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.

image:BabeDorothyRuth.jpg.w300h373.jpg has been nominated for deletion through PUF. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just updated the counts at Baseball Mountain with User:Spanneraol getting Clayton Kershaw to GA. We are now 10% of the way to getting all HoF, "vital", major club, MVP, and Cy Young Award bios to GA status! Let's keep up the good work on our most important pages! – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Good job! I'm sorry that I haven't contributed much lately, as real life has taken my attention lately. I hope to get back into the swing of things.Orsoni (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Real life should always take precedence. My editing slowed way down from May through July. Get back in there when you can! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Baseball foods, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Wolfe_Stadium, which appears to be a misspelled attempt at a nickname of American Legion Field (Florence). Ultraviolet (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:PM800 continues to add pinch runner to Billy Hamilton (baseball, born 1990)s position in the infobox, despite the fact that "pinch runner" is not an official position and that Hamiltons official MLB.com bio lists him as a CF. I attempted to discuss on his talk page, but didn't get a response. Can somebody please help resolve this disagreement.--Yankees10 18:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well if he never appears in the field in a Major League game then he will eventually be listed as pinch runner. Spanneraol (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The only pinch runner in MLB history—Herb Washington—was listed as such because that was his designated role (i.e. no time at any positions, not even any at-bats, simply a "Designated Runner"). This is not the case with Hamilton, since he actually is a position player. Furthermore, it appears as though PM800 has violated 3RR – judging from the page history, he's made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. That, in my opinion, merits a look at ANEW. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hamilton has now fielded a position so it's irrelevant, but for posterity's sake I think the Pinch runner designation is correct. The fact that Hamilton had a position in the minors or a position he was expected to play in the majors doesn't make him an MLB center fielder. I suppose you could designate that as his position and claim it's his MiLB position, but that seems weird in an otherwise MLB infobox. If Herb Washington is to serve as a guide, when someone has only pinch run they should be listed as a pinch runner. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If infobox is almost exclusively major league across more than 10,000 pages then it's best to keep relevant fields exclusively major league. 'Pinch hitter' and 'Pinch runner' roles should be the positions reported here for those players who have appeared in no other roles --that is, no fielding positions. Same as a shortstop prospect who debuts with two September games at thirdbase.

I refer to Wiki's so-called biographies of Baseball's so-called major leaguers. "Players" with time on a major roster but no major playing appearances aren't considered major leaguers yet.

Of course the true roles of true players, so to speak, should be covered more generally in prose. I think it's reasonable that even the lead sentence may identify a major leaguer with a role he has not yet filled in a major appearance.

--P64 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The 2014 master schedule is out. For those who are interested in which interleague opponents teams will be playing, I took the time to complie a chart.

Whether that is good enough for inclusion to the article itself is open to debate.

Being a baseball purist I used "Anaheim" instead of "Los Angeles" given the two locations are 60 miles apart and the fact the owner's recent free acquisitions have not been able to prevent the team's decline over recent years.

I also wrote "Washington DC" to distinguish between the State of Washington and the nation's capital.

It's still 2013, but it's never too early to start planning for next year. BBallFan2013 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What article are you proposing to put this into? Spanneraol (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose 2014 Major League Baseball season and I share the evident reluctance of both editors. Such detail as this probably belongs in Project space as a resource for use during coverage of 2014 in season and teams articles.

The lead and current season (now sec 2.4) sections of our Major League Baseball schedule should be reviewed every year by someone familiar with upcoming schedule. Perhaps that must include at least one editor who has studied details such as the table provided here (eg, User:BBallFan2013 hermself). Perhaps MLB schedule 2.4 should be named Current rather than YYYY, and should include remarks on both 2013 and 2014 schedules, at least for a time during the next year.

Certainly that section[1] NEEDS one or two links to current season articles, 2013 Major League Baseball season or 2014 Major League Baseball season during upcoming months. It now includes no links.

--P64 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone find the exact day that Aaron Loup's daughter was born? I would be eternally grateful. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The specific birth date of a child who is not the subject of the article is something I would consider excessive personal detail of a private individual. There's no need for the date to exist in the article. Hell, the dates that Loup went on the paternity list is excessive, imo. Resolute 15:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Resolute. Let me add that The birthdays of a athlete's children is trivia....William 16:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There was another issue with the article. It involved the two-time of the word timid when describing Loup's personality. First of all both descriptions came with a IC and the articles referenced never used the word timid. Relaxed, reserved, and quiet were words used. Quiet and timid while similar in meaning aren't totally the same. Secondly, timid has a negative connotation to it....William 16:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

At present, the templates "Baseball Hall of Fame Class of ..." don't redirect to the Hall of Fame balloting article for their respective year. Am I the only one who thinks they should? I think "Class of YEAR" should redirect to the Hall of Fame balloting for Year, rather than to List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. For example Template:1982 Baseball HOF would link to Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1982. Thoughts? pbp 19:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Last month, User:Candleabracadabra moved the page at Home Run Derby, which had been located at that title since 2004, to Home Run Derby (Major League Baseball), with the edit-summary rationale "not main subject". At the base name, the user wrote a paragraph about what, in a general, a home run derby is. The move was unilateral, without any discussion and without consensus. I wonder what the project thinks about that. Woodshed (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is warranted. Given that there is also Home Run Derby (TV series), perhaps HRD should be a disambiguation page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the broader subject the main subject? It didn't seem right that the topic redirected only to the relatively recent incarnation made part of MLB. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu that a disambiguation page is probably the right way to go here. Whether "home run derby" as baseball terminology deserves its own page or should just be put on the jargon list is another question. -Dewelar (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to layout innings for WP. I copied stuff at Baseball-reference.com to Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak and I need some help with formatting it. Plus I don't even know what some of it means.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of it is encyclopedic, but I did my best to format the table in a way that makes it readable and wikified. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to describe the innings in prose rather than copy the chart from baseball reference, which is probably a copyright violation. Spanneraol (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check out Talk:List of World Series champions#"Founded" date in the list of appearances table (PLEASE DISCUSS) if you get the chance, an interesting little issue has arisen that I think we should settle properly so articles have consistent style and information. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We've established a consensus on what awards should be included in the "Career highlights/awards" section of player infoboxes, but one award that I think we overlooked was the Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award, as I don't recall seeing anyone vote about it, nor have I even heard of this award until now.... which brings me to why I ask about it - Mariano Rivera is due to receive it before Game 2 of the World Series. The award does have several honorees in its history, most recently Ken Griffey Jr. in 2011. I'd like to take a vote on this to see if we should amend our guidelines and include this award in player infoboxes or not. What does everyone think? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys. I just did a GA review for this, only to see that Secret is on leave yet again. Would one of you be able to take over the review and make the changes? We're getting pretty close to 250 GAs so this would get us further along on that. Wizardman 15:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed a few of your comments, but I can't promise I'll be able to get through the entire article. To anyone else – feel free to address the other points. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I may jump in, but not until next week, if at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Baseball,

I am setting up an unofficial task force to get the article Major League Baseball re-listed to GA status. The first task needed is to add more references as seen here. Please add your name to the list to help out, so we can assign users a task in an organized and collaborative manner. Use # ~~~~ to add your name below.

Thank you, Sportsguy17 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

List of editors helping out

1. Sportsguy17 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
2. And I would encourage other members of our project to join in; Major League Baseball is one of our core articles, and it is, in my opinion, somewhat of an embarrassment not to have it at least at GA. In this process to improve it, I can either assist, or sit back and be the uninvolved reviewer. Doesn't matter to me. Go Phightins! 10:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Glad to help where I can. I've been working on some HOF Start-class bioraphies, but I completely missed the fact that this one needed a lot of work. I did some work on the flow and redundancy of the History section tonight, but there's still a lot to do. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

OK. So, we need to figure out how close it is relatively. Eric's input of it still needing a ton of work is a start, but we need to attack the specific issues that are preventing it from being given GA status and fix them. Sportsguy17 (click to talk • contributions) 20:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to come across as overly negative. We can certainly get to GA with this one. I've tried to copyedit here and there when I've had some spare time. To me, the article's structure and flow are improving. I think some of the remaining work has to do with deciding what's encyclopedic and what's not. By taking out some of the more random or trivial points in the article, I think that helps us to focus on improving the stuff that's really valuable.

There are some specific areas that I think we might consider trimming. I wonder if we actually need a Uniforms section at all. To me, that seems like a detail that could be incorporated in other places. The first team to wear a uniform could go to History, for example. The image in that section might be of use elsewhere too. Also, the Expanding west south and north section seems long. That section goes on quite a bit about the Dodgers and Walter O'Malley (important and influential as he was). If we can pare that down some, I think we'll better hold the attention of readers and we won't run the risk of seeming to favor a particular team.

