This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

For anyone interested in the 1950s era of baseball, there are some great new image repositories that we can use. Vintage Card Traders has a black-and-white set of images, and there's also 1951 Bowman Baseball Cards.com. Bowman Gum's card are in the public domain, and the images should be uploaded to Commons with the appropriate Bowman cards template. Make sure, though, that if you use the second website, you are uploading only Bowman's card, and not Topps. Topps cards are copyrighted. Thanks in advance for anyone who participates in the upload drive. — KV5 • Talk • 00:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oooh, looks good. I started with Lou Boudreau and File:Lou Boudreau Front 1951 Bowman.jpg. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• BTW is there a preset template for the Vintage page? Is it the same Bowman tag? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Images from both sites are from cards produced by Bowman Gum, so all use the same Commons template, yes. — KV5 • Talk • 11:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just at the main page for the Detroit Tigers and the history section looks like a mess. It could use being broken out to a history article. Does anyone want to volunteer, like someone who has done other history articles? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It should definitely be split off. The Tigers go back to the 1890s, before there was an American League, and they have a rich history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Viewers may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys. Currently, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates has a serious backlog due to lack of reviewers. Since we are one of the most prolific WikiProjects in terms of featured lists (we currently have five there), it would be nice for us to return the favor and review some that don't have too many eyes on them yet. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've been bad about reviewing lately, I'll try to step it up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User 64.180.212.125 (like me, he chooses not to log into an account) has been shadowing me removing links in articles I expand. Pete Harnisch for example. I believe he has been told before not to do that, but I'm not certain. In any case, he seems pretty certain that what he's doing is correct, and I'm pretty certain that it is incorrect. Pete Harnisch's article has been changing back and forth for a week now. Help please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.18.26 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Read Template:By. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The ((By)) template should not be used in article prose, as it states on the documentation page for the template itself. In fact, its use in tables, infoboxes, and such and its non-use in article prose is also mentioned on the template's talk page. Now there does seem to be other changes that are being reverted and returned, but the main thrust of the other IP user's changes does seem to be the use of the template, particularly given their mention of it and the guidelines for its use in their edit summaries for that article.

I'd be curious to know why you think that your use of the template is correct, given that the template's doc page, the template's talk page, a TfD discussion, and an archived discussion from this page all seem to agree that it shouldn't be used in prose.  Afaber012  (talk)  12:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there guidelines on articles about baseball stadiums or sports venues in general?

I'm looking at significantly expanding an article about a no-longer-extant minor-league ballpark and I guess I'm wondering (a) if it would ultimately meet WP:N criteria and (b) if there's a style guide, recommended infobox (Template:Infobox stadium?), etc. Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind telling us which one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It's Katy Park. I work a couple of blocks away from the former location and have a sort of fascination with it. Woodshed (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now you've put "She Caught the Katy" in my head. :) Was it also named for the railroad? Are there any remnants of the ballpark visible? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it was. The first-base side grandstand backed up on the M-K-T railroad (the tracks are still in use, now Union Pacific) and it was catty-cornered (across the tracks) from the depot at 8th and Jackson.

Unfortunately, nothing seems to remain — though the Percy Medicine building (photo, info) out beyond right-center field across 8th Street still stands. More than one tale abounds of a homer being hit off the building — most notably by Babe Ruth in 1929. Woodshed (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Or "katy"-cornered, one might say. :) I'm not finding that Ruth homer in the Jenkinson book, for any year, although I could have overlooked something. I wonder if there's a specific date connected with that homer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha! It was in April of 1929, and it was Gehrig who homered, according to this writeup,[1] and the credit or blame for saying Ruth hit it is given to manager Huggins. I wouldn't put it past Gehrig to have hit that building. He was capable of hitting them just about as far as Ruth. Probably the greatest 1-2 punch the game has ever known. When they were at their peak, it's a wonder how they ever lost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed — something that's probably grown up in the telling, I think. A Waco Trib article about the park quotes one guy facetiously saying that "...there were probably about 50,000 people who will say they saw the Babe play that day." (I wouldn't be surprised if Jay Black was misremembering Huggins' words, though.) Woodshed (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It does seem odd that Huggins would mis-remember who hit the homer. And the specific statement, "(Yankees manager) Miller Huggins always claimed that Ruth hit one off the Percy Medicine Building"... not sure what "always" means in this context, as Huggins died in September of that year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Insofar as its use for baseball is what makes a stadium or sports venue notable, this project will practically have a lot of leeway to define that.

It may be useful to identify your candidate and to provide some links to categories. One is Category:Baseball venues (not Category:Baseball field). Look at those article counts! Re the Infobox it may help to say where it is now used, with reference to that umbrella category.

P.S. Cross-classification via Category:Defunct baseball venues, with subcategories, helps makes a mess here. ... Category:Demolished sports venues in the United States ... Category:Destroyed landmarks ... (sigh)

P.P.S. Where are venues used in the "Negro Leagues", perhaps only there? --P64 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The ballpark/stadium/arena stuff could certainly be better organized or made more consistent. The baseball project has tended to focus on teams and players. The venue articles have been developed kind of haphazardly. The better-developed articles have an infobox, but by no means do all of them have infoboxes, even for major league clubs. Negro Leagues and minor leagues' ballpark info is kind of scattergun. There is no shortage of information on the general subject, at least where ballparks are concerned. Football stadiums and basketball/hockey arenas are probably less well-covered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding categories per P64, I had a laugh at the existence of Category:Baseball venues in Waco, Texas — seems a tad odd. There are certainly some baseball venues here, but few above the little league level. Woodshed (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Recently there has been much discussion of rivalries including some deletion and consolidation of pages. This pertains.

"Regional Postseason Series" at Retrosheet. These 32 "regional series" were official—sanctioned by Baseball. For slightly more info see Talk:Major League Baseball rivalries#Retrosheet coverage. --P64 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They were sanctioned by MLB in that their being played was approved. There were rules about post-season play that were intended to not infringe upon or erode the World Series. Interestingly, there is nothing said about 1903, when several pairs of clubs (not just the Red Sox and Pirates) held post-season series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Boston–Pittsburgh and other 1903 postseason series were not sanctioned, not official. They were unofficial. (It's a mistake, or a bow to MLB marketing, to call Boston–Pittsburgh 1903 the first modern world series.)

There were many many pre- and post-season games matching major league teams before 1905 and after. (Indeed, American League stars played Pittsburgh, postseason 1902!) Some were local or regional and some were interpreted as multi-game series. Retrosheet coverage is limited although always in progress, always increasing in scope. --P64 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Retrosheet is a great resource, improving with time. To my mind, the 1903 Series was conducted in the same manner as the ones from the 1880s. That is, they were arranged by the clubs and hence were optional, and technically "unofficial", although the 1903 Series was billed as the "World's Championship Series" just as the 1880s contests were. After the 1904 fiasco, the Series was made compulsory and official. But most sources count the 1903 Series anyway... just as sources used to include the 1880s games, until memories of the 19th century had pretty much faded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've opened this can of worms as it's been bothering me for a while. Please come and voice your opinion at the AFD for players with 2k hits. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, there's some discussion happening over at Talk:Reds–Cardinals rivalry over essentially the notability of the article, e.g., is there really a proper rivalry between the two teams worthy of having its own article. Some more eyes, a third, or fourth, or fifth opinion wouldn't go amiss, as would some help cleaning it up / providing more information if possible. Thanks, umrguy42 22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right to bring it up. I'd say though that if the concern is notability, the deletion process is the way to go. We can evaluate the evidence and decide there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a Reds-Cardinals rivalry??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I wondered the same thing - but all I have to go on is this (biased) Cards fan's opinion, not a comprehensive poll of Cards fans nationwide :p (Nor Reds fans, to be fair). Muboshgu, I'd be interested in seeing if people can bolster the article first to provide any more support of the idea of a rivalry. umrguy42 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A lot of these "rivalries" are recent phenomena due to the teams being in the same division and being competitive against each other. Any pair of teams is liable to find themselves as "rivals" in a short-term situation. I don't think that really counts in this context. To be a rivalry worth talking about, it needs to go back generations. Like Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-Cardinals, Cubs-White Sox, and the granddaddy of them all, Giants-Dodgers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of homer-ism, Bugs, but I'm not sure if Giants-Dodgers can be considered the "granddaddy" of them ALL when it only precedes Cards-Cubs by a few years at best, in terms of origins (granting that the two teams weren't NAMED Cards & Cubs when it started, but still...) ;D umrguy42 13:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, much more notable than Cardinals-Reds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I grant you, Bugs, that Giants-Dodgers is more of a rivalry than I would've guessed before I moved to California (that guy who got assaulted can certainly attest to that), but it's not more tense than my Yankees against the dreaded Red Sox. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, unquestionably. By the way, since it was brought up as an WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument - what about Cubs-Brewers? It doesn't have quite the history of the others, but from what I've seen, I think it may be worthy enough to stand on its own, especially with the geography making it an easy geographical bit, and tying in similarly to the Green Bay-Chicago NFL rivalry... umrguy42 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would like to get rid of all rivalry articles in all sports except for those that are truely notable, ie have had actual books written about them rather than passing mentions of a rivalry in a sports writers article where it is likely they name any opponent as a rival. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should parse over these carefully. I try to keep up with some of SNlyer's edits to rivalry articles, which often are unsourced and use unencyclopedic in-universe language. The existence of a rivalry article due to the two teams being competitive in the same division fails WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM at least. I agree with Djsasso that a bunch of these don't merit articles, and we could pare them down to the core rivalries. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There have indeed been books written about Giants-Dodgers and Yankees-Red Sox, at least. Possibly about Cubs-Cardinals and Cubs-White Sox. Unlikely about Cubs-Brewers. It's fair to say that Yankees-Red Sox may have surpassed Giants-Dodgers in terms of media attention and relative proximity, but Giants-Dodgers is alive and well (so to speak). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah like I said, I have no problem with any that have reached such a point that they got books written about them. But with so much media these days they try to make rivalries between any two teams just to sell papers or the like. SNlyer just moves too fast for me to keep up. I used to try to keep up with him in terms of hockey rivalry articles, but he is like an energizer bunny. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I tend to side with the Sasso style view on this. Sub-rivalries which spawn out of pure divisional companionship and haven't drawn any real focus (other than "Oh, the Brewers and the Cubs are competing for the NL Central title" shouldn't exist. Any individual competitions like that belong at the team seasonal articles, not an entirely separate section. As already said, only a choice few rivalries (Yanks/Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Sox/Cubs, Cubs/Cards, etc) really draw heavy coverage. I can stomach the likes of Lone Star Series and Freeway Series. In fact, those give me an idea, maybe we could (as part of our developing style guide) set a limitation only establishing notability for rivalries which MLB lists as "natural rivalries" for interleague play? (thus not completely barring other rivalry articles but requiring heavier work establishing their notability) Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, as long as it's strict. I'm also okay with Astros-Rangers, A's-Giants, Dodgers-Angels, Yankees-Mets, and maybe one or two others like that. There's also an article for Marlins-Rays, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note though that all MLB-designated natural rivalries, by their very nature of being interleague, fail the test of being a longstanding rivalry about which there is extensive historical coverage of their on-field competition. I suppose there is a certain degree of fan rivalry with teams in different leagues, but other than more direct cases where a city has two teams, my guess is that many fans will gladly support both teams, to have rooting interests in both leagues. isaacl (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is professional baseball, and the rivalries are business rivalries as well as on-field rivalries. Why do you suppose the Red Sox built their ballpark practically next door to the Braves ballpark in 1901? It took 50-plus years, but the Red Sox eventually drove the Braves away. And when Bill Veeck bought the St. Louis Browns in ca.1951, he specifically had in mind driving the Cardinals out of town (that didn't work out as planned). And if you think Chicago fans will gladly support either team, think again. For 110 years of Chicago fans, you root for one or the other, not both. That long pre-dates interleague play. It's also north side vs. south side, just as Dodgers and Giants was borough-vs.-borough. Likewise with Yankees and Giants, when the Yankees opened their stadium just across the river from their former tenants, cementing the enmity between those teams even though they never faced each other except in exhibitions and the World Series. Back to Chicago, when the Sox held their victory parade in 2005, they ran it from the Cell through the south side and stopped in the downtown, just south of the Chicago River. And when Harry Caray brought his act to the north side, after having been a Cardinals announcer and then a White Sox announcer (a double-whammy), a lot of older Cubs fans grumbled, "You can't be serious." But they were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I can see the case made for same-city teams. I'm not sure I see a good case for interleague teams in different cities. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We should probably evaluate them individually, on a case by case basis. The regional interleague rivalries of the SF Bay Area, DC area, NYC, Chicago, Florida, LA area, etc. have different merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as different city interleague rivalries go, I suggest looking at how the Royals' page addresses the (low-level) rivalry with the Cardinals - seems a good way of doing things if there isn't enough material for a whole separate page. umrguy42 17:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the recommendation. Re substance of the example, I'm a little surprised by the lack of notable pre-1985 dispute about "representing Missouri" or representing some larger region unknown to me. --P64 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I just found White Sox – Cubs rivalry game summary, so feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Sox – Cubs rivalry game summary. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That used to be included in the main rivalry article, and was apparently spun off. I might have even initiated the info in the main article, though I don't recall for sure. But I'm fairly sure that I added the "City Series" info from Warren Brown's 1946 book about the Cubs, and others have augmented the list since then. It might be a bit too detailed now. However, it's no worse than the seasonal game logs that every major league article has now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

