentMLBclosers, Carlos Delgado, Template:MLBStartingCatchers, among others (he'll pick up another page each day lately to just constantly revert). All he's doing is being major ass. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He seeks out these kinds of things for just the purpose of playing this game, where he reverts just enough to annoy without technically violating WP:3RR. Every single edit he seems to have made, ever, is of this variety. See the infobox discussion above. I've got a bunch of these on my watchlist, and will do what I can to keep them in order. The Clemens page seems to be a favorite of his. -Dewelar (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get an admin to leave him a message becaue he doesn't listen to anybody and I thought maybe he would at least consider listening if an admin gave him a warning, but apparently this person didnt feel that it was necessary to get involved and ignored my post.--Yankees10 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning on his page (as an admin), I am pretty neutral to the situation cause I rarely if ever edit baseball articles other than very basic edits. -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

bad edits alert

JustSomeRandomGuy32 just doesn't get it. He has been edit warring in many baseball related articles to keep his preferred version without any reliable cites. Despite plea for calm and reason, he continue to edit war. He definatly violated 3RR on Template: CurrentMLBclosers. Can someone please stop his vandalistic pursuit? It is getting ridiculous.--IceFrappe (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry pal but you are wrong and have been wrong about every edit war you have been involved in--Yankees10 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have warned IceFrappe one last time, he continues and he will be blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at my contributions throughout the years. Carlos Delgado is a world champion. He was on the roster but did not play. I remember that explicitly. Tell JustSomeRandomGuy to find a source before randomly and unilaterally removing information. PERIOD. Djasasso is a biased admin by involving himself in reverting. How am I disruptive? He is the one who unilaterally remove information from articles. Most of the people he listed will never be starting catchers or closers. This just discredits the entire section of baseball in Wikipedia. Do any of you know anything about baseball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Issuing ultimatums just shows further that you are being disruptive. Please do not violate WP:NPA by dragging the name of a qualified and vetted administrator through the proverbial mud. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The edits he made were based on a source, your edits were not. It's really that simple, if you think Carlos Delgado is a world champion find a source saying he is one. RandomGuy is well within his rights as an editor to remove that unsourced information. As far as involving myself in reverting, I am well within my rights to revert to the original when someone is being disruptive on purpose. You blew way past WP:3RR, as such you have been blocked. Next time please discuss your disagreement on talk pages of articles instead of reverting and making comments in the edit summaries. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

IceFrappe, apart from the disagreement about whether or not Carlos Delgado should or shouldn't be listed as a World Series champion for 1993, in your reverts, you are also constantly changing the wikilink for Mike Jacobs from the correct link of Mike Jacobs (first baseman) (Mike Jacobs) to Mike Jacobs (baseball player) (Mike Jacobs). Mike Jacobs (baseball player) redirects to a disambiguation page for people named Mike Jacobs. Constantly reverting to a bad link does not help your credibility. Hardnfast (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

CC Sabathia

Please look at this History.

Vandalism happens frequently. Therefore, I think that the semi protection is necessary. --KANE SUE 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) My English may be inappropriate, because I am Japanese. If you discover a mistake, I want you to correct it

Done Madchester jumped on it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mets Reported Trade - Help!

Reported trade - not official yet - people are updating pages - please help protect some of them. J. J. Putz, Aaron Heilman, etc. Thanks... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind.... It's official now... 12 players... 3 teams... This is going to be a mess. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Initials in player names

Well... we need to try and settle this. User:Brewcrewer has attempted to move J. J. Putz to J.J. Putz, citing the original move 18+ months ago was by a now-banned user. It seemed to be settled at some point a bit later that using a space fit with WP:NCP, but now it's hard to find something for sure. The only thing there is the use of H. G. Wells, using a space. The discussion page is a mess of many arguments for and against the space, and seemed to go nowhere. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has a throwaway example also stating to use "H. G.", and not "H.G.". The same situation exists for players like A. J. Burnett (I'm pretty sure every current MLB player has a space in their names right now). Where do we go with this? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of a space is grammatically correct, which should be the end of the discussion. Even if it's not, under no circumstances is "J.J. Putz" a good solution. Either there's always a space, or there never is. Thus, it's either "J. J. Putz" or "J.J.Putz". -Dewelar (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet there is CC Sabathia. Go figure. Rklear (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a completely different animal, because that's an expressed personal preference by Sabathia. In the absence of such an expressed and citable preference, the general rule wins out. -Dewelar (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As JSRG showed with the provided link, the issue has been hashed out earlier on a general basis. A perusal of the discussion shows a slight preference to non-spacing. See this discussion, for example. I guess that's why WP:NCP doesn't even provide a MOS for initials. I really don't get the whole issue. The initials are written without a space by all RS and when people are commonly writing. Indeed, throughout the very articles of initialized people they are despaced. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All that shows me is that most people don't understand how grammar works. That doesn't surprise me a bit, either. -Dewelar (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

These were the first ones I thought of off the top of my head. All are spaced. The only counterexample I found was the name of a company, L.L.Bean. Not really instructive, I'd say, although I do note that both periods are de-spaced. Hence, if not J. J. Putz, then J.J.Putz, but never J.J. Putz. -Dewelar (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A few more quick examples:

J. R. R. Tolkien

P. T. Barnum

B. B. King

-Dewelar (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is the banned user referenced in the opening here? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Moe Epsilon was trying to do that, but he's not banned, he has edits even today. However, the space between the initials is standard form, and the version without the space is typically a redirect. W.C. Fields vs. W. C. Fields, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Log of J.J.Putz moves - Koavf it seems - I should have said 'often blocked' - not banned (now that I've taken a closer look). (this came from brewcrewer's comments on my talk page. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk)

It does look like most initialized people are spaced, but it's really strange. The fundamental rule in naming conventions is that we are supposed to use the name that is most frequently used. In general writing the initials are not spaced so why should we make an exception here. The blocked editor that I was referring to was User:Koavf (block log). He apparently was the major pusher of the spaced initials. Apparently, there's no rule in MOS regarding initials so there's nothing stopping editors from reaching a consensus regarding specific articles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a misunderstanding of the fundamental purpose of the "most commonly used" rule. It's meant to differentiate using "J. J. Putz" as opposed to, say, "Joseph J. Putz". It's not meant to use a more commonly used but less correct name. Otherwise, as an example, we would have the primary article at Camilla Parker-Bowles, not where it actually is, at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. -Dewelar (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there's no consensus that spacing them is "correct." Besides, one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia is that we don't care if the information if correct, only that it accurately describes what the RS said on the subject. Along the same lines, if RS commonly do not space initials we should be spacing them, whether or not it's "correct". Royal titles are a whole different story; they have their very own naming rules at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Absent consensus, one does not change how things are currently being done. As demonstrated above, the preference for actual article naming at the moment is to space initials. Whatever you think about my arguments, the spacing should remain for that reason alone. -Dewelar (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it's true that the guidelines, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), don't explicitly address the issue, it is noteworthy that the examples shown in the guidelines of "correct" naming conventions include spaces after the periods: H. G. Wells, P. D. Q. Bach, and Annie M. G. Schmidt. I agree with Dewelar that the spaces should remain. BRMo (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that nobody wants to be WP:BOLD around here. The only reasons given for spacing initials are "well, other articles have it". Do spaced initials make sense or not?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Put me down for preferring the space. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I think this is basically a solution in search of a problem. Doing something like this after a long and inconclusive discussion about it isn't being bold, it's being disruptive. -Dewelar (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's actually something that many people have been blocked for being unilaterally bold about. It's something best left alone with the space is my opinion. This is one of the WP:Perpetual arguements and I think its basically no-consensus but its leaning slightly towards having the space. Atleast it was way back when Kvoaf went through hundreds of articles and boldly changed it and subsequently got blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I still hope one editor would explain why the name of the article should conflict how the name is used all over including in the very article. Btw, I'm not proposing that every article be changed. This is not the forum for such a discussion. All I want is that my new set-up man should have a normal article name :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see I'm not an editor any more. Thanks for that.