The MLB in the media section isn't necessarily too long, but to me it seems like a hodgepodge of TV stations and where they broadcast games. I tried to organize the International broadcasting section by continent/region, but it seems like a pretty random list at this point. Should we take out the Internation broadcasting section and just add a paragraph to the TV section saying that MLB games are broadcast internationally, followed by a few examples?

We might consider merging Radio and Internet if we can't expand Internet. I wonder if we could also condense the Steroid policy section. I know steroids are a huge issue, but I feel like we might be giving it too much weight because it's relatively recent. (As a comparison, in the History section there's no mention of the Black Sox - or any baseball event between 1919 and 1942.)

This article has a great deal of solid information. I think it's just a matter of clearing some of the trivia so that the good and important stuff is written well. Trimming some minute details can also make it much less cumbersome to completely source the article - and sourcing can be a big deal at a GA review. Those might be some places where I'd start, because they are the areas of the article that look a little funny to me as it stands. That's all just my humble opinion though. I'm fine whether we decide to make or not make any of the above changes. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 10:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Tasks

See also: User talk:Go Phightins! for starting discussions.

1. Add references to unreferenced areas --  Almost Done

Informal "review"

I'd like to see some specific comments for the article. I think Go Phightins! shall be the reviewer and I'd like for him to make an informal review based on the criteria as to how close the article is to GA and what is still life.

Tomorrow. Go Phightins! 02:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Having an incredibly busy weekend. Will try to get to it soon. Go Phightins! 17:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding some major changes to the MLB yearly infobox which is currently in use for many individual team season articles. If you are interested, please discuss these changes there. Brian Reading (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

There is a discussion on capitalization issues in another project that seems to affect this project.

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:American League Most Valuable Player Award winners, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

According to this retention periods list, we have until December 30 to make 2013 American League Wild Card tie-breaker game a good article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am planning on GAC'ing this quite soon. Just waiting on awards and such so that it's in a stable state. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding a recent edit that added a link to the baseball portal from the MLB team season infobox. Any comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:National League Most Valuable Player Award winners, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Category discussion

Right now, the sentiment regarding the two categories (above) is to delete them. If you have an opinion, pro or con, about whether these categories should exist or be deleted, please participate in the conversation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Baseball does not have an Outline article in mainspace, but it has a draft at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of baseball. The Outline is not perfect, but it is ready for primetime; I'm sure it will be improved once it is in mainspace. Would someone please move Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of baseball to Outline of baseball? Rgrds. --64.85.215.216 (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I didn't see any reason not to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So last week I added the team colors templates to the yearly MLB infobox, as seen here, and just a couple days ago I was reverted by Spanneraol, claiming readability issues. I would now like to propose this to the project officially. I believe a little color, especially the team colors improve the infobox and truly associates each use with the team it's describing. However if readability is a concern and it is decided against, it seems a double standard with it used on templates like Template:Infobox MLB player and each team's navbox. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 00:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That info box doesn't have extra text that goes in the header... and it's all white text which works with most things... When you changed this one I had issues with the Dodgers seasons because the Dodger blue color and the linked text for NL West Champions was practically the same color and so it wasn't legible and looked bad. The links for the next and previous seasons also looked odd. Another issue is that some teams have changed their color schemes over the years so the primary color now would be different from their color in 1900 or so... Spanneraol (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a solution to the link color problem that still allows the team colors. As for past teams, the color templates could be modified to accommodate that. It's just a little extra coding. Heck, the yearly NFL season templates do it fine. Compare 1994 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season with 2013 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season. Lastly, does the league and division really need to be linked in the misc parameter anyway? It's already linked directly below and to the left in the lead. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 00:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

For legibility and accessibility reasons, I don't like changing the background colour of text. On the NHL team pages, colour borders are used around the team name; see Montreal Canadiens for an example. I know some don't like this format; personally I think it is a good way to show the team colours unobtrusively. isaacl (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Any other opinions? It's hard to establish a consensus when people don't participate in discussion. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 22:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would echo what isaacl said. I was hesitant to make that change myself but now that we use them I like the stripes better. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm with isaacl and DJSasso. I think the stripes option show team colours best, and don't make the infobox hard to read. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 08:51, November 5, 2013 (UTC)

In an attempt to be bold and modernize this infobox, I have converted it to use the ((Infobox)) meta-template as a base. Not many should notice a difference in behavior and appearance, but feel free to discuss this and other changes I have made to the infobox here. Brian Reading (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

For reasons I discussed on that template's talk page, I have added an optional "Results" section to this infobox that contains a place to add overall record and divisional place for the season. I will be updating articles with this info, and urge you to do so as well. Brian Reading (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your input at Talk:Minor League Baseball#Requested move would be appreciated. The request centers on the extent to which the article is about the MiLB organization versus the general concept of minor league baseball, and thus how the title should be capitalized. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up to those who work on season articles. There's no need to use the ((Infobox MLB yearly-pre1969)) template, as it has been superseded by the ((Infobox MLB yearly)) template. There had been a technical issue in the past, but this is no longer the case. No need to update all of the season articles before 1969, as it will automatically redirect, but try not to use this deprecated title. Brian Reading (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled across the article 1882 Pittsburg Alleghenys season and noticed what I considered a huge spelling error. "Pittsburgh" is suppose to be spelled with an "H" on the end, but this artcle, and all the other Alleghenys season articles spell it without an "H". To me this is a spelling error and a common one and I would have simply fixed the error, but I wanted to make sure that it wasn't an error because thay mave have actually spelled it that way back then. Each season standings appear to be "misspelled" as well. The Baseball reference book uses the "H". Again I just wanted to confirm from someone who may have greater knowledge about this than me before moving the articles, because for all I know the "H"-less "Pittburg" may have been the way it was spelled back then.JOJ ^Hutton 21:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Originally when those pages were made, they were spelled without the h in baseball reference... and other sources... The sources have since been changed to add the H... So it wasnt really a spelling error... I don't know when BR updated their pages to change the spelling but it happened sometime in the last couple of years... Dont know if it was a spelling error on the original sources that BR used, or if they simply decided to change it to match the current naming conventions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I was pretty sure there was a reason. Seemed too braod to be a simple spelling error. All sources, including the Pittsburgh Pirates site use the "H" in reference to the team. You could be right. The baseball reference book may have spelled it incorrectly and someone took it too literally as source material.JOJ ^Hutton 22:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

See Pittsburgh#Etymology; apparently there was a time where the federal government (i.e., post office) insisted on the spelling without the H but th city never complied. oknazevad (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well then I would suggest that since those articles were created based on what the Baseball Reference book said, they should be corrected to reflect what the source says now. JOJ ^Hutton 15:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we split the unassisted triple play article into a separate list for MLB occurrences (just like we did for perfect games and no-hitters)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

From the first moment it was created[2], it had this little blurb in a paragraph about the 1951 season- "The Giants is dead," Dressen sang loudly (to the tune of "Roll Out the Barrel") through a door adjoining the teams’ clubhouses. The next day, after another Dodger win and Giant defeat, the Brooklyn lead swelled to 13½ games. Which was subsequently expanded on in 2007[3] to include this also- As for the ungrammatical remark, Dressen was defended by at least one college professor who pointed out that, since Dressen was not saying that the Giant players were literally deceased, he had more latitude with grammar in a figure of speech. All the same, when O'Malley fired the manager, New York newspapers commented "DRESSEN ARE DEAD." The article was even edited to say Dressen died on the 15th anniversary of those words.