> Keep in mind this is professional baseball, and the rivalries are business rivalries as well as on-field rivalries.

That is true primarily for the teams competing in one city. The White Sox, Athletics, Red Sox, and Browns established keen rivalries with local NL teams by signing many of their players, which were moves so directly as possible to acquire their fans. The Phillies and Cardinals sued.

Like some others, I suspect we can do without Reds-Cardinals and Reds-Indians. That's the place, if any, to say more. --P64 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's those professional rivalries that make me totally okay with "defunct" rivalries like the A's and the Phillies, or the Red Sox and the Braves, or the Cardinals and the Orioles (Browns), if there's proper sourcing to back them up. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, including addressing the issues of what made one team or the other move, after 50-some years of apparent stability. There is or was a pretty good book about the Philadelphia situation, for example. It's really kind of surprising that it was the A's that ended up moving, as they were overall the more successful team during that 50-year interval. Regarding the Bosox and Braves, they also used to have an annual exhibition series, and the year the Braves moved to Milwaukee, they still went ahead with that exhibition series. But that was about the last of that, until interleague play began and the Braves began playing the Red Sox occasionally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: The article is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reds–Cardinals_rivalry. umrguy42 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone here interested in joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewers–Cubs rivalry? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know, can anyone count, how widely we list Baseball-Reference founder Sean Forman as the author of BB-Ref pages? For example, see 1918 World Series#References. At most he should now be named as editor ("Sean Forman, ed." and variations).

I don't see the same re Dave Smith or anyone else and Retrosheet pages. --P64 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't mention him at all. He's not the sole author, after all. It'd be like listing Ted Turner as the author of CNN articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too quickly. For all three given References (1918 World Series#References), I would identify Neft & Cohen, Reichler, and Forman all as editors rather than authors, in a print bibliography. There may be a general problem with either the capabilities or with this project's use of the /ref/ template.

I don't know whether we have this problem where the editor is not prompted for lastname firstname, either prompted automatically or in documentation of the template. --P64 (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is how one bibliophile and experienced editor elsewhere uses the {cite book)) template, coding the editorial roles manually as part of the firstname fields.

 |last1 = Francis
 |first1 = Henry G., Editor-in-Chief
 |authorlink1 = 
 |last2 = Truscott
 |first2 = Alan F., Executive Editor
 |authorlink2 = Alan Truscott

I'll implement this at 1918 World Series where one source (Neft & Cohen) usefully has two editors in undifferentiated roles. ... Done.

Notes. The {cite web)) template generates a double dot ".." if the firstname ends with a dot and the year field is empty. For now I have set |year=no date|. (See Template talk:Cite web#Format issue when no "year=" parameter is set..) Evidently there are editor name fields in the templates {cite book)) and {cite journal)) but they do not identify specific editorial roles or titles. (See Template talk:Cite web#propose "editor" field.) --P64 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is the best way to classify these players?

Francisco Rodríguez (baseball, born 1982) - Francisco Rodríguez (pitcher, born 1982)

Francisco Rodríguez (baseball, born 1983) - Francisco Rodríguez (pitcher, born 1983)

Alex Gonzalez (shortstop, born 1973) - Alex Gonzalez (baseball, born 1973)

Álex González (shortstop, born 1977) - Álex González (baseball, born 1977)

Going to let other people answer before I give my reason. Ositadinma 04:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting. It didn't occur to me that these pages aren't named the same way. I don't have an answer at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If their are no other people of the same name that played anther position, they should probably both be (baseball, born ????). Spanneraol (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the current naming conventions, it appears that using the position is the correct method. As far as the best way to classify them...well, I'll agree with Spanneraol, that a more basic disambiguator is better. -Dewelar (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Position looks right, but technically "baseball" should be the disambiguator, unless there's also someone else with the same name at a different position. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• For now I would say "baseball" also since position doesn't currently disambiguate them at all. The interesting bit will be if we ever see... Say a 2B named Francisco Rodriguez or Alex Gonzalez. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey everybody! We need more uni-fanatics on the Baseball uniform page. Right now there is now separation of flannel and double-knit eras and little discussion of that all-important item, stirrups. It needs better organization and more images. Unite!--Factchk (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Courcelles for the nomination work, our MLB draft pick project is finally all wrapped up. Please stop by the FTC if you get the chance! Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I nominated a whole bunch of baseball articles for deletion today. Check them out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball. You might want one or two of them kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Sabermetrics needs work. Obviously, this is an article that will be frequently targeted as it is often discussed but poorly understood by most baseball fans.

Currently, it is tagged as having too many indiscriminate lists. Namely, these lists consist of prominent saber proponents and saber stats. How do we want to solve this problem? My suggestion would be seeing if there a way we can incorporate at least some of these into prose, and perhaps explain some of them to give basic examples. Thoughts? Kansan (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Page was kept. I'd like to revisit the criteria of the page. Baseball Bugs mentioned that the official baseball almanac uses a cutoff of the top 300. So, why are we using a cutoff of the top 500? Discuss here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to draw people's attention to this issue. Discussion there has died down without a resolution. It seems like there's consensus to shorten the page significantly, but by how much? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

After some discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homar Rojas, I think we need to clarify whether or not there is consensus for playing in the Mexican League carrying a presumption of notability for a player. The current guidelines talk about "top-level national league"s, but that's something of a vague term, and particularly so for LMB due to its unique status as a recognized minor league. To that end, I have started a discussion at the sports notability talk page. I hope to get some input beyond the 3-4 people participating in the deletion discussion. -Dewelar (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

For those not following this discussion, the point has been raised that the guideline was originally written with the intent of including the Mexican League among the leagues that confer presumed notability. Since the guideline does not make that clear, and both sides are using the wording of the guideline to support their positions, one way or the other the guideline will be getting rewritten. -Dewelar (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A select few already ruined the guideline a few years back after one of them got upset that their flood of baseball AFDs all failed, so go ahead and take it another step further if you want. Please don't start a slippery slope going on here, where it gets to the point where players that appeared in only one MLB game should be deleted, followed by one season, followed by five seasons, followed by a players that fail to achieve a prerequisite career statline, followed by 'what did this guy do that was so special other than hit a ball with a stick', etc etc. I'm not in favor of yet another change, but as usual I am in the minority. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not sure what constitutes "ruined" in this case, I will state that, as it stands, there is no discussion of taking presumed notability away from any of the leagues currently covered explicitly by the guidelines. All I was looking to do by opening the discussion is to determine what to do with players in leagues that are right now sometimes deleted and sometimes not, of which the LMB is the most prominent. Since the LMB is recognized as a minor league, and yet could still be considered a "top-level national league", it's unclear whether its players should get a pass based on point 2, or must otherwise meet GNG based on point 5. -Dewelar (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruined the guidelines? Even as they stand, the baseball guidelines are some of the most liberal and lenient among the nobility guidelines of the major sports, if not all of Wikipedia. Alex (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

From the turn the conversation is taking, they're about to get more liberal in their interpretation. Not only does it look like Mexican League players are going to get presumed notability, but also players from Honkbal Hoofdklasse and Serie A1, because that's how the guidelines are being interpreted, and there's no consensus to change them. If that's how it falls, so be it, but I thought the rest of the project should be prepared for the eventuality. -Dewelar (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really find the baseball guidelines some of the most liberal. You all routinely delete notable minor leaguers because they haven't played a game in the majors when most sports allow players below the major league in their sport in some form or another. If anything I would say yours are some of the most stringent. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the bot consider a section old based on the latest contribution regardless of layout? What happens if someone adds a newly dated comment to (or simply revises?) a section that has been archived?