To reiterate: it should be left with a space for at least the following two reasons:

It's the grammatically correct way of writing names.
It's the current Wikipedia standard, and there's no consensus to change it.

-Dewelar (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez! Please calm the heck down. I have no idea what you are getting all insulted about. I don't even understand what you think I meant. In any case, I'm trying to have a civilized conversation and your paranoid/browbeating/condescending numbered comments aren't really helping. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a hint of why I'm insulted: "I still hope one editor would explain why the name of the article should conflict how the name is used all over including in the very article." What am I, then? A block of cheese? ;-) -Dewelar (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. There's a whole bunch of editors that commented on this thread and I'm not referring to any specific editor and I'm certainly not trying to insult anyone. But back to my point, if I may. I'm asking for a logical explanation for the separated initials. The answers provided are "its correct" and "that's just the way it is." The former is a circulus in probando and the latter is an argumentum ad antiquitatem. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your case, without consensus, the latter is pretty much the way Wikipedia works. It's not my argument, it's the entire project's. Go argue it at WP:RULES. As for the former...are you honestly asking me to explain why the rules of punctuation are what they are? I can try to find out, I suppose. Next you'll be asking me to justify the existence of the semi-colon. -Dewelar (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, I am researching this. I haven't found a justification for why initials should have spaces, but I have found one for why this rule often gets ignored here:

No word space should be used between the initials of an abbreviation or a person’s name. U.S., J.B. White
Note: Grammatical rules regarding punctuation are often bent for the sake of visual appeal, especially in headings or display type.

So the answer appears to be "ignore the rule because it looks better if you do." If Wikipedia considers appearance above correctness, I can't really do anything about that, I suppose :) . -Dewelar (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your misstating when you say that "it's the entire project's" consensus to have spaced initials. Please see the links at the beginning of the discussion. There surely isn't a consensus to have spaces, if anything to the contrary. Indeed, notwithstanding article names, in the body of the articles, initials are never separated. Moreover, the link that you provide above clearly states that the grammatically correct form for initials are without spaces. In any case, I am not asking for explanations of Wikipedia rules. I'm quite familiar with WP:CONSENSUS. Indeed this very WP policy discourages the inhibition of discussions relating to article changes in the name of a "rule." A consensus is what I am trying to - so far unsuccessfully - achieve over here. Thus, to state that my proposal is wrong because it violates WP:CONSENSUS, turns WP:CONSENSUS on its head. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what he is getting at is that silence equals consensus on wikipedia, and the fact that most articles have the space in their names indicates that the community has agreed they should have a space there. -Djsasso (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Essentially correct.

The only thing I referred to as "the entire project's consensus" is the concept of needing WP:CONSENSUS itself to make changes to existing policy. You claimed that this was an argument from tradition, which, while technically true, is also actual policy. If you are familiar with the concept of consensus, you already know that, and yet you say it's an invalid argument. If you're not going to accept Wikipedia's own policy on how to handle these things, I can't really do anything about that.

Anyway, the closest thing Wikipedia has to a policy regarding spacing between initials is the examples used on the naming conventions pages, which show spaces being used. When you take that, together with the fact that all (or nearly all) prominent pages for persons who are known by their initials (and do not have a stated, cite-able preference otherwise) use a space, we have a de facto policy that spaces are to be used, as Djsasso has stated above.

As per the discussion above, no consensus could be established regarding whether spaces should be used or not, so the proper procedure is to leave things as they are. On the other hand, the consensus within this discussion seems to be on the side of spaces, with you being the only editor currently arguing against them.

Now, if you don't have another argument in favor of the change other than "that's how source [x] does it, so we need to do it that way, too," I can't help you. -Dewelar (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help me. That's an interesting claim that you're making - the rule of WP:CONSENSUS was itself created by a consensus. I don't know why this WP history is relevant and I surely don't understand why you thought it answered my question. When I asked for an explanation for the spaced initials idea I was asking for the logical explanation, nothing to do with WP policy.

As for this "consensus", if all we had were the "facts on the ground" I would agree that there is an implicit consensus for the spaced initials. However, as the wikilinks at the beginning of the thread will attest, there clearly is no consensus. I would not make a bid deal about the fact most of the articles are spaced since most of the articles were spaced by a now-banned editor. On the other hand, most, if not all, RS's don't use spaces, and initials in article mainspace are never spaced. Thus, there surely is nothing wrong with making determinations on specific articles.

What I'm trying to say here is that if editors here want spaces in initials then clearly there is no consensus for the move. Everyone is entitled to their reason for wanting spaces. But to want spaced initials because "we have to have spaces" is frustratingly wrong. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I can't even begin to count the number of mischaracterizations of what I'm saying that you've made in this thread, but this particular post takes the cake. Try and step back from your frustration and actually follow what I'm saying. If "we have to have spaces just because we do" was ever the argument being made, I'd agree with you. On the other hand, "rules of punctuation" carries a lot more weight. If you want to equate actual rules of the English language with your straw man here, then again, that's not my problem. It's not about what anybody "wants". You apparently want the rules of the English language to be explained to be logical, but sadly, they are not. Perhaps you'd prefer we did the entirety of Wikipedia in Esperanto.

Quite simply, there should be spaces between initials for the same reason the word "and" should be spelled "a-n-d". That's the rule. Just because sources do it wrong doesn't mean we have to do it wrong as well. I've seen plenty of reliable sources use the construction "should of" instead of "should have". I've seen plenty of reliable sources that use "miniscule" instead of "minuscule". We should not allow other people's ignorance to become our own. -Dewelar (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You actually spent time reseraching the matter and all you were able to come up with was a reliable source that flatout contradicts your assertions. I would think you would have some sort of reason for ignoring proper grammar rules. But if you don't that's fine as well. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exciting and all, but can you two either tone it down or take this somewhere else? How about WT:NCP? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already been hashed out over there multiple times and apparently there was no consensus there. I figured that if a consensus cannot be reached regarding all articles atleast it can be reached on single articles or in specific projects. Its apparently not going anywhere here either so all that's left is the residual .....whatever. It should end soon :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Some input from me: These sources [1], [2] support one side, the source above and this source [3] support the other. There truly is no consensus. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that sources related to journalism (as cite 3 above and the Clemson resource are) advise one to omit the spaces. However, as the Clemson resource noted, they are admitting to bending the actual rule so that it "looks better". In any case, I didn't realize that Brewcrewer was looking for cites of the actual rule rather than what he asked for, which was "why" it is done this way. For that, all one has to do is look at a non-journalism-related guide to rules of English punctuation. I went through a fair number before finding the Clemson source. Like I said, if the Wikipedia standard were to change, that's fine. I will disagree with it, but I will accept it. Until it does, however, the standard is to space it.