Dressen did say those words, but in 1953[4] not 1951. The Dodgers won the pennant in 1953....William 15:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to get at here. There is plenty of information on Wikipedia that needs to be corrected. What exactly did you want to discuss? Thanks for catching and correcting this, though. Cheers. Brian Reading (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed people changing "Runs batted in" in infoboxes to "Run batted in|Runs batted in," and making other similar changes. "Runs batted in" redirects to "Run batted in," so I'm not sure why anyone would bother to do that. Someone wanna explain it to me? Should I be doing that when I make my edits? I prefer to just say "Runs batted in" or "California Angels" (instead of "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim|California Angels" as it redirects to the same place and uses less bytes. Would we rather avoid redirects or conserve bytes used? --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.243.121 (talk) , this note added by Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN. The WP guideline says it's not useful to redirect like that ("Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim|California Angels"). I'm in the same boat as you in that not using piped links is easier for the editor. There's also less chance for a typo on the rhs of the pipe. The last advantage is that if you ever split "California Angels" into its own article, you already have the pertinent links pointing to the correct article. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what WP:NOTBROKEN mentions is changing an already existing link to a redirect; it doesn't speak to how it should be done at the time the link is first created. MOS:REDIR discusses reasons to link to a redirect rather than piping, but this situation isn't one of them. -Dewelar (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, although WP:NOTBROKEN does not specifically mention what to do when there is an option of piping versus redirecting, some of the logic used there could apply to the creation of the link as well. As per the guidelines here: "There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects to articles. [...] There are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects." It goes on to note that: "Redirects can indicate possible future articles[,] Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form", etc. This obviously can apply to both editing existing links as well as creating new ones. Brian Reading (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, it's better to have a direct link than a redirect.JOJ ^Hutton 01:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What reasoning do you have for that? We just posted a guideline with plenty of logic behind linking to a redirect instead. Brian Reading (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTBROKEN it lists a number of reasons why linking to the redirect can be better than linking directly. One good one is that it prevents future work if the redirect is split out to its own article because the links will already link to it. Albeit this wouldn't likely be the case for the the example in the original post but for many redirects it is. Also per notbroken the less invisible text in the source the easier it is to edit which is another reason not to pipe right off the bat. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's my No. 1 reason why you should always use a redirect: typo on the right side of a pipe. If you had a redirect, it would have been a red link and corrected much sooner than it was. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello - there is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date range redux to come to a final resolution the way dates for club tenure in infoboxs are displayed (e.g. - with a club from 2001–2007 or 2001–07). If you have an opinion one way or the other, please take part. The value in coming to a final resolution (either having language added to allow 8 digit date spans for this purpose or expressly forbidding it) is that it would provide certainty to these cases and stop needless reverting of this format one way or the other. If you do take part, please be sure to ground your arguments/opinions in fact, Wikipedia precedent and real world examples as opposed to preference only as this will help the project make the right call. There are thousands of articles (touched by thousands of editors) that use summary club tenure information in infoboxes, so there is clearly an advantage to settling it in a clear manner so all can comply. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The intro in Mike Trout's article states that he had a 10.4 WAR in 2012. Other sources seem to corroborate this figure, but Baseball-Reference lists it as 10.9, and FanGraphs lists it as 10.0. Thoughts? Delaywaves • talk 04:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As you may already know, WAR is an umbrella term for a general framework of how a player's contributions (offensive and defensive) are added together to derive value in wins over a replacement player. Fangraphs and Baseball Reference use different ways of calculating the various components of WAR, and they used to use different replacement levels (they've since agreed on a common value). See http://www.fangraphs.com/library/war/differences-fwar-rwar/ for more details on the differences. Perhaps some of the sources you've found are looking at older WAR values before the agreement was reached, or looking at another site's version, such as Baseball Prospectus's WARP stat? isaacl (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I"m aware of the differences between rWAR and fWAR. However, it doesn't seem that they're using the same version now; if you follow the links I posted, you'll see that Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs still have 2 different figures. So would you recommend that I change the 10.4 figure? Delaywaves • talk 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't even mention the value in the lead, it seems too technical for a general audience, and especially those only looking for a summary of Trout's biography. Seattle (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, like you said, the two are different, so the two sites will have different values. If the value is kept within the article text, it should be cited to the specific reference site (and changed to match if necessary). isaacl (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys. Just wanted to send a note about Wikipedia:Stub Contest. Since we have about 20k stubs in our project, all of which could be expanded to DYK levels, I figure this is something we could work on over the next month. While GAs and FAs take a great deal of work, this is something where articles could be improved and turned around relatively quickly, especially for active players (most of which aren't stubs anyway). Wizardman 16:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Expanding stubs is what I do. Thanks for sharing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox for an MLB team article, the team's division is listed. In this edit, an editor is asserting that the division should be shown as, for example, "Eastern Division". There are sites that do use this form, such as the standings page for The Sports Network. MLB's standings page just uses the bare word, East/Central/West. The standings pages for ESPN and The Sporting News use, for example "East Division". What are your views on how the division name should be displayed? isaacl (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Eastern/Western flows better and it's not like it changes the meaning at all. JOJ ^Hutton 02:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd go East/Central/West. I have almost never heard it spelled out as Eastern or Western. Resolute 02:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

East/Central/West. Besides "NL East" being far more common (hence the reason the article is at National League East), besides the fact that that is what MLB uses (and therefore is at least somewhat the official use) there's the fact that this is an infobox, and the shortest term possible should appear for compactness. So the shorter version should be used. oknazevad (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for East/Central/West, per MLB.com, Baseball-Reference.com and precedent on Wikipedia. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 05:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Use East/West/Central. As per MOS:IDENTITY: Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability [and] Neutral point of view. When we refer to those policies, the idea is that we should use the most commonly used term found in reliable sources. Thus regardless of what flows better, since the terms "East"/"West"/"Central" are much more common in reliable sources, we should therefore use the shorter ones. It also doesn't hurt that this is what Major League Baseball uses itself on their site. Brian Reading (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Use "East", not because it's shorter and more compact, but because it's the correct name of the division. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe all the roster templates are up to date following yesterday's transactions, but not all roster navboxes are. Can someone (or someones) help me update those? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, we should be adding non-breaking spaces ( ) in the navbox templates, so that instead of this...

... we get this ....

– Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I 100% agree with the nbsp. But that seems like it should be an option to the template, to nowrap the lines. I'd hate to have to go through every navbox and make it more unreadable for the editors, especially when the old way of using the ((•wrap)) templates were so much cleaner. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:36, November 21, 2013‎

Good point. Is there a way to use the wrap templates? Maybe instead of a standard navbox, we develop ((MLB roster navbox)) to handle it by default. I don't have the time to look into that today, so if anyone else knows enough to tell me if it's doable, I'd greatly appreciate it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of adding the extra characters? From a practical standpoint the two templates look the same to me. Is whatever you gain from adding the characters enough of a benefit to deal with the hassle of having to fix it every time someone who doesnt know that style tries to edit the template? Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces keep the number on the same line as the player. I think it's worth adding. But the novice editor is an issue here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Experimentation

How about this? This seems to work, and doesn't seem to have the complications of a non-breaking space. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the best way I know how to do it. I asked the question if there's a better way at the template page: Template talk:Navbox#Nowrapping entries.3F — X96lee15 (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be possible to have a Lua-based template that would automatically add the markup to prevent line wrapping. If there is interest, I can look into it. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested. I don't know what "Lua" is. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Lua is a programming language; the MediaWiki software supports invoking Lua code in the Module namespace. Although it can be invoked directly from any Wikipedia page, typically it is invoked from templates. The obvious downside is that maintaining the template requires modifying code, rather than template markup. I'll try to draft something up. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, here's the reason why the navboxes just started showing up unwrapped: MediaWiki talk:Common.css. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. When I noticed it the other day, I wondered why I had never noticed it before. Now I know. Anybody who still uses Internet Explorer, especially to edit Wikipedia, deserves a WP:TROUT slap. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Those who do find the bugs, so I don't have to, which makes me grateful ;-) Actually, my understanding is that Internet Explorer is leaps and bounds better than before, however, Microsoft chooses not to be on the cutting edge of HTML5 and CSS3. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's a quick sample: User:Isaacl/MLB roster navbox/testcases#Testing main template Currently, the template just replaces spaces in the list arguments with   and then passes everything to the Navbox Lua module for rendering, so it can be a straight replacement for existing calls to the ((Navbox)) template. It is possible to further enhance the template so it could do things such as automatically select the team colours based on the team name, have a simpler syntax so the editor doesn't have to enter in the *'s in the list, and so forth. (Of course syntax changes will require more extensive changes to the team roster template pages; it is possible to try to implement it so both syntaxes can work, but it's more difficult.) isaacl (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I say we roll it out, and then decide on those other improvements we can make to simplify it beyond the typical navbox. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the template to ((MLB roster navbox)) and added some very minimal documentation. isaacl (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I've put it in place for all 30 roster navbox templates. But, we should still add it to other roster navbox templates, like the World Series champions, Olympic teams, and WBC teams. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Isaac, one thing about your Blue Jays example... we shouldn't encourage people to link directly to the minor league player pages from those navboxes, should always use redirects because those guys are very likely to get articles at some point and the navboxes arent always corrected. Mubo, any reason why you are changing the dashes in the navboxes? Is that the way we are going from here on out? Spanneraol (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The example was cloned from the Jays roster template at that time; feel free to change it (if it's not done yet, I'll do it later today). isaacl (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the ndash or mdash are preferred over two simple dashes for such a usage. I could be mistaken, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Other dashes says you shouldn't use "--". They're probably OK in the regular roster templates to keep the vertical alignment, but they're not necessary in the roster navboxes. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