Archiving is limited to formal Sections, so it will pass over a text preface that does not have a header, as it passes over the TOC. Right? Given answers to the above questions I will be happy to package them as a preface that will not be archived.--P64 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to the discussion on notability, any changes to the guidelines for this project can be noted under WP:BASEBALL/N, which is already linked in the sidebar on this page and the project page. isaacl (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the question on reliable sources, there is a section in the work-in-progress style guide on reliable sources. I don't believe it should list sites that are not reliable sources, though (there are just too many of them), with a possible exception if a given site is frequently mistaken as a reliable source. When the style guide is fleshed out a bit more, I will add a link to it from the sidebar. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Mets–Phillies rivalry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — KV5 • Talk • 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Would love to declare a moratorium on all the rivalry stuff being created and/or added by a certain user. Spanneraol (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. Perhaps it's time for an RfC. There's stuff all over current events articles now too... — KV5 • Talk • 00:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The user in question never responded to any of the posts I put on his talk page. I'd be down for an RfC, if we think it's needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He rarely responds to anyone. I'm the only one he talks to, I think, and that's only to tell me that he's changing the Mets-Phillies rivalry article (last time I checked, my watchlist does that just fine). Otherwise, I get no response. — KV5 • Talk • 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just baseball either, hockey editors have the same issues with him. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a baseball article but since these sorts of articles have been talked about this afd might be of interest to people here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor league players presently on 40-man rosters are generally considered notable enough for their own article, correct? That's the general consensus around here, right? Alex (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been explicitly talked about, but through AfD discussions, it sure seems that the consensus has shifted from "yes" to "not automatically". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it alot easier to find 3 or 4 references for such players to show they meet GNG than to come here and talk about notability. Because its a moving target here it often seems. If they meet GNG it doesn't really matter what this project thinks about it. :) -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much what DJsasso said; while I don't think they would automatically be notable, players that get that close to a debut almost certainly meet the GNG, so stuff can be found on them to pass that anyway. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DJSasso said what I was thinking in a much more complete and eloquent way. I don't think anyone could rightfully say that Dellin Betances, for example, doesn't meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Namiba has been telling on my talk page that (here there has been a consensus to use the phrase, "...is a Nationality professional baseball position with the team of league". However, the discussion he references (here), hardly seems to come to any form of consensus. Personally, I prefer the format of "...is a league position for the team...", but if the other way is the true consensus, I won't lose any sleep over it. Basically, I just want to see if there's a consensus and either way and if there is, I'll follow it, but if there isn't, we need one.--Giants27(T|C) 02:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out in the discussion, it's not so much a matter of consensus, but correctness and consistency of phrasing. If a player is currently in MLB, then there's no problem with calling him a "Major League Baseball (position)". If he then gets sent to the minor leagues, you could certainly call him a "minor league (position)", but I have too often seen them still called major league players in the intro. Saying in the lead sentence "(player) is a (nationality) professional baseball (position) currently playing for the (team) of (league)" is always going to be correct (with obvious modifications for inactive players). Path of least resistance and all that. -Dewelar (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No other sport biographies on Wikipedia follow the League-position format. Check out Tom Brady or Sidney Crosby as examples. A pitcher in MLB is still a pitcher in the minor leagues, in Japan or elsewhere. As pointed out by Dewelar, the version I prefer (and is commonly used on all athlete biographies who are not a select group of Baseball players) will always be correct.--TM 03:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no real problem in changing the league portion of the lead-in sentence. Nowhere does anything say that the intro cannot change. And Namiba, as I mentioned before, Tom Brady is a poor example of your point. All football article say the code of football they play, not their nationality.--Giants27(T|C) 03:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Brady is not a bad example because using American football presumes their nationality to be the United States. However, I can cite Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and David Beckham as other clear examples of introduction structure, all of which follow the same format.--TM 03:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It actually does not, see Henry Burris or Daryll Clark who are both Americans, but they are introduced as being Canadian football player, because that's the code of football they play. Also, there's no reason why baseball should absolutely have to lineup with other sports.--Giants27(T|C) 13:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the answer to this question is no, but is http://www.jockbio.com/ a relieable source? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? They seem to have a list of respectable writers whose work has appeared in well-known publications. They have published a number of books, which are generally considered valid sources for Wikipedia citations, right? Fnordware (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to use it as an external link? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

An EL is probably fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Lincecum has been nominated for reassessment here if anyone is interested. AIRcorn (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of us should be interested. It should've been mentioned here by the nominator. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Left a comment; if nom notes further issues I can take a stab at them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I really want to cut down List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters to top 300 at a minimum, but discussion on that talk page is lacking. Any thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's been plenty of talk, and I am not sure there is much left to say. I only saw one objection to cutting down to at least the top 300 (since the top 300 is pretty much synonymous with all players with 200 or more right now). Wizardman already seems to have snipped it, but didn't change the name (which I will do unless it's done before I get back there). I still think this should be cut further, but maybe this is good enough for the time being. Rlendog (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly per what you said (things keep stalling), I trimmed to 300. If another discussion about moving to 100 feels warranted then you can go ahead, but this should be good enough. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. I was wanting to do it myself, but didn't want to be charged with anything improper. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you guys kindly provide your input on this issue?

Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Minor league baseball players 01:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Every so often there's an edit skirmish in that article, caused by history-challenged fans posting 1869 as the club's origin, instead of 1882 which is what it actually is. Today they even went so far as to claim that we're "anti-Reds", which is silly. Some more eyes on that page would be helpful. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okey dokey. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing they did today was to revert "the current franchise" back to "the current iteration of the franchise", which sounds weaselly. There have been several distinct Cincinnati franchises. The current one is not an "iteration" of anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A user is trying to add the entire results (all 50 rounds) of the 2011 Major League Baseball Draft at this page, despite my insistence that this is excessive and that our consensus is to list the first round (including supplemental) only. This user is unwilling to engage in discussion, merely reverting my restoration of the consensus version of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Left a comment. If all 50 rounds were added in the article would probably be ~300kb, so yeah, overkill. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started a thread at the Administrator's noticeboard regarding User:Carthage44, who is not editing in good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The CEO for the Rangers changed this year, and as a result the MLB owners had to vote to accept Nolan Ryan as the team representative for MLB ownership. After some vandalism was fixed, Euclidjr corrected the information, then added the tag '(Nolan Ryan, designated Controlling Owner by MLB)' to the ownership info. Although Ryan was voted and approved by MLB, he was not selected by the MLB owners, but by the Rangers and I believe the information added may be confusing, especially given the turmoil the team was in financially during the 2009 and 2010 season, and with the current problems the Dodgers are going through. Thank you,Red3biggs (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the designation is not mine - it was directly from an article from the MLB website. In the absence of a clarifying authority, it's hard to call it inaccurate. The prior ownership info (in the info box) said simply Nolan Ryan - which is not true. He is not -the- owner, or a majority owner, or one of a known set of owners of the LLC that actually owns the Rangers. If he is going to be listed at all in the owner's box, it should be with the caveat that he is the controlling owner, or as part of an exhaustive list of owners (which may not be public information). Euclidjr (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, Ryan is replacing Greenberg as the managing partner, and MLB's approval is just a pro forma acknowledgement that Ryan now represents the Rangers for all MLB matters. (For its convenience, MLB requires clubs owned by partnerships to designate a single managing partner to act on behalf of the team.) Note that Ryan was listed as an owner in the August 2010 purchase. isaacl (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you think being named an All-American in collegiate baseball passes the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#College athletes which states a biography is notable if they have "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team"?--TM 01:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation would be no. One of the three potential issues for college athletes is described as Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards. All-American status, which is big in college football, is not one of those awards listed (while Academic All-American is). I would say that simply being named "All-American" does not get you the assumption of notability. If that player does have reliable sources writing articles about that particular player (not just simply ending up on lists of top prospects or the such), then I would say he meets notability. At the end of the day WP:GNG still needs to be satisfied ... the collegiate notability criteria are there to grant an assumption of notability to prevent premature deletion. My two bits.LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For lack of another place to inform project members, I have proposed a rename and merger for categories related to the defunct Northern League (baseball), here. Resolute 14:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that the league has folded, the article itself needs to be moved to Northern League (baseball, 1993–2010) to differentiate it from Northern League (baseball, 1902–71). I will see what I can do about that once I have some time (unless someone beats me to it). -Dewelar (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That depends, one could still technically be the primary article could it not? Thus one still at (baseball) and the other with the years. Doesn't matter to me how its handled, but I know many other topic areas do it that way. (no not hockey :P) But I am not sure if the most recent league would be the primary target or not. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the concept of primary articles applies to articles that are already being disambiguated. However, if it does, if either Northern League should be primary, the older affiliated league would be more notable, and thus more worthy of being primary, than the present-day independent league. To do otherwise would be blatant recentism. -Dewelar (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure recentism applies because primary topic isn't supposed to be most important topic but most likely to be searched topic....that being said I am good with whatever renaming y'all think is best, just mostly think the cats need merging. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do expect that, after a few years pass, the independent version will be less-searched than the older and more prominent version (although, admittedly, given that the older one is actually 4 or 5 different leagues, that one needs to be split up someday, too), but perhaps that's wishcasting :) . -Dewelar (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Northern League Ballparks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -Dewelar (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

if you are hit by a pitch, outside of the strike zone and you try to avoid it, can you refuse to be awarded first and continue the at bat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.62.234 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question, but I looked at the 6.08 (b), and several interpretations, and it appears that the batter can refuse the "entitlement" of first base. Although in 6.08 (a), the base-on-balls is an entitlement, but the rule specifically states that batter MUST proceed to first base; while (b) does not specifically state that. Although I can't immediately think of a reason why one would refuse.Neonblak ^talk - 16:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