I promise that my next post on this subject, should there be one, will be somewhere more appropriate. I'm not sure NCP is the right place, though. Is there a forum for discussing which grammatical rules to obey and which not to obey somewhere ;-) ? -Dewelar (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Washington Nationals Wikiproject

I'm considering trying to create a Wikiproject for the Washington Nationals. Likely myself, and some other folks from WNFF.net will be helping to keep the Nationals Articles accurate and current.

just figured I'd run this past you guys, since you are are doing a decent enough job as is, we just want to help out.

plus I can't seem to figure out exactly how to make/propose the Wikiproject anyway. JMWhiteIV (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a page to propose one (I don't recall exactly where it is), but it has seemed to be that the general idea has been to keep individual baseball projects to teams with much longer histories than the Nationals. If you are going to be doing the Expos too, you really should indicate that, since for some reason, we treat them as two separate teams (NOT dredging up the past!). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposal page can be found here although you don't really need anyone's permission to start it. It would probably be a good idea to make sure that you have atleast four or five people to start. You don't have to have a project to improve articles related to the team, if you want to collaborate you can use each other's talk pages. black ngold29 01:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Y'all should just create it as a task force of the baseball project like WP:HOCKEY does with individual teams. -Djsasso (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nats in DC only have a few years of history. How about a project that discusses Washington baseball in general, which has a fairly rich history. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the general Washington baseball idea. Whatever you decide to do, I'll support it. jj137 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 Philadelphia Phillies season

We're having some contract-related issues at this page, as there were at Raul Ibanez before it was protected. User:NoseNuggets has been adding information to the page that violates WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, in particular adding non-finalized contracts and speculation about the return of free agents or injured players. Diff provided for reference. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The user refuses to use talk pages, though sections have been started for each discussion. The user also continues to revert. I can not revert any more, for fear of WP:3RR. Help necessary. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Manager, GM, owner lists

In my recent work on List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners, it was recomended that I move the GMs and owners to another list to keep all teams the same. I'm kind of split on the decision, because I think it looks fine with all three, but I agree all teams lists should look similar. I am going to nominate the list of managers for FLC regardless of the GMs or owners being listed, but if I move them to a new list I doubt that List of Pirates owners has enough to become an FL. So—as I see it—it's one FL (with everything) or one FL (managers) and one regular list (Owners and GMs). Between those two options I'm leaning toward the first, but does anyone else have any thoughts on it? Thanks. black ngold29 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would vote for consistency. Either the owners and GMs should be on all the team manager lists, or they should be on none of them. I honestly don't care which. -Dewelar (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources to reference the other facts, I say go for it. I removed the general managers from the current Orioles managers FLC because I had no reliable sources, whereas in the Phillies managers FL, I had a source. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Game logs

I made this a while ago in hopes that a general effort might be started to work more efficiently on the game logs in the season articles. Does anyone have any interest in "revamping" it (even though it was never really started)? jj137 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why we even need baseball game logs, which require a great deal of tedious effort, when various external links (like Retrosheet) have already done this work for us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

True indeed. I don't completely support the idea because of that, I was just wondering specifically if anyone liked the idea. jj137 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care for the idea of them, just seems like too much work for too little output. On the season articles we could just put an external link to the game logs. Wizardman 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If we do stick with them I came up with some templates to eliminate the hard coding (see 2008 Detroit Tigers season#Game log, from August on). Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to also voice my distaste for game logs in general, especially those that are within a team-season article. They're a pain to work around when editing articles, and they're often loaded with links to disambiguation pages and other badness. I'd just as soon do away with them altogether as well. -Dewelar (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lose them. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then :) I have seldom worked on them lately, so I'll just drop the idea since the consensus is that they're unneeded. jj137 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

Since this proposal affects your project, I think its only fair your project be notified since the proposer has not. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) -Djsasso (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing. Again. I am under no obligation to notify every single wikiproject that creates sports bio articles (over 100 of them). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your baseless ~~whining~~ complaining about "canvassing" is counter-productive. I'm glad somebody informed the relevant projects. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For further information, check out WP:ANI about User:Tavix who has decided he's the authority on how to designate player

names. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to defend myself, I never said that I had the authority to do so. Please don't twist my words around. Tavix (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to defend Bugs, he never said you said you had the authority, he just said that you've decided that you have the authority, which can be inferred directly from your actions. No twisting necessary. -Dewelar (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That being said, I think it was part of one of the football projects leads that he was following when he was making those changes as the football project started making those changes a few months ago. The proposal is actually to stop ice hockey and baseball from using those disambiguators and to make us use ice hockey player and baseball player. Which is a different situation from what he was doing. -Djsasso (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That last is a falsehood. The draft proposal is to more adequately cover sportsfigure naming conventions, as the details are more thorny than can be covered in WP:NCP, which is already over-long. This entails, in small part, normalizing them into a cohesive convention that follows both WP:DAB and the spirit of WP:NCP more generally. Yes, it does raise issues with both ice hockey and baseball player article disambiguations, as it does with any other dabs that do not follow the standard "(field role)" or one-word "(role-in-field)" dab format. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

category names

I have proposed two different categories for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 27. The Taiwan category is fairly straightforward, but, the other one has me waffling a bit. I'm hoping that members of the baseball project can come over there and comment. Thanks! Neier (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1876-1880 Reds

I'm posting this at the old-time task force talk page as well, but I'm not certain how active it is, so am posting it here as well.

I notice there is no separate category for the players from this team, and they seem to be lumped in with the team that was founded in 1882. On various pages, I see conflicting information regarding whether or not the two teams were the same organization, but most of what I've seen indicates they were not. Can we establish once and for all whether or not they are the same team?

In any case, I'm going to go ahead and create the new category, and will go through and move players into it, but beyond that there are probably a number of pages that will need to be reviewed to address this issue. -Dewelar (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Total Ballclubs by Donald Dewey and Nicholas Acocella, which is one of the best sources available on team histories, treats them as separate teams. The uncertainty probably derives from the fact that one of the co-founders of the 1882 AA team, Justus Thorner, was a former president of the 1876-80 NL team. However, it appears that Thorner had turned the reins over to W. H. Kennett before the Reds were expelled from the NL in 1880, so the ownership of the new team was not the same as the final version of the old NL team. BRMo (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been treating them as two seperate teams, but have not gone through and corrected all the players' information to reflect this, figured either I, or someone else would get around to it. BTW, I have been one of the few people keeping the Old-time taskforce alive. So if a message is left there, at least one person would get the message...me.Neonblak ^talk - 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Further follow-up is on the oldtime task force page for those interested. -Dewelar (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Teixeira