At Travis Ishikawa, there is a claim that as a 21st round selection, he got the highest signing bonus by a non-first rounder. I don't understand how a 21st round pick could get a higher signing bonus than 2nd-20th round pick. Can someone tell me whether I should let it get promoted to WP:GA as is or whether this point needs further clarification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true, TTT. Baseball America reported back in 2002[5] the Giants signing Ishikawa $955,000....William 00:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That article has a lot more detail to work with.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The 2012, 2013 and 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame Balloting pages currently have lists highlighting notable upcoming candidates through 2019 (players retired this season) to illustrate the "stacked ballot syndrome" that's currently very much talked about regarding HOF voting. The issue is, Who gets on the list? Per Muboshgu's suggestion, I've started this thread (?) to try and get a consensus. Up to this point, I've "been bold" and tried to keep it to those I usually see in blogs and articles weighed with HOF voting patterns (no hitter who's debuted since 1950 has made the HOF with fewer than 2000 hits, for instance, and none have come particularly close; I've never seen Troy Glaus mentioned in any of these articles/blogs as an example of how strong future ballots are going to be, and he doesn't even have 1400 hits, making his non-inclusion a no-brainer in my book, for example). But these aren't my pages (yet...). If we're going to have these lists (and I personally think 2017 is the last truly stacked ballot that should be used as an example, if we're going to have them), we need a standard of some sort. We could find a really good article or set of and use it/them as a source; we could use a "metric" of some kind, like Hall of Fame Monitor on Baseball-Reference, or WAR or JAWS or something, but which, at what cutoff, and they aren't "facts," they're somebody's number thingy; or we could use a real, though still somewhat arbitrary, milestone, such as hits/wins/saves, or All Star Games (the current pages all list players with five or more All Star Games at the bottom, along with major award winners). Thoughts, suggestions? Masternachos (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Never use WAR for anything as it is too arbitrary.. and what the heck is JAWS other than a movie franchise about a killer shark? Spanneraol (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how any of that has a place on this article. Future years have no real relevance to the 2014 vote. Now, as a section discussing the concept of stacked ballots and upcoming eligibles in a parent article, such as Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, it would make perfect sense. And to that end, the standard set should be restricted to what reliable sources say. Resolute 00:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Incidentally, that link really should be an article, not an index, imo) Resolute 00:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree in condemning the index or list article Baseball Hall of Fame balloting but I postpone its discussion to another time and place. The place should be its talk page Talk:Baseball Hall of Fame balloting or the task-force talk Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Hall of Fame task force. --P64 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute. Future years have no relevance to this year's balloting....William 00:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree... those lists should be removed from current and past articles. Spanneraol (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Brian Reading (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. If the only point is to illustrate the potential "stacked ballot syndrome", it's WP:OR. Voters (presumably) only consider the year at hand, and don't vote for someone just because next year's ballot will become more crowded. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame task force seems to be dead.

Discussion of the field of candidates in future elections --both particular people and general number or strength-- seems out of place in the series of annual articles. Except the one article about future elections, now Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2014. Approximately our current policy seems reasonable to me in that one and only one "future article" is live at any time --the 2015 article is created when the 2014 is updated by election results announced early in January 2014 (Jan. 8 we say). But it also seems reasonable to me that the future article provides information about upcoming elections, plural --the 2014 article may now includes facts about the 2015 election.

Offhand, I suggest [1] the future-dated article becomes current piecemeal, as its candidates are announced (2013 July 16, November 4, and November 26, for sections 3, 2, and 1 of the 2014 article). [2] the 2015 article may be created during that time and should be created by the end of that time (Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2015 should now exist as the one future article). [3] the one future article may cover more than one annual cycle. For now I pass on whose upcoming eligibility should be noted. Whoever they comprise, those lists should have been moved from the 2014 to the 2015 article, rather than deleted, during the last several days.

--P64 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad we could settle that. Masternachos (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

When either starting news articles, or attempting to improve existing ones, I have used Google News archive countless times. Google News Archive was merged into Google News over two years ago but you could still search it archives. That may have ended. Since yesterday when trying to do a search via a archive search page I had long ago saved, I have been receiving 'The search option you have selected is currently unavailable'. Any links to archived articles still work. This for an example[6]. However if you try to do a archive search from that page, again you are stymied. I don't see a way to do an archive search from Google News main page either. It appears Google News archive searches are at an end. With it the job of working on anything that is dated from 15 or more years ago has become much harder....William 15:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too. A help page said it only goes back through 1970. WTF. This probably merits an email to their customer service people to figure out what's up. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The papers are still there (e.g.: [7]), but yeah. Google seems intent on growing increasingly evil. They've completely lost their focus on being a search and information company. Resolute 15:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Which will kill any productivity I have in me for pre-expansion era bio expansions. I'm going to contact someone to see what's up. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Hoses me on the hockey side too. My situation is even worse as the microfilm area at my local library was badly damaged by flooding. I've got no offline archival access at all for at least another month, and who knows whether the library will go to the effort of reacquiring several thousand microfilm reels. However, there does still seem to be some avenue left open to us for now. If you go to http://news.google.ca/news/advanced_news_search?as_drrb=a and use the "date added" field with your search, it seems we can still get to old articles. i.e., my search for Roy Conacher between 1930 and 1950: [8]. It looks like only searching within the newspaper archives themselves has been disabled. Resolute 17:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the search options described here seem to work. And this howto from Google indicates that this change was deliberate and permanent. Resolute 17:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I had the same problem trying to do an article yesterday. You can do the site:google.com thing on the main search page but then you can't sort my date. so the stuff is still there, Google is just an evil entity. Wizardman 20:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Try the first link I posted. It allows for date results in the search. Also, I find it amusing that we're both accusing Google of being evil when they are still providing information nobody else is! Resolute 02:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we link the debut and last appearance teams in the infobox?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Given all teams are already linked in the infobox, that would be overlinking. Resolute 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the efforts of Sportsguy17 and EricEnfermero, two devoted project members, our vital core article, Major League Baseball, is now a good article. The duo each received a Million Award for their work on the article, and throughout the GAN process, epitomized the goals of a collaborative encyclopedia, and served as a role model for how future project focused collaboration can look. Hats off to both of them! Go Phightins! 12:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Kudos! That is an important and highly viewed page. Great work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The move request is still ongoing; comment there while it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Yankees announced #6 will be retired for Joe Torre at some point[9]. Can anyone make an image of the number to add to the list of retired numbers in the Yankees article? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The image really shouldnt be made or added until it's actually retired. Spanneraol (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I see this site getting cited more and more often, and I think it's a problem. Take José Valverde, which is today's example. First MLBTR posted he had a deal with Arizona. A short while later, they updated their original post to say there is no deal.[10] To me, MLBTR is a great resource that points us in the right direction, but they are a tertiary source and not quite as good as citing MLB.com or a local paper. (Not meaning to draw attention to the editor who edited Valverde's article, since he's top notch, but just wanting to make a point and that's today's example.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm still waiting after almost 25 years for the New York Mets to trade Roger McDowell for Shawon Dunston. ESPN said the deal had been made. RS can be unreliable sources too at times....William 18:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That would've been interesting. Did ESPN 100% confirm it was done, or say that sources indicated it was happening? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I posted this on the fb page of the MiLB and didn't get a responds back so I was wondering if you guys know the answer to this? I posted it here and not on the talk page of Minor League Baseball so I can get a so you guys don't overlook this.

I have a question about how a team conducts their history. When a MiLB team switches affiliates with a different MLB team, does the MiLB team that switches affiliates consider themselves as the same team even though all the players and coaching staff are all completely different or do they consider themselves as a different team?