He can't refuse it, and he'll be called out unless he can convince the umpire that he was not trying to get out of the way of the pitch. If the batter makes no attempt to get out of the way, i.e. if he lets the ball hit him, he's not entitled to take the base. He might let it hit him if he thinks the pitcher doesn't want to let him hit the ball. I've never heard of a batter doing that deliberately. Note that the introductory part of rule 6.08 says "The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when - etc. Meanwhile, rule 6.04 states, "A batter has legally completed his time at bat when he is put out or becomes a runner." This, plus 6.08, indicates that once hit by a pitch, he's no longer a batter. If a batter-runner refuses to go to first base, that would essentially bring the game to a dead stop. I can't find the rule just now, but if someone interferes with the progress of the game, I'm sure the ump would call him "out" and/or eject him from the game. And if the entire team refuses to continue play, they would forfeit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• This does seem like an unlikely scenario. Outside of a situation like 2001-04 Barry Bonds dropped onto like... The Pittsburgh Pirates... It's hard to picture when someone would fight that hard to bat rather than get a free base. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey all, I've started making animated diagrams to explain the difference between pitch types, since I felt the pitch-specific pages could really use a visual accompaniment. Feel free to leave your input and request any new pitch animations, and add these to any page you think could benefit from them AtomicRED (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC):

• 
  4-seam Fastball
• 
  Cutter
• 
  Curveball

Very cool. I can't wait to see the knuckleball animation.Orsoni (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I'm thinking that as a minor suggestion from someone who lives in a metrified (?) country, the speed gun reading should at least be shown as "mph", if not also having the speed in "kph". And I'm fairly certain that Looney Tunes already has a good animation of Bugs Bunny throwing a beauty of a knuckleball. Might be copyright issues with that though, I suppose.  Afaber012  (talk)  07:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "brick wall" at Detroit Tigers needs "11 Anderson" added. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Québec Capitales#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an issue I brought up in the past. There is an editor who finds it necessary to convert "All-Star" to "All-Star Selection" in every former All-Star's infobox. There was a consensus the last time I brought this up that "All-Star" was more appropriate (I didn't archive the debate). Has there since been a new consensus that I am unaware of?

For the record, I'd like to put it out there that I prefer "All-Star" for many reasons:

1) I've never seen another site anywhere ever use the term "All-Star Selection." Everyone else just says "All-Star."

2) It would be more consistent with Wikipedia NBA & NFL articles as NBA players are simply referred to as "All Stars" and NFL players are simply referred to as "All Pro."

3) "All-Star Selection" is unnecessarily wordy.

3) It is technically inaccurate if the player was elected to the team.

...However, if I am wrong, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.45.113 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

2 is incorrect. The NFL infoboxes do say selection.--Yankees10 16:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

We should go with whatever the normal sources say, not what some editor thinks is politically correct or something (unless it matches the sources). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

When someone notes this fact about a player, they say he's an All-Star. As such, that's all that needs to be written, as selection is superfluous. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that adding "selection" is a bit pedantic but, not technically incorrect as, All-Star reserve players are "selected" by the All-Star team manager. Starting players are voted in.Orsoni (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As I originally mention, this debate has been had before (March 2011). Yankees10 seems to think that his opinion is the only one that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.45.113 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And where have I stated that only my opinion matters?--Yankees10 20:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP has a grand total of 4 edits... and it's not a question of "opinion" but of verifiable usage. The All-Stars are partly "elected" and partly "selected". But an All-Star is an All-Star. The only place where it needs to be brought up is when listing a given year's squad and how the players came to be on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The all-stars are selected.. either by a vote or by the manager... it's just a differing manner of selection.. so both ways are correct... I really dont have a preference here. Spanneraol (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely just "All-Star". Either you say selection refers to some subclass of All-Stars (which I've never heard of), and we need some serious sourcing. Else it refers to all All-Stars and is just a random, meaningless term thrown on the end. They're also all humans but we don't say Human All-Star selection. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In the infobox, just "All-Star". I'd only make the distinction between "All-Star" and "All-Star selection" if a player was selected for a game but did not actually play after either declining or being unavailable due to injury, etc, and even then only in prose, not in a summary table like the infobox. The fact that the player was selected - through one method or another - has to be automatically assumed.  Afaber012  (talk)  00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yankees10, the reason I say that your opinion is the only one that matters to you is because this exact debate took place three months ago. You behaved yourself for a little while, but you have recently made edits where you have done little more than add the word "Selection" in the player's infobox. Afaber012 makes an interesting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.45.113 (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous discussion, for conciseness, I favour "All-Star" over other forms. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Per previous discussion (which is, for those looking for it here), I feel that adding the word "selection" is, under most circumstances, entirely superfluous. Perhaps Yankees10 is afflicted with a bad case of editcountitis. -Dewelar (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah dude, thats totally it...--Yankees10 23:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the superfluousness of it, though I'm not sure there is an illness associated with it. I also happen to think it makes Wikipedia look a little silly. No one else uses that term; why would Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.45.113 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is supposed to be the place where we're supposed to hammer out differences and reach a consensus yet, we never seem to decide on anything. The infobox seems to be a continuing source of contention. I, for one, think a batting championship is much more of a "career highlight" than a Hutch Award, which I'd never heard of before I joined Wikipedia yet, batting championships and home run crowns have been edited out of some infoboxes.Orsoni (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Orsoni, I agree. Another point of contention I've had with the Highlights in an infobox is what order what highlights should be in. For example, I believe that World Series Championships should be listed first, as this is a team sport. It seems that one's team reaching the pinnacle of achievement should be the ultimate highlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.45.113 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The totals section is very confusing as the totals for each location are listed at the bottom. There are 3 different totals listed before you get to the final total, which then includes the 5 seasons in which they played in the National Association the totals for which were not listed before. On top of that the Totals with playoffs actually are inexplicably less than the ones without.

In my opinion main total wins should not include the seasons they played in the NA, though there should be a franchise totals including those numbers. I don't know how y'all have gone about addressing other teams that started outside of the American or National League, but I think it would be best to separate those records from those in the MLB, to avoid subtraction when trying to find out MLB totals (users shouldn't need to check how many games/losses/wins a team had in another league then subtract those from the overall franchise record when trying to find the MLB totals).

A lot of the pages follow similar formats, I personally like the way the Orioles list is set up (Arizona and the Cubs have a similar set up too), which is very clean and simple. Also the reference link links you to the sites homepage, not to the list of the Atlanta Braves Season by Season results. Its also an obscure website, while most other teams list baseball-reference.com, which is a terrific site for stats, in addition to the list of seasons it provides totals for each incarnation of the Braves (it breaks down their time in Boston by name instead of just listing it as time spent in Boston).

Here's the baseball-reference.com link for the Atlanta Braves

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87GT (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a temp protection on Josh Hamilton? We are getting a few 'murder' and Hamilton caused a fan's death type edits. Thank you Red3biggs (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Protected for a couple weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone drop in at this article? User:Stewie814 and his corresponding IP have deleted content from the lede several times. I'm at my revert limit, so I'd be much obliged for an assist. — KV5 • Talk • 18:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Clap, clap, clap clap clap.

This is a heads up that I plan on nominating Derek Jeter for FA status on Monday, after we add some more details about hit #3000 and a few other changes I've been procrastinating. Any help you can provide is appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Flame away. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

At Template:3000_hit_club, why is Jeter listed second to last -- isn't this supposed to be in chronological order? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be in the order of the number of hits. As he gets more hits, he will move up the list. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

These edits [2] [3] state that the Minor League Baseball operates under the Commissioner of Baseball. I don't believe this to be the case; can anyone confirm or deny? isaacl (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor League Baseball, formerly known as the National Association, has a contractual partnership with Major League Baseball. MiLB has its own executive counsel, but the MLB Commissioner has substantial authority over the minor leagues that are included in the agreement. This excludes independent minor leagues, of course. An example would be if a player is banned for life from the major leagues, he can't play in the minors, either, unless an independent league decides to hire him. I also saw a writeup from last year where some minor leaguers were suspended by the Commissioner's Office, for failing drug tests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He should be listed as a Manager in lists, manager's boxes or templates. What I'm discovering is that a lot of these wikipedia entries are leaving out managers. Mel Harder twice managed in Cleveland, George Myatt managed the Phillies in between Gene Mauch and Bob Skinner. Talking about Skinner, he managed in San Diego in between John McNamara and Alvin Dark. Mel Queen, Salty Parker, Buster Mills and Brandon Hyde are just a few others I've corrected. One editor took Hyde out of the Florida Marlin Manager Template insisting one game didn't make him a Manager. The population of the world is something close to 7 billion people, I think we can give credit to each of the just eleven people who filled out a lineup card for the Florida Marlins.William 00:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether the baseball history sources consider them to be "managers" or not. A coach will typically take over for a manager who's been ejected or is ill or whatever. But they are typically not counted as managers. Here's Retrosheet's take on it:[4] Harder, for example, is shown as managing a total of 3 games for the Indians in 2 different years. However, although Ernie Banks served as manager for part of a game after the manager and other coaches had been tossed or whatever it was, he is not listed among Cubs managers.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you noticed, I mentioned filling out the lineup cards. Coaches who replace ejected managers. Coaches who manage a game in place of a sick manager, for instance Rube Walker in 1968 for the New York Mets after Gil Hodges suffered a heart attack, aren't recognized. I disagree but the recordbooks say Walker didn't manage so that's it. Harder, Hyde, Queen, and the others I cited above are recognized by the recordbooks but Wikipedia isn't or wasn't.- William 01:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you've got sources, go ahead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As part of the work-in-progress style guidelines, I have drawn up an outline for a player article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style guidelines, based on the player articles that have reached Featured Article status, and a handful of other player articles I examined. Feedback is welcome (for simplicity, I suggest keeping any discussion on this page). isaacl (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, as an encyclopedia article, I believe that the first sentence in the introductory paragraph should state succinctly that the subject was/is a "professional baseball player". What league and what position they played is secondary and can be expounded upon in the following sentences (He played in the Japanese Baseball League as a second baseman for the Tokyo Giants from 1942 to 1951). Also, as per the Manual of Style for Bios for opening paragraphs, his nationality should be mentioned so, in my example it would read; So and so was a Japanese professional baseball player.Orsoni (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I also believe that season home run crowns and batting championships are "career highlights" and should be listed in the info box. As of now, those titles haven't been allowed in the infobox for some reason. For example, Tony Gwynn won eight batting championships, yet that information isn't available in the infobox, whose purpose is to give a quick overview of the subject.Orsoni (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this should be the format. The leagues a player played in (be they in Japan, Korea, US or elsewhere) are secondary to their defining status as a professional baseball player. Thanks for brining this up, I have been working to standardize article introductions for awhile.--TM 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you need a separate career highlights section at the bottom.. all that stuff should be listed in the info box... do we need to list it again in a chart at the bottom? Spanneraol (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on the volume involved. It should be an optional section for players who have a lengthy list of awards received. -Dewelar (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for a new section as the last section of the current infobox is already titled "Career highlights and awards" however, home run and batting crowns have been excluded. In my opinion, a batting crown is much more notable than a Hutch Award.Orsoni (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because the articles I consulted were for high-achieving players, they have extensive lists of achievements that go beyond what is typically found in an infobox. This section (and others too) would not be mandatory; this is just an outline of the information that can be included. I was not intending the guideline to be strictly prescriptive regarding the format of the first sentence (I believe flexibility should be allowed in order to accommodate the wide spectrum of players from rookies to veterans), but the sample sentence can be broken up into two. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Career highlights in infobox