Everyone who knows anything about baseball knows that this guy is in a tentative deal with Yankees. There are endless citable sources on the matter. Yet certain editors want to pretend it ain't so, and keep reverting it. This makes no sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See the section above on the Sabathia signing. In that situation, editors were jumping the gun with his Yankee signing, even though it was only agreed in principle at the time. With WP:CRYSTAL, we don't give emphasis on predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And I say you are mis-applying the crystal ball rule. If I said he had signed, that would be crystal ball, as well as apparently being incorrect. To say they have a tentative agreement is NOT crystal ball, it is a widely reported fact. If the deal falls through, it falls through, and he's back to being a free agent. Hence the term "tentative" or "preliminary" or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Again WP:CRYSTAL states: avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. We only report on the completion of his signing; not that it's in progress, a likelihood, it's preliminary, it's tentative, etc. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we go by what the sources say, and they all say he's in a tentative agreement. Don't make wikipedia look stupid by contradicting what the sources say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that I agree a tentative agreement does not put him on the roster. But it does mean hands off to the other 29 clubs. And that's why it's misleading to state that he's a free agent without further qualifying it with the widely-verifiable report that he's in a tentative agreement with the Yankees. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at all the comments in the ESPN article. [4] Other clubs are talking about it as a done deal. Oh, but what do they know? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Last week, ESPN had "an anonymous source" that claimed that Furcal had "reached a preliminary deal" with the Braves. This unpredictability in professional sport signing and trades is why WP:CRYSTAL stresses that we don't overhaul an entire article based on a tentative transaction. --Madchester (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT crystal ball to report the story as it stands now, nor would it have been in Furcal's case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that regardless of how likely it is - or not - that Teixeira will sign with the Yankees, Wikipedia is not about reporting the news as it comes to hand - that's what Wikinews is for. Assuming that he does eventually sign, it would seem reasonable to refer to this period of negotiation/consideration, but until that happens he could still wind up playing for another team, or even remain a free agent. Afaber012 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The way around crystal in this situation is simply to add a note somewhere in the article that its currently being reported that he signed a tentative deal and put the source in. But I would leave him listed as a free agent and make it clear that its not an officially done deal. -Djsasso (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In watching ESPN Sports Reporters today, in which it's clear that everyone in the baseball world considers it a done deal, it makes wikipedia look like it's in some kind of fantasy world to pretend that the guy is still a free agent. It is perfectly appropriate, in the lead, to say that it's widely reported that he's reached an agreement. To deny that fact makes wikipedia look pendantic, behind the curve, and just plain stupid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't use phrases like "widely reported" per WP:WEASEL.

News media are free to talk about future events as if they're facts; we don't have that luxury on Wikipedia. Sport analysts talk about a draft pick "as a cornerstone of a team", only to be traded minutes later. We've also had the recent Cabrera-Cameron and Furcal tentative agreements which were widely reported as if they were complete, but of course those deals all fell through. --Madchester (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just media, it's everyone in baseball. Thank you for your contributions to making wikipedia look stupid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for news coverage; there is no need to rush and enter facts prematurely; Wikipedia will be around for a long time to come. That being said, for cases where there is no controversy on there being a tentative deal in place, I have no issue with mentioning it with appropriate sources (the tentative deal being a fact and of significance to the player's biography). However, the player's official status should remain as is until it officially changes. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. There is a special banner for "fast-changing events" that is used on anything connected with news - like an election, a death, or any major news event. The problem is that the lead says he's a free agent, as if he were still free to sign with any team. That is patently untrue. Stop trying to make wikipedia look stupid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As a free agent he's still free to sign with any team. Didn't stop Furcal from backing out of a tentative deal with the Braves to re-join the Dodgers. Likewise, Robinho spent the entire summer saying he would be signing with Chelsea F.C.; the club's chief executive was confident the move was inevitable. Ultimately, Robinho joined Manchester City F.C. on a last-minute deal. The point of WP:CRYSTAL is to prevent editors from adding speculative roster information, when it has not been completed. --Madchester (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Except nobody cares about Furcal. This is being treated like a done deal, by everyone except wikipedia, and it will be a major shock if it falls through. And it's not "crystal" to report that there's a tentative deal. Would it appease you to put the "current event" banner on the page??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:N, "[the] common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." Therefore, it is certainly not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL to post in the article that he has reached a tentative agreement, a la Chan Ho Park; however, the lead of the article and infobox must remain in a free agent status until the signing is official. That's where the line should be drawn. As always, just my two cents. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above to the extent that wp:crystal does not apply to something widely reported and to the extent that the infobox should not change unless it is official. Where I disagree, is that the lede should include the agreement information. At this time, the signing is the most notable aspect and is what people are looking for when they are reading the bio. At a later time, when the whole thing dies down, the signing details should be removed from the lede and merged into its propor section. Baseball Bugs said it best, it otherwise "makes Wikipedia look stupid". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with you that the tentative deal should be noted in the article's introduction. I do not believe that your characterization of my comment is accurate.

News events that are in themselves noteworthy of coverage are indeed marked with a banner, but there is no need to cover the blow-by-blow of a normal occurrence, and even for noteworthy events, the articles are supposed to be written in an analytical manner, summarizing the key events, and not a minute-by-minute accounting. The result of a player signing is noteworthy; the details of how it happened are usually not (and Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS specifically states "Routine news coverage of such things as ... sports ... [is] not sufficient basis for an article.") Isaac Lin (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to with mischaracterization of comments. I wasn't referring to anything you said. ~~As a matter of fact, this looks like your first post on this thread~~. In any case, I see that we mostly agree. I agree with you that the signing should be in the lede, but at the same time the lede should not be overdetailed. We are an encyclopedia after all, not a news site. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing that I worry about in this case is that by adding the information to the lead but not the infobox, we invite vandalism or more unconstructive edits and reversions because the two won't match. We should be spending our time working, not fighting off the crazies. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Although not terribly important, I would prefer that in the infobox, the "current status" of signed-but-not-official players be left blank instead of listing the "real" current team or "free agent". This would alleviate the angst of all the IP's :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How about an attempt at compromise; does the box have a problem with having other things besides "free agent" or a team name? I know that it obviously doesn't recognize misspelled team names, so maybe we could try something like ~~"tentative deal" or "Agreed to deal"~~ "Contract pending", followed by the team abbreviation (i.e., PHI). I'm sure there is a more efficient or appropriate way to say that, but it would avoid the issues that we've been having while still providing the necessary information. Thoughts? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. We would also need "trade pending" for trades. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly possible, though I think that is a touchier issue because the player is under contract rather than unsigned. Maybe we just address this issue for now and refer back to this when the Hot Stove starts. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: it's hard to see with this indention convention; my comments were a followup to the reply to my initial reply. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

As above, we propose to the project that for all players signing deals that are not yet official (i.e., still pending physicals, etc.) should be denoted with a mention in the lead (as well as the article space, and only with refs of course) and by changing "Free agent" to "Contract pending (NYY)", where "NYY" is a link to the appropriate team. Please indicate your feelings toward the proposal with the appropriate !vote below.