Also when a city joins the expansion of a league at a different class level and the city already has a team that plays in a different league and at a different class level, is the city allowed to move up or down class levels as the same team (same franchise) and gain an expansion spot in the new league instead of gaining an expansion team (expansion franchise) or do they have field an expansion team (expansion franchise) and relocating the existing team (existing franchise) to a new city and with that the name gets transferred from the existing team (existing franchise) to the expansion team (expansion franchise)? Like suppose if Trenton wants to move up to Triple-A. They already have the Trenton Thunder which plays in the Eastern League at the Double-A level. If Trenton is listed for expansion for the International League, are the Trenton Thunder allowed to move up as the same team (same franchise), joining the expansion of the International League or do they have to relocate to a new city and give up the "Trenton Thunder" name to the expansion team (expansion franchise)? This happened to both the former and current Charlotte Knights. The “Charlotte Knights” name moved up to the Triple-A level and the team at the Double-A level did not. They relocated to Nashville to become the Nashville Xpress and today they are now the Mobile BayBears; the team that absorbed the “Charlotte Knights” name was the Triple-A team which was an expansion team. Also if two MiLB cities exchange leagues and classes, do both teams (franchises) either move up or down exchanging spots as both the same team (same franchise) or do two cities have to exchange teams (franchises)? Also if a city wants to move up or down and switching leagues with a cause of one team moving to a new city and a city losing its MiLB team, is the city allowed to move up or down as the same team (same franchise) and in exchange a team (franchise) moves either up or down as the same team (same franchise) but relocates to a new city at the same time. The current Carolina Mudcats team is the former Kinston Indians and the former Carolina Mudcats team is the Pensacola Blue Wahoos. Pretend this 2012, is it possible for the Kinston Indians to move up as the same team (same franchise) but relocate at the same time to become the Blue Wahoos and the Carolina Mudcats move down as the same team (same franchise) or no. The summary of all of this is that is it possible for a team (franchise) to exist outside their class level? It is already possible for a team to exist outside their league since the Lake County Captains and the Bowling Green Hot Rods switched from the South Atlantic League to the Midwest League but stayed at the same class level. If it is not possible for a team (franchise) to exist outside their class level than is cause of a restriction problem or does a team (franchise) has like a special code that prevents them for moving up or down class levels and staying at the same class level for life. All the way up until like the 1960’s and 70’s a team (franchise) is allowed to move up or down class levels as the same team (same franchise), is that still possible today?

Also is it possible for an independent baseball team to join the MiLB expansion or do they have to fold and be replaced with an expansion team (franchise)? Like for example the Bridgeport Bluefish of the Atlantic League, is it possible for them to join the expansion as the same team (same franchise) or do they have to be replaced by a new team (new franchise). Is it also possible for a MiLB team (franchise) to drop out and go independent or no and is it possible for a MiLB team (franchise) to fold and be replaced by a new team (new franchise) taking their place in the same league at the same class level either if the they are going to play in the same city or different city or is that a no? Also is it possible for an independent league team to take the place of a struggling MiLB team as the same team (same franchise) or do they have to fold and have that struggling team relocate to the city where the independent team once played.

In my view of the words team and franchise, in my opinion, franchise is the alternative way of saying team and franchise is the same thing as team. 173.61.77.216 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak about any of the specific scenarios you are referring to, but here's a bit of general information on franchising. A franchise right is the right granted by a supplier to use the supplier's branding and distribute their goods within a specific area. So the owner of your local McDonald's restaurant, for example, pays a franchising fee to the McDonald's company for the right to open a store at a specific location (with a guarantee that no other franchises will be granted within a certain distance), use the McDonald's branding, and distribute McDonald's products. Similarly, when a league sells a franchise right to a business, it is granting the right (and obligation) to that business to operate a team in a specific area that will compete against the other teams in the league (the league games are the "goods" distributed by the franchisee). Changing leagues means an owner gives up its franchise right in one league, and purchases a franchise right in another.

A team name is generally a trademark owned by the team's owner, and not the league (though this may be different in some leagues, so again I can't comment on any specific situations). If an owner ends its franchise right with one league and obtains a new franchise right in another, it continues to own its trademarks, including the team name, and so it can decide if it wants to continue to use the team name in the new league. (Again, specific situations may differ; it's possible a league might impose specific conditions on a business regarding the team's name when it grants the franchise right.)

Marketing is another matter: the current owner of a team might choose to include the history of previous teams in the same city in the promotional materials for the current team. If another business owns the rights to the previous team name, then the current owner can license the right to use the previous team trademark in its marketing campaigns and merchandising. Generally speaking, businesses prefer to build up a brand they own rather than one they don't, so if a new owner can't purchase the rights to a team name from a previous owner, it's more likely they won't use the old team name.

Affiliation between a minor league club and a major league club is an agreement between the two team owners, so a change in affiliation bears no direct relationship on what team name is used, which is a marketing decision. The parent club could, as part of its agreement, impose conditions such as a new team name (for example, it might want the major league team's name to be used), or it could leave it up to the minor league owner to decide. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay so a franchise right is a franchise and the franchise operates a team; Trenton Thunder (franchise) operates the team of the same name- Trenton Thunder?173.61.77.216 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The owner of the team, Garden State Baseball, has the right to run a franchise of the Eastern League. To meet its obligations as a franchise owner, it operates a team, which it markets as the Trenton Thunder. isaacl (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay but the franchise of the Eastern League is the team or no? If the franchise is not the team than in order to operate a team you have to operate a franchise?173.61.77.216 (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Informally, fans will use the terms "franchise", "club", and "team" interchangeably. If you really want to know what a franchise is from a business perspective, I suggest you follow the link I gave above on franchising and use it as a starting point. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"I have a question about how a team conducts their history. ..."

Team history? Researching, maintaining, presenting, distributing any history --which it probably will but might not call team history-- is a business decision, so different businesses choose differently. I doubt that it is regulated by many leagues, or at a higher level, but higher-level organizations may "conduct" history too. So may a local organization, such as a committee to bring back minor league baseball.

· The same is true of major league baseball teams. Does the history of the Cincinnati Reds include Harry and George Wright of 1869? What about Cincinnati's 1879 team or teams? (And by the way, either the ballclub or TSN may have answered differently in 1920 and 1980.)

· The same is true of a commercial historian such as The Sporting News, the baseball paper of record for several decades. In 1920 and 1980, for example, TSN may have defined the Indianapolis baseball team(s) differently (I don't know). No doubt TSN treated long-period consistency as a virtue, yet it sometimes changed its mind.

--P64 (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugg its the franchise sock puppeteer again. Can't believe he hasn't given up yet. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I read Pat Collins and it says he is the only player to pinch hit and pinch run in the same game. That made me think about the following scenarios that should be common. I don't see why it would not occur. Imagine the following.

1. Bottom of the ninth. Down one run. 7-8-9 due up. 7 is slow-footed player shortstop. 8 is a deepball threat catcher who is also slow. You pinch hit for 7 with a speed demon hoping he get on, but he doesn't. He has been retired in the 7 spot. If the 8 spot gets walked, can you double switch the 7-hole short stop who has been retired to pinch run and bat a new catcher in the 7 spot if you tie it up?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
2. In the 6th or 7th inning speed demon pinch hits for the 7 spot as a defensive replacement. Later he makes the last out in the 8th inning. Can you then in the 9th inning put a new catcher in the 7th spot and bat the speed demon in the 8th spot.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Once a player is added to the lineup at a given spot, he can't be moved to another place in the order. Additionally, if he is removed from the lineup (for example, someone who pinch hits for another player and is subsequently replaced by someone else in the field in the next half inning), he can't return. isaacl (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Is it possible to pinch hit and pinch run in the same game under the current rules?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  No, because a pinch hitter / pinch runner is someone who enters the game by replacing someone else at the plate / on the base paths, and since you can only enter the game once, you can't do it both ways. If I understand the article on Pat Collins correctly, the teams and umpires chose to ignore this rule in that situation, something I don't think would happen today. isaacl (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Although technically it would not be a pinch hit appearance, a player could enter a game as a pinch runner, and then come to the plate in the same inning, if the team bats around to the given spot in the lineup again. isaacl (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pat Collins did not pinch run officially, as we explain in the biography, and we should doubt that his 1923 feat is unique in major league history.

The past is a foreign country. A few decades before Pat Collins, player substitution itself was governed by the discretion of the team captains; Austin Dirks replaces Miguel Cabrera (Tigers) with the permission of John Farrell (Red Sox). In the 1920s, perhaps Cabrera might swing the bat and Dirks run from home to first in his place, without replacing him in the game. (Cabrera is a good illustration now, during extended October 2013, i hope, because the nature of his injury makes him susceptible to further injury in that situation especially.) Vaguely I recall the term courtesy runner and understand that it was no official appearance.