Would someone like to draw up a proposal for guidance on the career highlights section in the infobox? I'm not familiar with the previous discussion threads on this topic, so it would be nice if someone who is familiar with previous consensus could provide a starting point. You can suggest it here (perhaps in list form), or within the "Infobox" subsection under the "Guidelines" section on the player article style guidelines page. isaacl (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that page a bit more, I should note that in the Teams section, we also include NPB teams. I have also seen KBO and CPBL teams listed here, but not universally (perhaps because there is no easy resource to find that information as there is for Japan). Given the recent discussion on notability, it's possible we should also be including teams from the Mexican League, Serie A1 and Honkbal Hoofdklasse. -Dewelar (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For career highlights, I would suggest; All-Star game appearances, MVP or Cy Young Awards, World Series or playoff MVP Awards, Rookie of the Year Awards, season home run crowns, season batting championships, season RBI championships, Gold Glove Awards, Silver Slugger Awards. I don't see other awards such as the Hutch Award or Babe Ruth Award as being important enough to be in the info box and, these can perhaps be entered into the infoboxes that normally appear at the bottom of the page.Orsoni (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Any more input on the career highlights section in the infobox? It would be nice if some of those who participated in earlier discussions could contribute their thoughts and recap any previous consensus and rationales. isaacl (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on career records (for example Cobb's career batting record)? The problem is that this itself can be lengthy for some players, so I could see that this is not desirable. That aside, I don't see any problem with what has been suggested. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking up players for my local team, the Omaha Storm Chasers, I saw that there are separate categories for Category:Omaha Storm Chasers players, Category:Omaha Royals players and Category:Omaha Golden Spikes players. However, they are all one team in history: they were the Omaha Royals from 1969-1998, Omaha Golden Spikes 1999-2001, Omaha Royals again 2002-2010, and starting this year the Omaha Storm Chasers. And all those categories are subcategories of Category:Minor league baseball players by team. I'm sure there are other examples of this phenomenom. Just curious if we should have the Omaha Royals and Omaha Golden Spikes players be subcategories of Omaha Storm Chasers players, which to me would look right, or if we should just leave it as is. DandyDan2007 (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We do the same thing with the Major League teams, separate categories for each name the team went under.Spanneraol (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is done across most sports. It would be inaccurate to put players who played for the Omaha Royals under a Omaha Storm Chasers category for example. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If they're the same franchise, then the categories should redirect to the current or most recent team nickname. There's nothing special about nicknames. The Boston Red Sox are considered to be the winners of the 1903 World Series, even though they weren't called the Red Sox yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But the players who played for the 1903 team are actually listed under Category:Boston Americans players.. If you want to see all the players from the franchise thats in Boston Red Sox all-time roster, but they are split in the categories. I'd be opposed to using redirects here as I like the ability to categorize by the different nicknames. Spanneraol (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, you would never say someone who played on the Brooklyn Dodgers was a Los Angeles Dodger. I understand franchise wise they are the same franchise (not getting into that debate). But from purely a player perspective you never says X player played for the "New Team Name" when you are describing them if they only played for the old team name. To do so would be wildly inaccurate and team nicknames are quite defining of a team and a who played for them. To draw a parallel in another subject, when you list a persons birth city/country on wikipedia you are supposed to list it as of the time they were born even if the city/country has a new name now. I think that is a similar situation. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the players, I'm talking about the categories. Who they played for is irrelevant to this debate. DandyDan2007 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But it is directly relevant. If you make them sub-categories then you are saying those players also played for the team while it was called the other name. If you are concerned with showing that they are the same team then you just write in the description with links to the other categories indicating that they are the same team with different names. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an artificial distinction that could very well be confusing to the readers. And you run into problems where a team had two nicknames, for example the Brooklyn Dodgers, who were also called the Robins during Wilbert Robinson's managing career. As for the Red Sox, they had no nickname until 1908. "Americans" is just a place-holder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how the baseball side categorizes when the name changes during a career. But I know for hockey (and I only use them as an example since I edit there more often) we place them in both categories if they played for the team under two names. Splitting them does two things, it allows people who are just looking for players who played during a specific era to find them easier (which is the whole point of categorization) and it avoids having a big "super"-category that is too full and needs to be sub-divided anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's another problem. Cy Young pitched for both the Boston "Americans" and the Red Sox. But he didn't change teams, they simply changed their "brand". More recently, you have the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and the Tampa Bay Rays. Maintaining 2 separate categories seems silly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To each their own I guess, I find it makes life easier when trying to find groups of players from a specific era of the team. I was only commenting that that is how its done already for most sports including baseball looking at your Cy Young example. If you want to change that fact by all means go for it. Seems silly to me and confusing to put people in a Los Angeles Dodgers category who never played for the organization when it was called that. Never mind how confusing that would be to people who don't know anything about baseball. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Adrián González#Requested move. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion underway as to the possibility that this guy is the same person as this guy. Evidence is scant but if anyone wants to chime in, go ahead. Spanneraol (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I submitted a move request for the page hitting for the cycle to be placed at cycle (baseball) to keep the article titles consistent. I was advised that I should contact this WikiTopic and let some of its members have their say on the issue...so I am doing so. The conversation is at Talk:Hitting_for_the_cycle#Requested_move. The more people, the more helpful this process can be. -- Transaspie (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of it referred to as the cycle. It's always referred to as hitting for the cycle. I don't know what the naming conventions might be.Orsoni (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Image is up for deletion. Please go to its deletion page and present your opinion (pro or con) on the matter, if you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm having issues with an editor who seem to overly concern himself with minutia and seems to have ownership issues with every single baseball article on Wikipedia. I added 3× National League Batting Champion to Pete Rose's infobox. To me this is a legitimate career highlight. I don't understand why this guy would remove it. Likewise, I added the fact that Gil Meche led the AL in starts 2 years in a row. To me, that is a highlight as well. He also changed the name of the Sporting News AL Comeback Player of the Year Award to AL Comeback Player of the Year in Meche's infobox. That makes it technically inaccurate as there is a second award with this name presented by MLB, and that is NOT the award Meche won.

Could someone please talk to him. He doesn't seem to wanna listen to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.47.240 (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've previously requested some sort of consensus be reached on infobox content but, it doesn't seem to raise much interest. To me, Tony Gwynn's 8 batting championships or Mike Schmidt's 8 home run titles definitely fall within the boundaries of "career highlights" yet, some editors insist on removing those statistics in favor of relatively unknown career highlights such as the Hutch Award. I think this is a major oversight in the Baseball Wikiproject.Orsoni (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.47.240 (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I added that information to Tony Gwynn's infobox, and it was immediately removed. Make no sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.47.240 (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As baseball fans, do we seriously believe that a Hutch Award or a Branch Rickey Award merit placement in an info box more than a hitting championship? As I've stated in the Tony Gwynn discussion page, The Wikipedia Manual of Style for infoboxes states,"the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". In my opinion, Tony Gwynn's eight batting titles would be the key fact about his career. An infobox is especially helpful to readers who may not be aware of a player's career.Orsoni (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think any awards other than the Hall of Fame should be in the infobox. The infobox is only supposed to show you very quick information at a glance which is the most important basic facts. I would rather see the awards listed or explained in the prose instead for that reason. But a secondary reason is that there is always arguments about what should be in there that would be taken away if you only allowed the hall of fame. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Limiting it to only Hall of Fame members would be an improvement over the current status quo, however, it would rule out some great players who didn't make the hall such as, Ron Santo and Dale Murphy.Orsoni (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The infobox template already has specific parameters for the Hall of Fame; are you suggesting that the awards parameter be dropped entirely? I disagree; I believe that it would better to draw up a list of specific notable achievements that can help epitomize a player's career. If there is some concern about its length, perhaps a cap on the maximum number of award categories that should be listed. (The cap would be arbitrary, but it would be in keeping with trying to provide a quick look at a player's most important achievements.) isaacl (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am suggesting dropping it. Too much is already put into the infobox. The infobox should be a very short very succinct summary of the article and not showcase everything there is to know about a player. The rest of the article does that. The best way to remove arbitrariness is to limit the information in a fact based non arbitrary/pov way. So my first suggestion is to just remove the awards section all together as I think it adds more trouble than its worth. But if you are stuck on having it, limit it to just awards given out by the league and change the sections name from career highlights to mlb awards or something like that to reflect that its just for that. But as it stands Career Highlights is just way to vague. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As a lifelong baseball fan, I would say batting championships and home run titles carry considerably more weight than a Hutch Award or even a Comeback Player of the Year Award that currently inhabit infoboxes. I think awards that are vaguely given for community involvement or for spirit demonstrated, would be better in a section of prose. This would leave more room in the infoboxes for weightier, statistical based honors commonly recognized by baseball fans (i.e. Schmidt's eight home run crowns, etc).Orsoni (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I never even heard of the Hutch award until I started editing Wikipedia articles. I don't agree with just hall of fame on infoboxes. It shows up as "highlights" on the page, and every major leaguer has at least ONE career highlight that COULD be written there. If receiving the Hutch award is it, so be it. Batting crowns, home run crowns and RBI crowns are certainly worth mentioning in my opinion. For pitchers, ERA leaders, win leaders and strikeout leaders, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.47.240 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I just updated the Rangers roster template with the move of Gentry to the new 7-day concussion DL. However, the only choices we have are 15-day and 60-day. In the interest of accuracy, would it be ideal to add the 7-day possibility next to the injured (red cross) image or add a new one? -- bmitchelf•T•F 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. trade deadline time.. or as we should call it the "Attack of the IPs"... anonymous users adding premature trade rumors as though they were facts... What fun. Spanneraol (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey all. I've been tossing around a couple potential collaboration ideas in my head, since they're usually very successful when we really put our minds to it. As such, I've been looking at the many World Series articles that are not very good as possibilities. We have 3 FAs for them, but that's 100+ more that are nowhere near that. Any particular ones you guys would be interested in tackling? I have a couple in mind but I'll see what you guys think up first. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, my thoughts were to either do the 1991 or 1975 world series, since those were considered such classics. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1903 would be my first choice due to its historic nature. Being a Twins fan, I'd be in support of 1991 being chosen as well. 1960 would be another good one. -Dewelar (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1903 could work, but finding online refs will be difficult as google gets very choppy pre-1940; 1960 would also be a good possibility. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a decent book on World Series history. I think it's ISBN 1402747705 (I can check when I get back home later today). Goes into extreme detail at times. Hopefully qualifies as WP:RS. Wknight94 ^talk 17:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the Sky Chiefs article and noticed it is inaccurate inasmuch as it identifies as one franchise the various teams that have been known as the Chiefs. As the commonly accepted definition of a franchise refers to the team itself, and not to the various teams which might have played in a given place, under a given name, this opens the door to a great deal of confusion when the term is misused as it is in this article. For example, it would seem that the team played itself in some International League Championships, if one were to look at the list of Chiefs and Montreal Royals appearances (as the Chiefs were the Montreal Royals until 1960). The article would be better re-written as one about the history of pro baseball in Syracuse. A new Chiefs article could then be written that deals with the history of that specific franchise in Syracuse. Jphieffer (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a couple of redundant categories in Category:Major League Baseball player–managers and Category:Baseball player–managers. I'm assuming the majority of players in the latter category were player-managers in the major leagues.Orsoni (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am Pepper543210, and I wanted to gauge interest for a task force focused on the Houston Astros. There are a lot of articles involving the Houston Astros that need some work, so I thought that a task force dedicated to improving these articles would be best for this. If you are interested, just say so in this section. After enough people have joined (5?) and permission is given, I will create the page and link it in the WikiProject itself under team-specific task forces. Pepper543210 (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Should this Bud Black be named Bud Black (Detroit), Bud Black (Detroit Tigers pitcher), or Bud Black (Bud Black (right-handed pitcher) (as it was previously named)? Adam Penale (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Bud Black (1950s pitcher). Wknight94 ^talk 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Per our naming conventions, it should be Bud Black (right-handed pitcher). -Dewelar (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(eta) And now, it is. -Dewelar (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's cheesy. Wknight94 ^talk 04:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