Support

Support as proposer. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Support proposal for infobox modification and proposal for brief mention in lede. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Very weak support Generally reasonable, and better than the current situation. However, I would prefer "can (or perhaps may) be denoted" as opposed to "should be denoted", and would also like to see some mention that the tentatively-signing team should not be listed in the "Teams" section of the infobox. -Dewelar (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, may I ask why no denotion of team? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the "Teams" field should be reserved for teams for whom the player has already played. I already object to the way things are done now, such as the spot on CC Sabathia's page where it states "New York Yankees (2009-present)", if for no other reason than it looks like nonsense, but I understand that this is done so that there doesn't have to be a mass edit on Opening Day. There is no such reason to list it there when a player hasn't even officially been signed yet. -Dewelar (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I thought you meant under the current team. I strongly agree with this position. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Strong Oppose Most of the time, 'tentative agreements' are unconfirmed. No team officially comments on a deal 'on the record' until it's signed (after the physical is passed) - and until then a player is 100% a free agent. If you allow any sort of 'contract pending' in the infobox, then you open up a Pandora's Box for the time at which its ok to place it there - people will want to update at the first sign of any rumor, which is ridiculous and completely inaccurate. It's a very simple standard policy right now... either an active player is a member of an organization - or he is a free agent... there can't be any definitive middle ground (as long as this is to remain an encyclopedia and not become a collection of fan pages....) Just look at what happened with Rafael Furcal - everyone was sure that a deal was reached - turns out even the Braves were fooled. Same has to go for trades... look at the Melky Cabrera-Mike Cameron trade that never happened. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
As stated explicitly by the nominator, this proposal is limited to trades that are mentioned in reliable sources. Rumors alone would not change a player's status. When reliable sources report on a trade, 99% of the time the trade ends up happening. Although at times the deals will fall apart those rare events do not trump the very problematic current scheme. The current scheme, in which you are busy edit-warring with IP's is unacceptable, not only because of the general WP policy against edit-warring, but because it frustrates potential new editors and will discourage their greater participation and contributions. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Fine - I quit JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: On principle, I agree with JSRG32. I only very weakly support this proposal on the basis that there's a reasonable chance that it will limit the amount of time we waste reverting. If that doesn't happen, then there's no point to doing this at all. -Dewelar (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons JSRG32 stated. A mention of the "pending" transaction is definitely necessary in the intro paragraph, but the infobox should summarize what is in the article. The article won't state the player in on the team until the "deal" is finalized. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be the summary of the article, not the infobox. Ergo, if the lead is going to mention a deal, it needs to be mentioned and referenced in the article. I have no problem not showing the team in the infobox, but not mentioning a pending deal in both locations would be in conflict with WP:MOS. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Then put the information in the article too. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The proposal states that this is a requirement (or a necessary part of inclusion of contract info). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with X96lee15. The infobox is only suppose to be a summary and isn't supposed to be the article in a box. I don't care where in the page its mentioned that there is a pending possible deal, but it shouldn't be in the infobox. -Djsasso (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Per Help:Infobox, "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject." In addition, WP:LEAD states that "Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, and therefore should be put before any text." We are trying to achieve a consistent way to do this while cutting down on edit wars and to improve navigation to the appropriate articles. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Which is exactly my point. Not every detail needs to be summerized in the infobox. Make a note somewhere in the article prose and thats as far as it needs to go. -Djsasso (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But this is part of what causes the current problems. People see "tentative deal" and think "I will help by changing this infobox," etc. etc. etc.. Then we have edit wars and reversions out the wazoo. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess I don't agree that it's that huge an issue. I am more involved with the hockey project and I know we don't touch teams in the infobox until a player has played for the team for WP:CRYSTAL reasons. Anything could happen before the first game up to and including death (which has happened unfortunately). -Djsasso (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The precedent across all sport Wikiprojects is to follow WP:CRYSTAL. Namely, we only change the main team details after an official signing. As an admin, I've seen too many times when editors crystal-ball the outcome of such sport signings; whether it's the madness of the football transfer window or editors assuming that an NBA draft pick is a automatically a player on the team - before he has even signs a rookie contract or makes the first cut during preseason. A contract signing or trade doesn't follow a set schedule like the Olympics or the Nobel Prize. So when a transaction is only "preliminary" or "tentative" we can't treat it as an event that must/could/should occur. --Madchester (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On principle, Madchester, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, the purpose of this is not to circumvent WP:CRYSTAL. It is to report material that is published verifiably and in reliable sources. I understand the policies, but I also understand the concerns of users that believe WP:CRYSTAL is being misinterpreted here. I'm trying to find a middle-of-the-road compromise to get closer to an actual consensus instead of arguments and edit wars. In particular, I refer to the following excerpt from WP:CRYSTAL: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." I also read that "predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative" shouldn't be used. However, this is nothing to do with a line-up; it has to do with a signing, which can be verified through reliable sources, whether official or not. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL is not law. Per WP:IAR, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is an attempt to both improve and better maintain the 'Pedia. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Tex is currently not on the NYY roster. CC and AJ were only added after their official signings were announced. You're either a member of team or you're not. When a player has made a "preliminary agreement" or a "tentative deal" he's as much a member of that team as you, me, or any Wiki editor. Just wait for a reliable source indicating that he's signed with the team; there's some misconception that we break the news on Wiki, when we should only be reporting what is verifiable, not what may/could be verifiable. --Madchester (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. We are dealing with verifiable information only. When there are multiple reliable sources claiming that there is an agreement, this information is what is of interest to the readers of the article. Hiding this verifiable agreement and not allowing that it given prominence in the article does a great unjustice to readers that are looking for this verifiable information. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Madchester:You go around continuously repeating WP:CRYSTAL, and it's most shocking that someone who has been along as long you is so grossly misinterpreting a basic WP policy. Not everything that is possible and in the future violates WP:CRYSTAL. The WP:CRYSTAL policy explicitly states:

“

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced

”

All we are proposing is that when reliable sources are claiming that a deal has been reached, these reports should be mentioned in the lead and in the in the infobox. This information is ususally what is of interest to the readers of the bios and will also avoid the nasty edit warring that is going on under the current scheme. There are so many wasted edits gone towards these reverts and so many unnecessary protected articles. Please offer an alternative proposal to the current disastrous scheme. Unless you guys want to spend your time on WP reverting and locking articles.......--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with editing/reverting article to follow existing protocol and official policy; considering it's being followed across all sport Wikiprojects. There's already a sub-section devoted to his reported deal with the Yankees; however such details of speculative nature do not belong in the lede, let alone an entire re-edit of an article. Cheers :-) --Madchester (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Although your response was a bit vague, I'll take it that you admit that when multiple reliable sources are reporting that there is an agreement, [WP:CRYSTAL]] is inapplicable. Let me know if I'm misinterpreting your comments. Thanks, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the only reliable source as to whether he is signed or not is the team and the player. So until either of them speak there technically no reliable sources for this situation. -Djsasso (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS does not require that we investigate the source of the reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what I am saying, reliable sources for one topic might not be considered reliable sources for another. Just because something is a reliable source for one thing does not automatically make it reliable for everything. -Djsasso (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is your assertion based on something in WP:RS or is it just your opinion?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. Despite being trustworthy to give the normal sports info, most of these so called reliable sources have a very poor track record on rumours, which is all this is at the moment until officially announced. So their track record on rumours makes them an unreliable source. -Djsasso (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the proposal. We are not talking about rumors. We are talking about officially announced trades that are not finalized. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the proposal. It says not yet official which would indicate this proposal is about trades/signings that have not been officially announced. -Djsasso (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We are dealing with officially announced ~~trades~~[signings] that are not finalized. One such example is Mark Teixeira. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually we were talking about trades that are not officially anounced by the teams but that have been reported by a number of news sources as being done, like Mark Teixeira. -Djsasso (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Yankees announced that they have reached an agreement with Teixeira. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

They hadn't when this proposal had started. -Djsasso (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So can I take it now that you would support an infobox modification of "contract pending" when multiple reliable sources have reported that there is an agreement that is just pending a physical before it becomes official?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If and when the team itself announces it I have no problem with it, but upon researching Teixeira some more I see that the Yankees still have not announced the signing. -Djsasso (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"you have no problem with it" once they announce it. That's quite liberal of you. I thought you might insist that he play for a year before we change the article :-) In any case, I still think that you are under some sort of misconception of what we are trying to do over here. We are not dealing with rumors. When multiple reliable sources report that there's an agreement that is pending becoming official due to a physicial they are right 99.9% of the time. Nobody is questioning the reliability of the newspaper accounts regarding the signing. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's that .1% that makes it violate WP:CRYSTAL. -Djsasso (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not WP:CRYSTAL. We are reporting his current status - he came to an agreement but it's not offical. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Yankees.... haven't... announced... anything... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose modification of Infobox based on "reported" or "pending" signings that are not official. When and only when it's officially announced that the contract's inked, is the appropriate time to update the Infobox. We also need to bear in mind WP:UNDUE (prominence of placement) and WP:NOT#NEWS for including news stories in the Lead that might better belong in Wikinews, after all. I think that, as an encyclopedia, it's not a good idea to include news media speculation and unconfirmed reports about pending deals in a player's article Lead/Infobox, even if it's the New York Times or the Sporting News doing the reporting. JGHowes ^talk 01:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #2