--P64 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to take the Pat Collins article to GA. I've already searched all of Google News Archives and Google Books for sources, but found nothing on his early life except for this source, which I need help verifying. I was wondering if any of you know where I can find sources on this. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Google News Archive is gone for the next few months, and for good if Google has indeed lied to us and given up on their "Don't be evil" creed. The suggestions I've seen don't work nearly as well as GNA used to work, but you can conduct a Google search with "Keyword(s) site:news.google.com/newspapers" to access their online newspapers. It's harder to sift through, and there's no more of the helpful yellow highlighting, but it's better than nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I tried to do that, but the same results keep popping up with sources I've used in the article already. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• • I could help out, I got all the book sources for the same project you are taking with those pesky Yankees, I'll see if I could find the time tonight. Thanks Secret ^account 18:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Secret. Feel free to add any info you have from those book sources – I'll be more than willing to share GA credit with you after you let me do the same with Jack Warhop. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I nominated List of Nippon Professional Baseball players to hit for the cycle for featured list status here. I've worked on this list on and off for a year and I believe I finally made it good enough to be NPB's first featured list, and hopefully the first of many. Any comments/criticisms would be helpful. Thanks! --Torsodog^Talk 16:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've left a couple of comments. There might be more to come, but at first glance, the list appears to be comprehensive, well-written and comparable to the standards of the MLB list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if everyone here is aware of this discussion, but it's important for a full discussion to take place. Please review. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Article is deleted and rightly so. Now what about the others? Secret ^account 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You can nominate them for deletion also....William 01:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Resolute was nice enough to give 2013 American League Wild Card tie-breaker game a review, breaking through the slow-moving GAC process. It's been promoted so the topic retains its status. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 Wikipedia:WikiCup has already started, if interested sign up here. Great fun for the content contributors. Thanks Secret ^account 00:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1. Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak is a new type of article at WP:FAC so I hope a lot of sports fans will take the time to shape it correctly as a model for future articles on records.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

has been nominated for deletion. Come on over and participate in the discussion....William 15:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Last year, I proposed the drive, and it did not materialize particularly well (although we did get a few GAs out of it), for a variety of reasons, perhaps to wide a scope, perhaps lack of interest, perhaps a conglomeration of other factors. The bottom line is that I would like to see some semblance of it occur again this year, as this project doesn't have a lot of coordinated collaboration, and while we do have a lot of GAs and FAs due to work by individuals, we could tackle two of our bigger issues - sub-standard articles on current players and lack of focused, coordinated, content creation collaboration - with a drive of this nature. It is just a matter of determining how, so I open the floor for discussion, first by pinging participants in last year's drive; of course all are welcome to comment. Wizardman, EricEnfermero, Brambleberry of RiverClan, AutomaticStrikeout, Astros4477, Dewelar Thanks! Go Phightins! 20:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to give it another go. -Dewelar (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think if we just do a general drive, just getting people focused on writing in and of itself regardless of where in baseball, we should have little trouble making it a success. Wizardman 22:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely willing to do another GA drive, especially in summer. I think that two major problems of last year's drive were that two players for every team was a little too wide in scope and that some players faded into the background. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's an idea if you want the drive to have a theme or goal of sorts: Find the most interesting random fact about a ballplayer, and write articles on those types. I've found out about ballplayers suffering cerebral hemmorhages on the field, ballplayers being falsely reported dead via identity theft, and we have a GA on a guy who led a double life after his career with two families. If nothing else that'd make a drive more fun, especially since many of these stories are not exactly known, so who knows what we can find. Wizardman 23:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I like this. My contributions definitely tend toward the obscure. Even though I know that getting Babe Ruth above C-class is probably better for the project, the oddballs are just a lot of fun. I liked the idea of the GA drive. Ultimately I just found it harder to write about newer players who have received a little less coverage in reliable sources. I suspect that may become more of an issue following the recent changes to the Google News Archive. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Though I am not enthralled with spending wiki-time poring through a no-longer-existing Google News archive, Eric does bring up a good point that it is harder to find sources on newer players. Perhaps we could compile a list of some interesting current or recently retired (i.e. late-1980s on, so there is a chance newspaper articles would exist on HighBeam and the like) players who are well-established and have substandard articles. For example, Jamie Moyer, So Taguchi, Chris Coste, or others with interesting off-the-field or on-the-field stories (yes - all of these players played for the Phillies, and as such, I know they have interesting backstories ... of course there are others). Go Phightins! 02:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm also willing to join once I get a massive backlog of Wikistuff out of my plate. Secret ^account 19:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I too will contribute :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

It seems that a recent color category has been added for the pages from 2000 to now, indicating that a player was "Eliminated from annual BBWAA consideration by poor performance or expiration on subsequent ballots." I think that's too many colors and this particular category really isn't even worth mentioning... So unless I get even the slightest response to the contrary (even a, "I don't know, man...") on this talk page within... I don't know, a month? I'm going to go ahead and change it back to how it was. Masternachos (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The key is a little wordy to begin with and I think the new category adds confusion. (Even if it was helpful, it is shaded with a color that is very similar to an existing one.) EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 05:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this subject to do it, but it is clear that this article needs significant improvement. I've posted a multiple issues template on it. If somebody in this wikiproject could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, SteelMariner^Talk 07:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My copyvio sense is tingling big time on this, but on a cursory look I didn't find a source. I'll look this over in more detail, though a revert pre-the June IP edit may be best, since it adds refs and takes out the wall of text. Wizardman 02:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. When I see a large block of text with no wikiformatting in it, I always tend to assume it is either copy-pasted or just rambling. I like how it ended with the statement "just food for thought." SteelMariner^Talk 19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Pending Wizardman finding something, I agree that a revert to this version would be best. It can be expanded upon from there. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Denny Bautista, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to help by addressing feedback once the reassessment begins. Sports articles are a tough balance sometimes, but I think that GA status should be easily within reach for this entry. I wonder if it would help to take out some of the stuff in parentheses ("along with Randazzo behind Manuel Esquivia's 77"). EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 13:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Hello, just thought I'd drop by to say I'm planning to write up articles for the remaining perfect games that currently don't have their own. Had anyone else been interested in doing this? I've started collecting sources for each, currently they're at subpages in my userspace (all that are there now are links, but I'll begin work in the next few days). Any help is welcomed. I don't imagine they'll immediately all be GA's, but they'll be nice to have. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is something that's been on my radar, actually, since I've been part of working on the three most recent PG articles. I created redirects for all of them a while back, and have been meaning to get to them, whenever my schedule allows.

• Dennis Martínez's perfect game
• Tom Browning's perfect game
• Mike Witt's perfect game
• Kenny Rogers' perfect game
• Jim Bunning's perfect game
• Len Barker's perfect game
• Charlie Robertson's perfect game
• Addie Joss's perfect game
• Catfish Hunter's perfect game
• Lee Richmond's perfect game
• John Montgomery Ward's perfect game
• Don Larsen's perfect game – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am working (slowly) on an article ATM, but I could get to Richmond or Ward's afterword. It may help spur me on to improving Richmond's article, which also in bad need.Neonblak ^talk - 18:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just created (as stubs) articles for Witt and Barker. Might do Catfish next. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, cool. All I did so far was gather sources. I was most interested in doing Browning or Larsen (I wasn't going to tackle either of the 19th-century games). I can certainly contribute to any existing drafts as well. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help with expansion or copyediting at any point. Just ping me. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, baseball experts. The above abandoned Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable player, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne Delong. As he is still in the minor leagues, specifically Class A, and thus unlikely to reach the major leagues this season, he will not, in the foreseeable future, meet our notability guideline. That said, he may qualify to have a mini-bio on Milwaukee Brewers minor league players, but I will leave this to the experts on these types of pages. But CSD#G13 seems warranted in this case. Thanks. Go Phightins! 04:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's done. Only 12,000 more to go... —Anne Delong (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