shrugs Take it up at the naming conventions page. If pressed, I'd probably prefer William "Bud" Black (which would necessitate renaming the other to Harry "Bud" Black), just because that's how I've always identified him in my own mind. -Dewelar (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm done with naming convention issues on this project. Not worth the effort. Everyone likes it cheesy so cheesy it is. Wknight94 ^talk 19:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying our naming conventions are made of cheese? :-D -Dewelar (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I could make the point that the convention doesn't say those points are to be done in that order or that the bullet points under the numbers don't necessarily fall under any order of precedence - or, more simply, that "1950s pitcher" just sounds better than "right-handed pitcher". But I know that, similar to your astronomer, I'd have better luck - and probably get more enjoyment - from talking to a wall. Wknight94 ^talk 23:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact that they're called "steps" and the fact that they're numbered would seem to me to imply that they're meant to be followed in order. I don't think you're on the side of the argument that you think you're on. Personally, I'm not trying to take sides, because nobody's asked me to do so, at least not officially. Whether or not I like the conventions is meaningless. -Dewelar (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The side I'm on is that "1950s pitcher" is more useful than "right-handed pitcher", convention or not. The clearer distinction between Bud Black and this Bud Black are not that one is right-handed and one is left-handed. It's that one pitched during my lifetime and one pitched decades before I was born. If the scenario were one pitched in the 1980s and the other in the 1990s, then I would agree that right- or left-handed might be more useful. But try getting that into a naming convention, and then getting everyone here to agree. I'll pass. Wknight94 ^talk 02:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if we could do things on a case-by-case basis, but then it kind of ceases to be a "convention", which defeats the whole purpose of even having conventions. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. -Dewelar (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The top of the conventions page says, "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I hardly think that's "anarchy". But that kind of extremist view is a perfect example of why I don't even try to improve this project. It's hopeless. Wknight94 ^talk 13:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So, the point of view that we shouldn't handle every single disambiguation on a case-by-case basis is extremist to you? Either that, or you're assuming I'm holding a position that I don't actually hold just because you want to keep arguing about it because you need to vent. I have no interest in playing either of those games. -Dewelar (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, using the word "anarchy" to describe my view that we may have some common sense exceptions is what is extremist to me. In fact, using the word "anarchy" is by definition extremist. And a word used to shut down all discussion. Wknight94 ^talk 19:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I was using "anarchy" to describe determining everything on a case-by-case basis, which it seemed you might be proposing. "Everything case-by-case" is, in this instance, the logical equivalent of "no rules", i.e. anarchy. If we can't even use the definition of a word correctly, then the word is meaningless. Additionally, "common sense" doesn't apply in a situation where different people hold legitimately different views on what's "better". Again, that's the whole reason we have these conventions, and why seeking to short-circuit them because you don't like them is unhelpful. -Dewelar (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone can step back from this meta-argument? Since Wknight94 has already indicated a disinclination to discuss the naming conventions, I don't believe probing this reluctance further is necessary. I'm sure everyone is aware of the usefulness of conventions, and how exceptions can be of greater use in some cases; have faith that no one will assume that one person has emerged victorious in this discussion just because that person had the last word. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I was not concerned with Wknight94's reticence to discuss the conventions, but rather what appeared to be an attempt to undermine them. -Dewelar (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting an exception is "undermining" "anarchy". Gotta love WikiProject Baseball. Wknight94 ^talk 02:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer 1950s pitcher myself, actually. Then again, I don't care at all what it's named just as long as it's not ridiculous, like all three names written out or Bud Black (the other pitcher). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with not using full names. Overall, though, what I have always presumed about our naming conventions involves the following: (a) we want to avoid is constant arguing about which disambiguator is "better"; (b) the naming conventions were created to avoid such arguments and the page naming wars that inevitably follow; and (c) actual thought and discussion went into the order in which the conventions are to be applied.

Making exceptions is fine if there's a real issue, but not just because someone (or several someones) has a preference for doing it differently in one instance. If there's an actual point to be made that using decade is more helpful than using handedness, then make the point in a constructive manner. If people disagree, it's not personal, so move on and swallow your bitterness. Feigning disinterest in discussing it and then taking potshots from the sidelines is not doing anyone any good, unless you just enjoy complaining. -Dewelar (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• What would this WikiProject think if we started including articles solely dedicated to the accomplishments of certain players? There is precedent for this for American sports articles; about a dozen basketball players have said lists, and one of these lists (Kobe Bryant's) has that vaunted gold star on the upper-right corner of the page; if you expand internationally, there's a bunch out there for cricket and a lot have that vaunted gold star. Anyway, I've always been surprised that not a single baseball player has one of these pages. Would there be support from this WikiProject for, say, pages along the lines of "List of career achievements of Babe Ruth" or "List of career achievements of Barry Bonds", etc., or would they just be swiftly deleted? Just wondering because I've started working on Bonds' and have a good source lined up for Ruth's. -- Transaspie (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to accept these, since I could see a slippery slope happening. If it was limited to the very significant players (i.e. Bonds, Ruth) then it could be okay. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• One thing I realized after I posted this was there was a similar sort of Barry Bonds achievement page that had that, you guessed it, "vaunted gold star": List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds. So there is precedent. But I don't really like that page focusing on just home runs when you have a guy that also stole 500 bases, won many Gold Gloves and MVP awards, et cetera. To answer your point about slippery slopes, I understand that being an issue too. I know we'll have gone too far when we have Bill Bergen's career achievements on its own page. I don't know where "too far" is, though. Since there is some reluctance, I may have to back off on this idea and think it through more. -- Transaspie (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We have 1,000's of biographies, season recaps for teams, leagues and great material site wide. I want to contribute to the site and add my site as a external link where applicable. My material has been written by:

Robert Cohen - National baseball author Bill Nowlin - SABR Vice President and dozens of other national authors and people in high esteem in the baseball community.

I do want to add my contributions get deleted when I have tried to add.

Tom Hannon www.thebaseballpage.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleebbets (talk • contribs) 08:18, August 8, 2011

Ah, I've perused your site from time to time. It's been helpful. How do you figure your approach would fuse, for example, with our WP:V and WP:NOR policies, and reliability guideline at WP:RS? So far, it looks like all you've attempted is adding links from here to your site. That's not particularly helpful to us. Wknight94 ^talk 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can add, quotes, stories, facts, stats and there are many stubs or pages with little if any information on them that are baseball related. We are willing to share our stories and data. Additionally, if you allow us to link to the pages our site offers a different alternative. It has stats, plus player video, images and other related content that users may find interesting during there research for on a player, season or event.