TROUT slap everyone who is making a big deal about this issue. An extra mighty trout slap for anyone who is threatening to quit the project over this! How about every time you feel the urge to war with a group of IPs during free agency season - or feel the urge to even respond to this stupid note of mine - go write an entire new article instead? Our cup runneth over with people turning every corner of Wikipedia into a battleground. WP:ANI is thataway for anyone addicted to that nonsense. Resist the urge and write an encyclopedia instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cause sometimes the IPs are mucking around with the new article I'm writing ;). Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if someone quits because of this, chances are they were going to quit over some artificial drama sooner or later. WWMTD? (what would Mark Teixeira do?) The answer is simple: agree to a preliminary deal with the Yankees for $180 million - if we all just did that, I think Wikipedia would be a better place. :-) Seriously though, I'm with Wknight on this one. Wickethewok (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support jj137 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:MLB seasons

Is it just me (or my browser) or is Template:MLB seasons seriously screwed up? I'm just noticing it; a user did a bunch of editing back in November and either I'm not getting something or he made some mistakes along the way. faithless (^speak) 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something is causing it to not flow across the screen. It looks like it happened when he split the four-division era into four- and six- division eras (which makes sense to me). Mackensen (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like that's intentional. If you notice, there's 10 columns of years, and 10 years in a decade. That way, at a quick glance, you can find the decade you're looking for, and then the year, since each column is year 19X0, 19X1, 19X2, etc. I agree that if it's going to be in this format that the box itself should be shrunk, and I'll work on making it narrower, but otherwise, I think it was a good edit on what was done. It makes it more uniform and user-friendly, IMHO. Any thoughts? Eagles Fan In Tampa 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. I noticed that he make a new "six-division era" section (a good change), but didn't realize how they were aligned by year. While I see the logic behind the change, I prefer the current version (since Mackensen's edit), personally. I'd rather have the template be the normal length rather than have the years lined up as they were (especially since I didn't even notice it at first :-)). Just my $0.02, of course. faithless (^speak) 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, now you tell me. I just went and changed it back (narrowing the template, though) until we figured out here what everyone likes. Nothing meant by it, I promise! :-) Eagles Fan In Tampa 19:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no biggie. Just my preference - I'm sure other people would prefer it now. At least it's formatted properly now, that's the big thing. :-) faithless (^speak) 21:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Took me a while to notice the decade arrangement. Now that I understand it, I don't find it helpful at all. I prefer how Mackensen had it. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and revert to my version then? Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless you want to wait for more opinions - or someone can point out a precedent somewhere... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Aces?

Do any of you folks have thoughts about Template:MLBAceStartingPitchers and the tables at Ace (baseball)? People seem to be confusing the concepts of ace and number one starter. If they're the same, then every team must have an ace, and no team can have more than one. That sure doesn't sound right to me. - Eureka Lott 04:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete both. The article text is totally unsourced OR, and the definition arbitrary, as it's unofficial (and unsourced). In addition, some temas have had more that one "ace"-quality starter, such as the Braves when they had Glavine, Maddux, and Smoltz. All 3 won Cy Youngs with the Braves, and they weren't always the number one starter that year either. I'm sure there are other examples too. - BillCJ (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of them both. "Ace" is a subjective term, and thus defining someone as an ace is pretty much by definition WP:OR and/or WP:POV. -Dewelar (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The template is actually the #1 listed pitchers on each team's MLB.com depth charts. They are very sourced. But still not needed... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If the templates said "Number 1 listed pitchers on each team's depth chart", that would be factual. "Ace" is subjective, and not just for good teams. What do you do with teams like the 1962 Mets or the 2003 Tigers, for example?

I have modified the Ace (baseball) article to more correctly reflect how the term is generally used, as well as to add the fact that in early baseball, an "ace" was a run. -Dewelar (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And at-bats were called "hands". Think those guys played cards much, on rainy days? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they did play for a club, on a diamond, so I guess it, er, suited them... -Dewelar (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

They also swung a club. Along with that "gotta have heart" in the hole, you just need a play on "spaces", and you'll have a grand slam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I think of baseball and spades, the first thing that pops into my head is those two groundskeepers in Major League..."They're still sh*tty." Well, perhaps there's someone else on deck who can think of something. -Dewelar (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Expos and Nationals: One or two teams?

I recently discovered that there is both a List of managers and owners of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals and a List of Washington Nationals managers. The latter list is a FL and well done, the former is pretty redundant. When hockey teams move from one city to another they are treated as two seperate teams (hence List of Quebec Nordiques head coaches and List of Colorado Avalanche head coaches). So I'm basically asking what should be done with List of managers and owners of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals? I understand that finding sources for GMs and owners can be difficult, so if we can find those and clean it up some I have no problem with keeping it, but if it's just going to remain in its current state of repeating info then we might as well delete or merge it. Thoughts? black ngold29 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That depends on whether we want to make it consistent with how we treat the Expos, or how we treat every other major league team. Note that:

Managers and ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers goes back to 1883
List of San Francisco Giants managers goes back to 1883
and perhaps most pertinently, List of Baltimore Orioles managers goes back to 1901