File:1972 MLB Players Strike ends after 13 days..png – could someone please verify whether this image is public domain or not? I wanted to crop it for Marvin Miller Man of the Year Award, but I'm unsure as the source looks iffy at best and it's the only contribution the uploader has made. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on this SI article, that photo is from the AP. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that means it's non-free (which is the opposite of what it is tagged as). Does anyone know where I can get a free PD pic of Miller, or will the fair-use File:MarvinMiller31 50.jpg image suffice for an FLC? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of Wikipedia's policy on using non-free content and the discussions threads I've read, using a non-free photo of Miller would meet the "contextual significance" criterion for his article, but not for the "Marvin Miller Man of the Year Award" article. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe for people its generally not acceptable to use a non-free image unless they were dead long enough ago that it is near impossibly to get a free image. Being that he died only a year ago, I doubt using a non-free image for him would fly because he would fail #1a of WP:NFCCP because a free image is likely able to be found. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, Yankees10 and I almost simultaneously created a page for Yankees prospect Peter O'Brien. He created it at Peter O'Brien (baseball), while I created it at Peter O'Brien (catcher). We're having a disagreement about the proper location. When I initially went to Peter O'Brien, I saw Pete O'Brien (first baseman), Pete O'Brien (1900s second baseman), and Pete O'Brien (1890s second baseman), and figured that since "Pete" and "Peter" are basically the same thing, the disambiguation is necessary. Yankees10 does not agree, bringing up the players listed at Daniel Murphy. He may be right. Since we're not getting anywhere in discussion between the two of us, I'm putting it up here for input. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Pete O'Brien (first baseman) had 443 hits in the last 90 days, Pete O'Brien (1900s second baseman) had 156 hits in the last 90 days, Pete O'Brien (1890s second baseman) had 86 hits in the last 90 days. Personally, I think these totals are all so low as to be regarded as largely spurious (people landing on the wrong page after a google search). Peter O'Brien (catcher) has hits that are largely based on being edited right now. I think it is safe to say that none of these four is going to generate a lot of hits. My opinion is that Pete O'Brien (baseball) (no r) should redirect to the dab. The new article should be at Peter O'Brien (baseball) (with r), unless he is actually known as Pete. I.e., when he comes to bat does the PA announcer call him Pete or Peter. How do secondary sources refer to him? If he is actually known as Pete like the rest seem to be he should be at Pete O'Brien (catcher) (no r), Pete O'Brien (1900s second baseman) should be moved to Pete O'Brien (second baseman, born 1877) and Pete O'Brien (1890s second baseman) should be moved to Pete O'Brien (second baseman, born 1867).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Peter O'Brien (baseball) is clearly an inappropriate disambig as there are at least four Peter O'Briens that play baseball and have articles. Even if the others go by "Pete" it is an ambiguous term. My recommendation is Peter O'Brien (catcher), since that matches the convention already established by the other three, and Peter O'Brien (baseball) used as either a dab page specific to the baseball players, or more simply, redirected to the Peter O'Brien dab page. Resolute 21:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems that one is named Peter and the other three are named Pete.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope. There is only one Peter O'brien meaning the (baseball) disambiguation most certainly was appropriate. The others common name are Pete not Peter--Yankees10 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No Tony, all four are named Peter. While three of them are more commonly known as Pete, that does not change the fact that four separate players with articles have the given name "Peter O'Brien". It makes the generic (baseball) disambig title ambiguous. Resolute 03:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Minor correction. The pages weren't created simultaneously. The original re-direct I created was way back in June.--Yankees10 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My bad. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Use Peter O'Brien (catcher). Let's not make people that go to Peter O'Brien have to notice that one has a "r" and the other doesn't, or are really looking for one of the baseball Pete O'Brien's, but clicks on Peter O'Brien (baseball) because they didn't notice the others are listed by baseball position and not just sport name.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure why Peter O'Brien (catcher) currently redirects back to Peter O'Brien the dab. That's not very helpful.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, I see Peter O'Brien (catcher) being redirect to Peter O'Brien (baseball) and Peter O'Brien (baseball) also being redirected to Peter O'Brien the dab. In the interim, I'll make Peter O'Brien catcher back to an article, just so people can get to the info for now. No problem living with whatever final consensus ends up being.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• The 1890s guy actually played in the 1880s as well.. so his dab should be changed. On a separate issue, what's with Raúl Adalberto Mondesí? We don't dab by middle name in this project. Spanneraol (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Because that is what his name is listed on at MILB.com--Yankees10 03:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Catcher would definitely be the one to use. All the players are named Peter, even if the others are more commonly known as Pete. Naming is intended to help the readers and I think using catcher would do the most help with the plain baseball redirecting to the disambig page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. "Catcher" would be clearer to users for the particular player, "baseball" for a dab page. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• I agree as well. "catcher" not "baseball" is appropriate here for the player. "Baseball" should be used for disambiguation. Brian Reading (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we moving Daniel Murphy then too? And every other similar situation?--Yankees10 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I would, yes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We should keep the same logical conventions across the board, so I would say yes as well. Brian Reading (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I have been working on the 2014 Philadelphia Phillies season article, primarily just covering transactions and whatnot, and recalled that, when working on football season articles (e.g., 2013 Penn State Nittany Lions football team), there is a depth chart template (for CFB, it's Template:CFB Team Depth Chart). I could not, however, find one for MLB. Would it be possible to create one to put as a team's preseason depth chart? Just a thought. Thanks. Go Phightins! 15:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that, as far as I know, neither MLB nor individual teams publish "depth charts" of their rosters, so determining who ranks ahead of someone else would heavily rely on WP:OR. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

MLB.com has depth charts.[11] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea during the season, but what would be on it at the end of the season? Is it the depth chart on the last day of the season or the opening day depth chart? I think that should be decided. Also, it should be MUCH smaller than the CFB one, IMO. That's way too big. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

My thought was to use the MLB depth charts. We could collapse them, and put a preseason and a "last day of season" one. Go Phightins! 15:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed that the CFB one is massive in size. Maybe we could find a way to integrate a baseball diamond into one? Anywho, the example I linked above said it was last "verified" today, so we could continue to make updates throughout the offseason as we do to the 40 man roster. My biggest concern is that this would be one more thing to keep up to date. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping @Technical 13: and @Isaacl: to inquire as to the feasibility of this. Go Phightins! 15:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, to me it feels a little like duplication of an extra level of detail beyond what a general encyclopedia ought to contain (but I recognize that my criteria for this differs from others). As far as I can tell, the charts on MLB.com are just its own view, so it may be giving it undue weight to exclusively use it as a source. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for a depth chart template.. We already have the rosters that show everyone who played for the team during the season, which is really all that is needed.. the rosters arent as big as football ones for example so I dont think a depth chart is needed. Plus we have the stat tables which signify who got the most playing time. Spanneraol (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor has added an "Infobox Political post" to the "Commissioner of Baseball" article, and changed the infoboxes on the "Bud Selig" and "Fay Vincent" articles to "Infobox officeholder". As these infoboxes are for political offices, I believe they are inappropriate for these articles. What do you think? isaacl (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not technically a political position, but it does convey the information nicely and I kinda like it.Spanneraol (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would improperly categorize the article, particularly since infoboxes typically generate vCard information for search engines to examine, and so can lead to inaccuracies. isaacl (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Note Template:Infobox officeholder, as I understand the documentation, is not intended to be used directly—instead, one of the templates listed on the documentation page is used, specifying a specific political office. All of them are government positions and so don't fit this circumstance. Template:Infobox political post, according to its documentation, is for political and government-appointed posts. It doesn't seem like an appropriate choice for the head of a private organization. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking of posting a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics regarding the appropriate use of these infoboxes, as they are both within its scope. Are there any objections? isaacl (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has edited political articles in the past, I disagree that this is the proper infobox to be using, as it is specifically for political office, and is tailored as such. However, I also don't think the "Infobox person" template does a good job either. Therefore, I propose and volunteer to make a new infobox for league commissioners that could incorporate the things we like from the officeholder one, but it could be used for all sorts of league commissioner positions as well (NFL, MLS, NBA, MLL, college leagues, etc), and could even be tailored for an even better fit. Would this be okay? I don't think a discussion at the Politics WP is necessary. Brian Reading (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. (Apologies if the following is already familiar to you:) My only requests are to use the Infobox template and set the "child" parameter as shown in Template:Infobox#Full blank syntax in order to propagate through the setting of the child parameter, so that the infobox can be embedded within others (as described in Template:Infobox#Embedding). isaacl (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, using the infobox template for sure, will set the child parameter as well. Thanks for the input. I will share a sandboxed version of the infobox once it becomes available. I'm working on it today/tonight. Brian Reading (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and threw it in the template namespace for all to review: ((Infobox league commissioner)). I modeled it after the Officeholder infobox somewhat, but anyone who wants to edit how they see fit can feel free to do so. When any of you think it's appropriate to do, you can swap out the infobox for league commissioners all over and modify the parameters as needed. Brian Reading (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the infobox. Did you intend for it to be also used on the "Commissioner of Baseball" article? If so, it could use some suitable adaptations to describe the role more generally, and not assume it is being applied to a specific commissioner. isaacl (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead with any changes you think it needs. Thanks! Brian Reading (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It'll take me a bit of research on how to make the required changes (for example, a "Personal details" section is unnecessary), so if anyone wants to give it a try, please feel welcome to do so. isaacl (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I revised the articles for Bud Selig and Fay Vincent to use the new infobox, but the changes were reverted in the Selig article. In the Vincent article, another editor restored the Infobox person template, used additional parameters to specify the predecessor, successor, and other information related to the commissioner post, and nominated the template for deletion. What does everyone think is the best way forward? isaacl (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that someone nominated your infobox for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Please weigh in on the discussion for deletion here. I have already put my reasoning there, but it could use more discussion to reflect a true consensus. Thanks. Brian Reading (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway here about merging our MLB player infobox into the baseball biography one. Spanneraol (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not "our" template. It's everyone's template. Just a friendly reminder. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names needs a name change I think because MLB wasn't around when these guys played. I have the table finished and uploaded an image, but I can't think of a name for the list that wouldn't be awkward. Thoughts? Seattle (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we're resigned to using "Major League Baseball" broadly in page names, at least. Moreso, in practice, because that is the target of 'Search: major leagues', which gets the redirect Major Leagues", as well as "MLB", another redirect.