I can't find any confirmation one way or the other, but the press releases for the DHL Delivery Man Award winners no longer include a mention of DHL. From this, I see that there was some talk about a "cloudy future", but I can't find anything definitively saying the sponsorship was cut off. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably should rename that article the Major League Baseball Delivery Man Award. Spanneraol (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my thinking, but I'd like to find some confirmation first. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Still can't find any. I'll make the move now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this seem like a notable enough subject to write a stand alone article on. I can find sources I know where to look. I just don't want to spend days writing it only for it to be AfD'd. chris†ianrocker90 07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's interested I've started building such an article in my sandbox. chris†ianrocker90 08:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think, at worst, anything attached to reliable sources would be merged into an existing article. I'm just not sure which. Rays Ballpark, Tampa Bay Rays, Tropicana Field, none of the above? I guess I'd continue in your sandbox and we can figure out where it goes. If it gets long enough, a standalone article is always a viable option. My first reaction is that Rays Ballpark should be renamed and then your content added to it. Wknight94 ^talk 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there should be an encyclopedia article on something that doesn't even exist. It seems to be more of a news story and as per WP:NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Orsoni (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I see your point, but that's rarely the way it works here. Like I said, there's already an article for Rays Ballpark, and yet it doesn't exist either. I've always been fuzzy on the NOT NEWS thing. Wknight94 ^talk 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there's a long-established template that says "this is a current event and may change rapidly", the "not news" concept seems to be officially eroded. However, I think the "not news" is to prevent here-today-and-gone-tomorrow stuff, to keep wikipedia to a manageable size. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We have Brooklyn Dodgers proposed domed stadium, and it never existed. I think everything that has gone on could be included in Rays Ballpark. I don't see the need for a separate article about the saga. What info is the ballpark article missing? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There also is, or at least was (I can't recall its name), an article about the never-built ballpark for the Montreal Expos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion and it was suggested to be merged into the Montreal Expos article. The deletion took place but the merge did not (there wasn't much there anyway, as I recall). For a long time I've wanted to put more background on the proposed ballpark into the Expos article (it forms a significant part of the history of the consortium ownership), but I don't know if or when I can get to it, so anyone interested should feel free to address it. isaacl (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It was Labatt Park, a name currently used by a small ballpark, and it at least had an illustration which would have been nice to include in the Expos history article. What's notable about the nonexistent O'Malleydome is that it was a significant piece in the puzzle about the Dodgers' move to L.A. Theoretically, so was Labatt Park, although it was more of a symptom than anything. Meanwhile, there's no indication the Rays are going anyplace, is there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't name it because I didn't want to give the hypothetical sponsor coverage :P. Labatt Park was the consortium's last attempt to improve the team's fortunes before it decided to sell to a new majority managing partner, and so played a significant role in the team's history. isaacl (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly has a place in wikipedia, it's just a question of where. The O'Malley Dome was somewhat different, in that it wasn't "a last attempt to improve the team's fortune", but rather was an attempt at a kind of extortion, much as the NFL Cardinals did to St. Louis: "Build us a new stadium or we're leaving." In both cases, it was "See ya!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And, ironically, the current Rays stadium was used as a kind of extortion by the White Sox, to force Illinois to build a ballpark for them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, and as discussed at the deletion discussion for the Labatt Park article, I believe information on the proposed ballpark fits within the Montreal Expos article. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the O'Malley Dome a kind of extortion. No one disputed that a new or massively renovated stadium was needed. And the city wasn't so much objecting to building a new stadium, but to building it in Brooklyn, which was the crux of the problem. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's something that, ten or twenty years from now, someone will want to know to understand this period of Rays history, then I believe it is notable enough to include somewhere, as long as care is taken to give appropriate weight to each item. Details of back-and-forth negotiations, for example, are not very notable in the long term, in my view. isaacl (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest news I read was that they were still looking for a location outside St. Petersburg, but that St. Pete's mayor was threatening to hold them to a long-term contract they signed to stay there. But that obviously doesn't make an entire article. I'm interested to see what else the proposer has in mind. Wknight94 ^talk 15:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Information that can be included on the stand-alone article is the reasons mentioned in new sources why the Rays want a new stadium, the legal battles/threats between the ones involved, what each entity is saying about it, the proposal of the now abandoned waterfront stadium, just to name a few. And I personally think it's notable outside Tampa Bay as you see fans all over MLB criticizing attendance and the Rays current home almost daily. It's especially bad when a ball hits a catwalk and some quirky thing happens as a result. But I am biased being a Rays fan which is why I propose it here and write it in my sandbox first. BTW, anyone is welcome to help me, I do think the subject is notable but I'm not very good at article writing. chris†ianrocker90 19:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not dead set against the article, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Whereas the Brooklyn domed stadium and its ramifications are fairly cemented in history, the Rays' stadium story is still being played out in today's newspapers. I think it's much too malleable yet to be documented in a Wikipedia article, which is probably part of the reason why Wikipedia has a "no news" policy.Orsoni (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Below template. You may notice that I have added Template:MLB roster template footer to each team roster template. This makes the templates analogous to the National Basketball Association and National Football League roster templates. For examples, Template:Chicago Cubs roster navbox, Template:Chicago Bulls current roster and Template:Chicago Bears roster.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

At a current baseball CFD, the nom has asserted in support of his nomination that: "Major League Baseball is an American organization, so we can argue that all participants are at some level American. Emphasis added.

The discussion is taking place here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Trevor Gretzky notable enough to remove the few lines about his career from Wayne Gretzky and create his own page? When I Google News searched it, it does give 327 articles. But since they are largely about his drafting and signing and likely a portion of them are wire stories, does this pass WP:GNG? I realize that this project typically does not create articles for players who have not appeared in the Majors (or in Trevor's case Minors either). But the additions about his baseball career do seem out of place on his Dad's article. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not notable yet. Better to keep him on his dads page for now. Spanneraol (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Does he belong on Chicago Cubs minor league players page? I asked this same thing over at WP:Hockey, more because I thought the info wasn't necessary on his dad's page. It does seem like it is going to get pruned from Wayne's page. Instead of going through a possible AFD when one of the hockey editors creates a short article on him. If he can go on the Cubs list I will move it myself and add some of the info I found from Googling all of this. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would it be removed from his dad's page?.. it's just a couple of lines and his other kids are mentioned there also. I'd put him on the minor league page before giving him his own page, but dont know if he's done enough for that yet either. Spanneraol (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that it is Trevor's career, not Wayne's. Thus talking about his letter of intent to SDU and whatnot doesn't relate to the topic. I also think that the idea is that it is two lines now, but in future it could grow to paragraphs and it is easier to stop the leak at the first few drops instead of waiting for a flood. You'll find that the hockey project is far more liberal in who gets pages that this one does. Anyway, that is why I asked about the Cubs page. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of it should be removed because the fact that Trevor has signed a letter of intent with San Diego State and is coached by Tony Gwynn is irrelevant to Wayne's bio. All that is relevant to Wayne's bio is that Trevor is his son and is a baseball player. Resolute 02:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this is the reason we made those minor league pages. Put him there and have the name redirect. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what it's there for. Very few 2011 draftees are notable enough for their own pages as of today. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please copyedit I don't know if any of you care, but I've frequently seen instances of ((Infobox MLB player)) that have text like "3x Cy Young Award winner" or "5x All-Star". The problem with this text is that it uses lower-case/miniscule x rather than the proper times sign (×.) For those of you copyeditors who are sticklers for such things (and I know I am), you can fix this by replacing xs with ×s or, of course actually inserting the HTML character itself, which is preferable but sometimes a bit cumbersome. Just a heads-up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate those symbol things.. they were just invented to make things more difficult for people... an x is an x.. why do you need a code? That and the dash nonsense just drive me batty. Spanneraol (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My vote is always that whoever has a strong opinion about such things should be the ones to change them. Or request a bot to change them or whatever. I have little inclination to go find these codes when the situation arises. Have a bot that constantly looks for them so the rest of us people don't need to care. Wknight94 ^talk 16:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I try to change those x's whenever I come across them, but I often don't bother with the hyphens. It would be nice if we could get a bot to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Spanneraol and Wknight94. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup I am pretty much in the same school of thought. Although I do tend to change dashes but only because I have the alt code memorized. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The title Billy Williams (left fielder) seems to be something of a disservice to a Hall of famer. Personally, I would go with Billy Williams (baseball), with the guy who appeared in a handful of games for the Seattle Pilots remaining Billy Williams (right fielder), however, even Billy Williams (Hall of famer) would be a better title than Billy Williams (left fielder). That just seems ridiculous to me.

I agree something is wrong just from the titles. I would've had no idea that Williams the Hall of Famer was a left-fielder. In fact, now that I look it up, he played most of a few seasons in right field so they were both right fielders from time to time. But, someone will be along shortly - hopefully in a more polite manner than above - to tell you that there are naming conventions for this project and they are adhered to quite religiously. While this seems like an even better case for an exception than the case I raised, you have an uphill battle for sure. Personally, I don't particularly mind Billy Williams (Hall of Fame), but I really like Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots) for the other. Wknight94 ^talk 18:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with changing the Hall of Famer to Billy Williams (baseball). Any sports guy looking for williams will be thinking of that one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I also support a rename to Billy Williams (baseball) due to his induction into the Hall of Fame. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the current method is potentially misleading. However, I would support a rename to Billy Williams (Baseball Hall of Famer) before a simple renaming to Billy Williams (baseball), for the simple reason that Billy Williams (baseball) is not fully unambiguous (due to there being more than one baseball-related Billy Williams), therefore by definition disqualifying it from being an acceptable disambiguator. (eta) I also agree with Wknight94 that Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots) (or, more precisely, Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots outfielder)) would be good for the other one. -Dewelar (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure Billy Williams (right fielder) is an accurate name for the other guy considering that he made one put-out.

Interesting he had more outfield assists (2) than putouts (1) in his career. I wonder how many outfielders can say that! Wknight94 ^talk 10:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This may or may not help, but note how Alex Gonzalez (shortstop, born 1973) and his counterpart were handled. Or Bob Miller (1957–1974 pitcher) vs. Bob Miller (1953–1962 pitcher). Those designations were especially necessary because both of them were on the Mets 1962 roster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Seattle Pilots" should be sufficient for the cup-of-coffee guy. For the Hall of Famer, you could say "Baseball Hall of Fame", or "Cubs and Athletics". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Francisco Rodriguez's are pretty bad too. Both right-handed relief pitchers and pitched for the Angels within a couple years. I had proposed nationality-based disambiguation for those but couldn't get much support, mostly because of bad results in unrelated areas where that was tried if I recall correctly. Wknight94 ^talk 16:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as this particular debate goes, I vote Billy Williams (baseball) and Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots).