However, this project has taken the stance that the Expos should be treated uniquely. Personally, I see no reason for this, but that is how things are, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and all. So...the answer is that if we want to be consistent with how we treat major league teams in general, the latter list needs to be merged into the former. If we want to be consistent with the unique treatment of the Expos, then the former list needs to have the Nationals information removed. -Dewelar (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Two different teams, one franchise. Note the expos are only unique in terms of baseball. Most of the other major sports leagues seperate teams when they switch locations. -Djsasso (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Expos are a little different in that they had a lengthy history in Montreal before becoming the direct property of MLB, whereupon they were moved to DC, where they wanted to establish a new identity - kind of like the NFL pretending the Baltimore Ravens were never the Cleveland Browns. I didn't agree with separating the two articles, but there's some overlap and there's no deception about it and there's plenty of info in both. Franchise moves are handled differently, and it also depends on whether there's a name change or not. Teams like the Arizona Cardinals and the St. Louis Rams carry a visible connection to their former cities, whereas the Ravens don't. Back to the original question, you don't need two lists, particularly when Frank Robinson bridges the two. Just have the Nationals standalone list redirect to the Expos/Nationals list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense; we'd be deleting featured content in favor of a bulleted text list. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You could combine the information into a single list, in whatever format is pleasing to the Featured List mavens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the "establishing a new identity" argument is quite as simple as that even in baseball. After all, just sticking to the region in question, the original American League Washington Senators went and became the Minnesota Twins, with a new location and team name only to be replaced by another Washington Senators American League team that went on to become the Texas Rangers, and we generally treat old Senators team together with the Twins and the newer Seantors team together with the Rangers. The Baltimore Orioles issue is even more complicated, since that team was previously the St. Louis Browns. But we treat the Browns and Orioles together - including in the manager list shown above. But that is despite the fact that in 1901 and 1902 there was a Baltimore Orioles team in the American League that was a different franchise than the current Orioles/Browns team, and despite the fact that for much of the Browns' existence there was a minor league Baltimore Orioles team. But the list of Baltimore Orioles managers goes back to 1901, using (appropriately, I think, although the ambiguity could probably be addressed better in the lead) the St. Lious Browns managers during the period that the other American League Orioles team and the minor league Orioles team existed. Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That said, I don't really have a problem with the situation here, although maybe the bullet list could be better named "List of owners and general managers of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals", or even, more simply "List of owners and general managers of the Washington Nationals". I still think the bulleted list of managers could be retained for completeness (although perhaps the order could be reversed, with the owners first, then GMs, and then managers, for appropriate emphasis).Rlendog (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware that in 1961, the American League tried to pull a Cleveland Browns - Baltimore Ravens shenanigan. They pretended that the Senators had continuity in DC and that the Twins were somehow the explansion club. That approach was dropped a few years later. Although there's rather little about the old Senators at the Metrodome, they acknowledge it from time to time. For example, a few years ago they gave away a Walter Johnson bobblehead. As for the Orioles, practically every professional team there has been called the Orioles, but there's no continuity. The Yankees began as the Orioles, but that fact is merely a footnote to their history. The Orioles of the International League were a strong top-level minor league club for many years. Today's Orioles don't have much to say about their origins in Milwaukee and St. Louis, as it's also mostly a footnote, albeit a rather long one. At least the old Senators garnered a World Series ring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, once the open wounds of Expos fans heal, the Expos will be treated as they should be, as part of the history of the Nationals franchise, because that's how MLB treats them, whether we like it or not. MLB doesn't treat them uniquely, and nor should we, because otherwise it's inserting bias into how it's handled. However, I've long since resigned myself to the fact that we're willing to go ahead and do it anyway. Nevertheless, on principle, I'll throw my vote behind merging the Nationals article into the full franchise article. -Dewelar (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus won, but that was then, and since the glow is off the Nats now, it's possible some consensus could be reached. Like you, I'm not losing sleep over it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:baseballstats Bug

MLB is not correctly linked. Therefore, the following corrections are necessary. --KANE SUE 08:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

http://mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id   →   http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id

Looks like the links work fine. Do you have one that is broken? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Baseball is screwed up

It's now filled with a bunch of garbage, and apparently has to be fixed by an admin. -Dewelar (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What garbage are you referring to? I'm not real familiar with the template. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...it appears to have fixed itself. Must've been a wiki-glitch somewhere, or perhaps my cache was screwing something up. Sorry. -Dewelar (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl Pohlad

Soliciting general help from any one around to work on the Carl Pohlad article. The MN Twins owner died recently, his article is seriously lacking solid info. Should be a new abundance of bio-like sources in the next week or so to get the article improved. Any help appreciated! Keeper ǀ 76 05:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-Major League Baseball players by position

Has there been any discussion on why only MLB players are sorted by position? For example, why doesn't a category Category:Designated hitters exist, while Category:Major League Baseball designated hitters does? Why are players sorted by position and league in the first place? That seems rather arbitrary, as players play across the world and even in non-MLB leagues in the United States.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Braves-Mets Rivalry Page

Thought i'd give people here a heads-up. I dropped into the AfD page and saw that the Braves-Mets rivalry page is up for deletion. It was apparantly deleted in May and someone recreated it today. Anyway, I thought y'all might be interested. SMSpivey (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Liebman?

I don't know if this [5] is a Liebman sock, or just an unwitting imitator. But a claim that so-and-so holds such-and-such record absolutely requires a citation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Should career MLB stat ranks be on player articles?

A recent discussion (located here) about the inclusion of all-time MLB rankings of several of Ozzie Smith's stats has lead me to question if the info should be included on the page at all. First, the inclusion of this info has already sparked confusion, as Baseball Reference[6] and MLB.com[7] have different rankings of the all-time stolen bases leaders, mostly because Baseball Reference included pre-1900 era stats. Second, keeping the rankings up to date amounts to more article maintenance. Also, I noticed the featured articles Sandy Kofax and Lee Smith (baseball) only list career stats, no career rankings included. My question is, does the info provided by the stat rankings warrant inclusion on Ozzie's article? I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I'm against stat tables in the articles entirely. They're a pain to maintain for active players and can easily be replaced by linking to B-R. That being said, having the rankings is completely superfluous. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll be removing the stat rankings shortly. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ty Cobb under GA review

Hello there, the article Ty Cobb which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dwain Anderson

Hey guys. Anderson's birth and death dates were originally put on in August 2007 as (born November 23, 1947; died June 13, 2006). I looked now and I cannot find anything on his death whatsoever. I changed it to living, but I was wondering if anyone had further info on this. I mean, maybe it was just an 18-month old factual error, but maybe not. Wizardman 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference, it appears that he is still living, so your edit seems to be correct.Neonblak ^talk - 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't be using bbref as a source for death dates. As I recall, Sean Forman recently said they're something like a couple years behind on adding those to some pages. -Dewelar (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is true (I told them to update Owen Friend about a week ago, still a BLP according to them). Wizardman 18:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Current Hall of Fame class issue