As much as it seems to be a disservice to a great player, I feel that anyone looking for Billy Williams would find his article within a few mouse clicks.Orsoni (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Billy Williams (baseball) and Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots). The Billy Williams (baseball) article can and should also have a hatnote leading to the Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots) article. But there is really no question about the level of prominence between the two, and given that the position indications aren't all that precise anyway, the hall of famer (who probably 99% of readers looking for a baseball-playing Billy Williams will be looking for) should be at Billy Williams (baseball). Rlendog (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Another alternative might be to put the HOFer at Billy Williams (baseball) and the Mariners player at William Williams - or William Williams (baseball) if a dab is needed - since according to Baseball Reference at least, those are their respective given names. That would probably technically violate WP:COMMONNAME for the Pilots player, but since he only played 3 MLB games, his name wasn't particularly commonly used in notable situations anyway. And it would also avoid unnecessary awkwardness in the title of the HOFer. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, Billy Williams (baseball) is unusable due to not being unambiguous. It also would violate our own naming conventions. -Dewelar (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I give up, then. -Dewelar (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for just jumping in here, but Dewelar is 100% correct. Either the Hall of Famer is the primary topic of everyone called Billy Williams, in which case he should be at simply Billy Williams, or he needs a unique disambiguation. Billy Williams (baseball) is clearly ambiguous as it could refer to the Hall of Famer, the Seattle Pilots player or the baseball umpire. Jenks24 (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I made the move, but upon doing so noticed that there are three Billy Williams in the baseball field, not two; the above outfielders and an umpire. I was fine moving it with just the two, but now that there's three with different conventions on them all, I feel that perhaps we should go a completely different route on these. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if that weren't the case, moving to Billy Williams (baseball) was ill-advised. Even barring the fact that there was as yet no consensus regarding where to move the page (or, indeed, whether to move the page at all -- this probably should have gone through WP:RM), having a disambiguator be itself ambiguous rather defeats the purpose of it being a disambiguator. -Dewelar (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the page back pending a consensus to move it elsewhere. -Dewelar (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to Billy Williams (baseball), Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots) and Billy Williams (umpire)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.47.240 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it's not just opinion. As stated repeatedly, using "Billy Williams (baseball)" is in opposition to Wikipedia disambiguation rules, global and project-specific naming conventions, and plain old logic. The only arguments in support of it seem to rely on either a misunderstanding of the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:ILIKEIT. If you really want it moved there, I will again suggest formally requesting the move to see if it goes through. -Dewelar (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In particular, see Wikipedia's guidance on disambiguating persons. isaacl (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better to go by the years played, as in the Bob Miller example above... dont much like defining them by right or left fielder because most people will not remember which field these guys played and the left fielder actually played quite a lot of games in right and even a few in center. Spanneraol (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has beaten: "Billy Williams (Hall of Famer)" and "Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots)". Wknight94 ^talk 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I could go with Billy Williams (Hall of Famer) and Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots). Dewelar's claim that wanting the Hall of Famer listed as Billy Williams (baseball) defies logic is laughable, but certainly not worth arguing with. THAT would defy logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.47.240 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Famer" is an actual word. Also "Hall of Fame" is ambiguous as there are so many Halls of Fame. If the "Hall of Fame" option wins, then I would suggest "Baseball Hall of Fame member." But, as I've stated previously, I think that anyone searching for the article on Billy Williams of the Cubs, can easily locate the article within a few mouse clicks.Orsoni (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but pointlessly debating disambiguation is one of our oldest Wikipedia traditions. Don't deprive us of that! Actually, how about just "Billy Williams (Cubs)"? Wknight94 ^talk 15:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that might be the best suggestion yet, although I think we do need the full team names. Billy Williams (Chicago Cubs) and Billy Williams (Seattle Pilots), then? -Dewelar (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Wknight94 ^talk 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I can live with it, although I believe it's much ado about a minor point. A person searching for the article would probably find it in the same amount of time, whether it uses (left fielder) or (Chicago Cubs). By the way, it's ironic that the Billy Williams (right fielder) article has more inline citations than the left fielder's article. I may add some when i find some time.Orsoni (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Content merged into Bill Fetzer. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Willy Fetzer , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, this slipped past us, but the article National Association as a major league was PRODded and then deleted on August 10. The page is linked on several important pages, including the page for the sport of baseball itself. I only noticed myself because I saw the redlink on List of Major League Baseball players, but I think we need to get this article un-deleted (and, yeah, it would be nice if someone worked on it), given the rather important status of the controversy in baseball historian circles. -Dewelar (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been restored. Enjoy. Wknight94 ^talk 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Wow...admittedly, that article is pretty horrible. It doesn't even really say anything about the controversy. I hope that someone with better knowledge than I can fix it, but I will do what I can with it when I get the chance. -Dewelar (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Differences and evolution section of the Baseball rules page needs...well, it needs to actually mention things about the differences and evolution of baseball rules. Seriously, this is in pretty horrible shape. -Dewelar (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I brought up this topic a few years ago, but my activity has since come and gone, so I've sort of lost touch with the activity around here. I've been wondering lately what everyone's stances are on the game logs for season articles. I know that they are mostly kept up-to-date for recent years, but is it a long-term goal to have all of the game logs completed for all years? Obviously this is an exceptionally large task, but I was curious what people thought about it. Personally, I've never found the game logs intrusive because they are easily collapsible; I'll probably work on them here and there unless there is an overwhelming amount of negativity towards them. Just curious about opinions here :)   JJ (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've never much liked them.. part of the reason is that they are often not finished as people loose interest when their team is out of contention and we have tons of unfinished game logs in recent years.. and I absolutely loath spring training game logs which have shown up on some teams.. completely unnecessary. Spanneraol (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This has been discussed several times, I know, and there's never been a real consensus either way. I personally dislike game logs on several fronts -- they're a haven for broken and/or un-disambiguated links, they tend toward violating WP:UNDUE (as well as potentially violating WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTNEWS, and other guidelines, although I'm not entirely convinced of these), and I recall it being mentioned at some point that having them in collapsed state prevents such pages from reaching FA status, and that's before I get into the reasons why I simply don't LIKE them, such as their ugly formatting and the fact that they're annoying to have to edit such pages around them because of their large size, along with the fact that we could easily just provide a link to such logs on myriad other sites in a section at the bottom of the page -- but I've given up fighting against them beyond removing them from pages where they haven't been worked on for a year or more. So...yeah, I'm opposed to their use :) . -Dewelar (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'm also opposed to them. In addition to what has already been said, I simply don't understand why some editors want to reproduce the fine work of Baseball Reference, FanGraphs, and other sites that are dedicated to statistics, instead of improving prose and encyclopedic details, which is what we should be doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the most recent discussion about game logs, though there is a long digression on season summary articles that cover every game—personally I believe the season summary discussion is also applicable on undue weight grounds, but I recognize that supporters of game logs will disagree. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Even if we agreed to do them, it should be a bot of some kind doing them to eliminate the risk of typos. Wknight94 ^talk 00:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember that someone had a bot that did these at one point but for some reason it was discontinued, I think it kept making mistakes or something.. and not all of the gamelogs use the same style. Spanneraol (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Some good points brought up here. I tried creating a script (which could then lead to a bot) that would automatically make these a while back, but my programming skills weren't quite up-to-par, LOL. I was unaware these articles couldn't reach FA status because of the collapsible game logs; that certainly impacts my opinion.   JJ (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, it was so much that they were collapsible in and of itself. It was that it wasn't allowed to have them be set for auto-collapse. I may be wrong on that, though. -Dewelar (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Regardless, if the game logs are holding some of these articles back from becoming FAs, then I am completely against them.   JJ (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the issue is the silliness of the FAC process and/or a required functionality that is missing in the table code. Personally, I would consider the absence of a game log to be a critical flaw in an article aiming to be a FA myself, and removing it to suit the convenience of a reviewer would be a no go for me. Additionally, I would say that the only difference between a really good GA and a FA is simply the placement of a bronze star vs. a green plus. The article doesn't lose value either way. Resolute 23:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Found the discussion about hiding game logs being a barrier to FA status here. It also mentions that the current red-green color scheme of the logs violates WP:ACCESS, presumably due to issues with color-blind readers as well as concerns over visibility of redlinks. -Dewelar (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The access argument is typically using colours to denote different things (wins, losses in this case) without another way to make that notation, as screen readers obviously can't dictate for a blind person that information. I've never liked that argument, as the game score itself would tell anyone using a non-standard browser what the result was. The colour coding is a simple graphical benefit for people who can see it. There may be other access arguments I am not aware of, however. From a hockey article perspective, I'd also be interested in knowing all of the official answers. It's never been a problem at GAN, so why it is at FAC is curious. Resolute 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Having never participated in such discussions to any great degree, I couldn't say for certain. However, being visually impaired myself, I know that I have great difficulty reading redlinks on the light-red background of those tables. However, the implication in that discussion was that it wasn't just the background, so, as you say, it would be good to know all the justifications being used. -Dewelar (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There are certain game logs in particular, such as this one where you can't exactly see the "show" button. Perhaps we can adapt to using tabs to separate the game logs from the regular pages (and pretend the game logs don't exist) and also the player stats (which is also bad) too. --V7OMG! 21:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... I hate that. I understand the desire to try and use the team colours on table headers and the like to "personalize" an article, but in cases like that, readability must always trump decoration. That table needs to be changed. Also, I don't agree with your NOTSTATS argument. Again, I would consider a player's statistical record to be of key importance in a complete article. Resolute 22:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I changed that page to its alternative color, and that's the last edit I'm ever going to make on a game log, thanks to this discussion. Reminds me of how I never ever drank OJ with pulp again when I read online that the pulp might have bugs in them.--V7OMG! 02:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, MOS:COLLAPSE and Wikipedia:ACCESS#Users with limited CSS.2FJavaScript support are the relevant parts to the collapsible tables if anyone wants to see exactly what the issue is. Basically, if the info within a collapsible table can be viewed when javascript is turned off, then it's fine. I don't know if this would apply to game logs, though -- even if they start collapsed then it's possible that the browser won't be able to parse that it should be collapsed, and so will display all the information anyway.

In fact, I just loaded up another browser (FF) to check; I disabled js and that's exactly what happened. So it should be fine. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that sort of thing when I load an article with multiple navboxes on my old laptop when it decides to run particularly slowly, and at first it shows all the navboxes expanded, and eventually collapses them when it the load is completed. If that argument still comes up about the game logs being collapsed, surely then no article with multiple navboxes can be a FA.

As far as the colour highlighting is concerned, I'm not sure that every game log will show the result purely from the score; I just looked at the 2009 Phillies and all the scores list the winning score first. Maybe some follow that format and others always list the article team's score first and their opponent's second, though I don't recall coming across that myself. The standard way I've seen to use the highlight colours would be to add a key above the game log which would show the colour and also either "W"/"L" to denote which is which, or an explanation that the team's score is first followed by the opponent's. Afaber012  (talk)  21:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is that. I tend to think in the format on the hockey project side, where for most articles the score always follows the team. And Delwar, for the shading, I wonder if a lighter shade of red/pink would make redlinks easier to read? It's a tough balance there, as I like the red/green combo quick visibility for most readers, but one definitely cannot overlook how it might affect vision impaired readers. Resolute 23:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Too bad there's not a way we can just do a mass removal of game logs. Worthless and keeps articles from being at their best. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you meant for this to be a !vote, then I support mass removal of game logs. Wknight94 ^talk 02:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also support this. -Dewelar (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm for removing incomplete logs, but ones that are complete and accurate I believe should stick around. I don't believe a standard should be set for this. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)