User Kinston eagle has been busy reverting attempts to add the Hall of Fame template to the Henderson, Rice, and Gordon pages. He's already violated WP:3RR on Henderson and Rice, and is probably about to do so on Gordon as well. Does he need to be blocked, or is he right to be doing this? -Dewelar (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He is actually correct that they aren't actually in the HOF until the induction ceremonies, so it's probably premature to add the template. Spanneraol (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed per the above. A mention of the pending induction is definitely article-worthy, but the template, the infobox changes, etc., shouldn't be done until induction day. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I'm still trying to get a grasp on what things are allowed to be said in advance and what aren't :) . -Dewelar (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we had this discussion a couple of years ago; it was determined that individuals become members immediately upon their election, although their formal induction ceremony isn't until the following summer (the creation of their plaque and an accompanying display at the museum necessitates the delay). Consider the case of the College Football Hall of Fame, which has multiple induction ceremonies spread over a year and a half, including a December banquet in NYC and another ceremony months later in South Bend; it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine at which event the honorees become members, if it is not upon their election. Obviously, care should be taken in phrasing the text of articles, but members should be added to the various navboxes, cats and lists upon their election, rather than waiting for the exact moment at the ceremonies when they are introduced by the commissioner. This isn't a succession such as with political officeholders, when there's only one at a time. MisfitToys (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can they be un-inducted between now and the ceremony? If not, then I'd prefer the infoboxes, etc. clearly showed that they are HOF players. Add any "pending" flags or whatever to make the exact status more clear, but if I was looking to see whether someone is in the HOF, I would not want to have to scroll down to the very bottom for some little tangential note. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested to know how "this was determined." If there aren't any verifiable criteria or references to support it, I'd be skeptical of this decision. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As to the question of whether someone can be un-inducted, the only relevant case of which I'm aware is Alan Eagleson's resignation form the Hockey Hall of Fame, in advance of what was apparently a move to expel him. I don't know that there's any means to expel members from Cooperstown; if there were, I'm sure we would regularly hear calls for expelling some of the more unsavory individuals. (Bill James once wrote that the idea of making expulsion possible was unattractive, as you didn't want members wondering if the honor was temporary.) MisfitToys (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Henderson, Rice & Gordon should be included in all navboxes and the notation should be placed in the respective infoboxes. It seems like we're constructing artificial barriers here, since we can't point to one case of a player being voted in and then not being "inducted". The vote means their in, all the ceremony does is unveil their plaque. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Once they're elected, they're Hall of Famers. The formal induction is in mid-summer, but to say they're Hall of Famers is not "crystal ball", as the election has already occurred - unless someone thinks the results of the election would be rescinded, which has never happened that I know of. There's no issue of being natural born citizens, or someone demanding a recount. Probably the only thing would be "impeachment", i.e. if information were discovered in the interim which would rule a player ineligible, e.g. by betting on baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I had best back off from what I said just above. The Hall of Fame site, which is presumably speaking with authority, is talking about these guys' HoF membership in the future tense. [8] Currently the wikipedia player pages says "HoF Class of 2009". That seems reasonable. Unless something new turns up on the website, they have been elected, but are not technically in the Hall yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I view Henderson, Gordon and Rice as Hall of Famers as soon as the election results are announced, and the induction ceremony as just that - a ceremony where their plaques are unveiled. Certainly, normally reliable sources like Baseball Reference already list the trio as Hall of Famers. That said, as of yesterday, the Hall of Fame website didn't list the three (not even Gordon) in the list of Hall of Famers. Whether that represents their true status pending the induction ceremony or just a delay in performing the the clerical task of updating the register, I don't know. So it is possible that they are not yet truly Hall of Famers until induction day. Still, even if true, that seems like a hyper-technicality. That said, I think that the current approach tagging them as "Incoming Hall of Famers" is an appropriate solution. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You could consider them to be "members-elect", but without any precedence for their election to not be recognized, it seems like nit-picking to make a distinction -- even if the induction ceremony never happened due to some unforeseen circumstance, the honorees would still have passed the criteria to be "elected to membership", as described in the Baseball Hall of Fame's rules for election by the BBWAA. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I also view them as Hall of Famers, as my first post above indicated. My second post above is a reminder that we go by reliable sources, not our own opinions. So it's verifiably accurate to say they've been elected, and not yet inducted. Beware of inventing terms like "members-elect", which may or may not be reliably sourced. Watch the Hall of Fame page and see how they handle it. Also, for what it's worth, see how wikipedia has handled this in years past. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Incoming" or "Pending" Member of the HOF - anything along those lines are fine. As long as there is some mention in the infobox... —Wknight94 (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something similar could be used in the HOF outfielder and second basemen navboxes. Utilize an asterisk or italics with a notation that they are incoming members. I believe excluding them from those templates is not particularly useful or necessary. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the reason "inductee" rather than "member" was used for the category title had to do with the Hall referring to subscribers to various museum programs as Hall members (inviting site visitors to "become a member of the Hall of Fame"); the word choice had nothing to do with the appropriate term for a Hall of Famers. MisfitToys (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking player positions in infoboxes

There seems to be a trend among articles on professional baseball players that is inconsistent with articles on other professional athletes of other sports. It seems that active baseball players do not have their positions Wikilinked in the infobox, whereas retired baseball players do have their positions Wikilinked. However, this would contadict the standard that seems to exist for articles on professional athletes for other sports, where their positions are Wikilinked in the infobox, regardless of playing status. Would there be any diagreement to having all articles on active baseball players Wikilink their position in the infobox? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were all linked... someone must have changed them... I feel they should be linked. Spanneraol (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that they should be linked, because they aren't always linked (or even mentioned) within the articles themselves. Is this something that perhaps can be done from within the template? -Dewelar (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not recommended to be done within the template, because players can play multiple positions. I agree that it should be done as well, per WP:BUILD. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It used to be done within the template. But it was not done in the retired one - so when they were merged, this was lost. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That would explain why the active players are the ones that aren't linked :) . -Dewelar (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I found it the easiest way to do it when I merged them, because one of them was linked and the other wasn't, so if you left it linked there would have been thousands of articles with extra wiki-syntax around the position. —Borgarde 01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot to convert MLB retired to MLB player?

Can someone who knows how to do such things create a bot to convert all the deprecated infoboxes from player articles? I've been doing them by hand, but there are still over 4,000 such articles, and I've noticed that there are still people (and without naming names, some are people who know better) either creating articles using the old infobox or adding the old infobox to existing pages. It's really frustrating. Really, we need to delete the old template entirely at some point, preferably ASAP. -Dewelar (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the parameters close enough that the old infobox can be changed to a redirect? That would be a start. Rklear (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It already is a redirect :) . -Dewelar (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting the old template to the new one makes it relatively transparent. It also means that the old infobox is functional, so a premature deletion would be a very, very bad thing. There are already several tasks to accomplish over thousands of articles (stat templates, fleshing out stubs, etc...) that need more attention. I'll treat it as one of those "fix it when I see it" jobs. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I absolutely agree that the redirect should not be deleted until there are no longer any player articles linked to it. I shall continue to do as I've been doing, updating a handful each day. I've also been adding birthplace/deathplace where they don't yet exist, so it's not as though I'm going in just to change the template name :) . -Dewelar (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's something you did want to follow up you can always post a request at WP:BOTREQ. I don't see it as a hurry.. —Borgarde 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

MLBprimarycolor

I know about this template, but where is the ACTUAL CONTENT?-DANO- (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:MLBPrimaryColor JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if the template usage documentation showed the fact that you have to pass the team name as a parameter. Rklear (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help getting potential FA to appear on homepage

I recently nominated Ozzie Smith as a featured article candidate, and subsequently tried to add the article under the "potential featured content" section on the right side column of the WP:Baseball homepage. Is there some simple wiki-text element I'm missing that is preventing it from appearing, or is it something else? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They are templates, and sometimes they take some time to update from the original code to the transcluded pages. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco Giants all-time roster

I believe this is the only one that's still incomplete out of the main rosters. Anyone willing to tackle it? I would but arbcom takes up a lot of time.. Wizardman 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started on this, pulling names from the related categories Category:San Francisco Giants players and Category:New York Giants baseball players. I'm going alphabetically, and I've gotten through the ~~B's~~ ~~C's~~ ~~D's~~ ~~F's~~ I's so far. If someone wants to start at Z and meet me in the middle, that'd be splendid. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:New York Gothams players has been completed. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 18:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When I've constructed these before, I've used the data from the official MLB rosters. I copy/paste into a word processor, use a find/replace to wikify and manually eliminate the duplicates. Then I paste it into the article and use AWB to compare against the categories. (That finds the pages that aren't named the same way they are at MLB).

I'll have bits and pieces of time later today, so I can tackle the last half of the alphabet if you'd like.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Be wary of the MLB rosters. They contain guys who were added to the 40-man roster for that team, yet never appeared in a game. Take a look at Matt Anderson, for instance. It still is a good way to double check my work and find the redlink guys. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You're better off using the baseball-reference all-time rosters. That's what I used when I completed the Twins list. -Dewelar (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Use this and this (the second to make sure none are missed, the first should have 99% of them. Wizardman 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I double check all the guys who don't have an article (well, I also check the articles of the ones who do), but after I take a break I'll double check my work against the BR pages. Looks like Wizardman did U, and I've completed V-Z (pending my double check).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Uh guys... have we forgotten about this? caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a bad case of the flu all week and am only popping in to check my watchlist. I'll be back on this as soon as my brain shows back up -- right now I don't trust myself to make any content additions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-human again, and working on it as brain power allows. S-Z is done and checked, and I'm ~~in the middle of the Rs.~~ done through P--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Are we done?!? caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

L-Z is complete, and it looks like you got A-K. Sounds like we're done to me. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)