It's in prose that relevant explanation of the list scope should be made; in this case, certainly in the lead section. A visitor who reads the lead should understand whether and broadly how the MLB name and wikilink are not adequate.

--P64 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello baseball experts! Is this a notable player, and should the article be saved from deletion as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an article already exists for this player. isaacl (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't find it because the name was different. Since it appears he was commonly called "Jack", I've added him to the Jack Hobbs (disambiguation) page. There's a lot of information in the draft that's not in the article, though. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have moved some information from the Afc draft to the John Hobbs (baseball) article, and changed the old draft to a redirect Jack Hobbs (baseball) to maintain attribution. Knowing nothing about baseball, though, I have likely done it badly, so perhaps someone from this project would like to take a peek at the result and see if it needs TLC. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Several of you have improved the article. It's much better now. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the recent back-and-forth editing on List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases, adding/removing citations for each player. Any comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Um it is a norm to have individual references, has been for quite a while, and should not change. Go Phightins!, Secret, Newyorkadam, Muboshgu, and Bloom6132 can give us good insight on that. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As the issue has broader implications for all lists of career leaders, I suggested that the discussion be held here, instead. The key question I have is whether or not the leader board page for a site such as baseball-reference.com suffices as a citation for a player's career total in a given statistic, or if the individual player page on the same web site ought to be used. I believe using the leader board page is sufficient, makes it easier to navigate the reference section of the list article, and makes it easier to highlight cases where there is a disagreement between sources for a player's career total. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Easier to navigate, again is not a reason to exclude individual references. Wikipedia does not have a policy about article size, but it does have a policy about verifiability and I oppose removing any individual sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The web site is the one reference being cited in the page in question, so citing the leader board page rather than the individual player pages would not remove any references. If desired, each row can continue to have an inline citation, but they can all point the leader board page. isaacl (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is a waste of time. What is your point to this mess you and Redmen are creating? It is a norm to cite individual players' BR statistics and will continue to be. You can learn more about the players, find averages, find numbers for each season, etc. with an individual reference for each player. Why is it so bad to have individual references? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The point of the page is to list the top career stolen base leaders NOT to look at other stats like averages and other career numbers. That information should be reserved to each players individual page. So, if you would like you can go to each players individual page and make sure they have the baseball reference listed on them. Redmen44 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Again Redmen and issac, neither of you will get the result you want. The fact is, a simple leaderboard is insufficient as it is. It is far too basic and often individual stats are needed, since it also gives more information. Very few people come in just to see that say X player is in Nth place with Y stolen bases: they will probably want to know more. Its like how most of people don't eat pasta without sauce. Simple, FL's are FL's because they represent what a list should look like. Fact is, this will not overturn consensus and lists will continue as is. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WOW, Sportsguy calm down! You do not own this page and your "strong arm" comments are not helping your cause. It is pretty clear that this list was created to show the top players in stolen bases. If someone wants to know more about the player (like averages which you suggested), then they can click on the players link that will take them directly to each players Wikipedia page and they can find all the stats that their heart desires. When it comes to the "Leaders" pages, only the baseball reference page that shows the career stolen bases leaders needs to be cited. Sportsguy, I recommend that your time would be better spent working on each player individual pages to make sure they are all up to date with the baseball reference website. It has also taken you over 2 months and still you do not even have half of this page completed. Your time will be much appreciated elsewhere. Redmen44 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Your time will be much appreciated elsewhere" could be interpreted as WP:OWN as well. Perhaps you want to clarify.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comments were a little blunt and I did not intend for them to be, but let's say that a leaderboard or single reference does not exist, then what is used as the source? The only option is the BR individual profiles. Plus, leaderboards can disagree between sites. Also I want to take the list to FL status. Ho would you help the article if there were no sources Redmen? Because it will need the individual references to make it to FL status without a doubt. Saying things like "your time is appreciated elsewhere" can land you in hot water. What do you want to come out of this? As I said, individual references work best. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if my statement could have been interpreted as WP:OWN but all I was trying to say was that Sportsguy has done well on Wikipedia and his work could be much appreciated elsewhere. In the case of this page, he is becoming more and more aggressive and it might be time to move on. I wasn't trying to be rude. Should there be more discussion on this topic or should we vote? What do you think Bagumba? Redmen44 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Umm I should move on? Dude, I was trying to get this to Featured List status before you started reverting the sources. You too became more aggressive to the point where Secret used rollback because he thought your edits were vandalism or it looked like it. Telling someone to move on is still WP:OWN. Look, I want to continue working on this article without the worry of you reverting the sources. I think the table could be cleaned up and that would help. Also, consensus is not a vote Redmen. Wikipedia rarely has votes. This is all discussion, none of it is or will be a vote. Plus, as I said, having one leaderboard on MLB.com cannot be used as one source and contradicting sources put in footnotes still need to be sourced and for some statistics, leaderboards don't exist, so individual statistics from BR cannot hurt. This is how it has been in many articles for years; why is changing all of a sudden? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) @Bagumba:, @Isaacl:, @Redmen44: - I have a solution: I now see why this article does not need individual references. This shouldn't be the case for every list. Some lists will require individual references, but perhaps leaderboards will suffice for this article. I propose that this be closed as a consensus, the article is unprotected, I will self revert and we can build it to FL from there. That said, individual refs will be needed on FL's so this is a case-by-case thing. Agreed? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. Redmen44 (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would note that individual references won't always be needed for FLs. There are many sports FLs that use a single ref to cover much of their content. In fact it is generally considered better for FLs to merge references where applicable so you don't have multiple refs to the same source. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this notification: I would have thought this talk page would be a suitable location to discuss any reorganization of the project, or to provide assistance to each other and new users? I understand different editors prefer different methods, and so have no issues with using IRC, but it seems odd that the project talk page has not been involved at all in these discussions (not even to announce the IRC channel). I hope that the talk page will continue to be the main place for discussion. isaacl (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Isaac, those of us talking in IRC are just informally bouncing around some ideas. We are drafting a blurb/summary to post here to start discussion on what to do to re-organize, etc. Rest assured, all decision making, etc. will be here. Go Phightins! 23:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is all such bouncing of ideas should also be happening here. IRC is not supposed to be used for any kind of on-wiki planning which this effectively is, whether informal or not. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh, no. There is nothing wrong with using IRC to plan or collaborate as long as we're not using it to come up with some new guidelines we haven't first discussed onwiki. TCN7JM 13:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to read the guidelines on IRC use then because planning and collaborating on IRC are specifically mentioned as a no-go. Because by throwing around ideas and then coming onto wiki and only presenting those that you guys think are good, you have essentially come up with new guidelines that haven't been discussed onwiki because those who don't go on IRC won't have had the opportunity to comment on all the ideas that were tossed around (ie ones that don't eventually get brought to this page). It also means there is no history of what was discussed, so people who weren't there can't see what was said. These kinds of discussions on IRC are heavily frowned upon. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:IRC says nothing of this nature; could you please point me to the policy or guideline page you're talking about or is it just an essay with people's opinions? (That said I gotta run, so I won't be able to reply for about nine hours.) TCN7JM 13:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The very obvious part is "When the channels are used to attack Wikipedians, or when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships." Hence discussions that lead to a proposal on-wiki. (aka a summary of what happened on IRC). But I know there are more specific mentions which I will find. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussions that lead to an on-wiki proposal help the wiki, not the opposite. I fail to see how getting some opinions from other editors before officially proposing something onwiki can "damage the project's collaborative relationships" and not the opposite. TCN7JM 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(3 times edit conflict) I agree with TCN7JM, it's a way of interactive live chat with fellow editors on certain topics on specific issues like GANs and minor talk page discussions. I know IRC had a terrible reputation in the past, but this channel will be used for collaboration only. Any changes to this project will be held on this talk page. That what the successful Wikiprojects like WP:WPTC does. Check it out. I am Aranda56 on IRC. Thanks Secret ^account 13:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry on the conflicts. I have no problem with IRC being used to co-ordinate GANS and the like. Its the idea that we are using it to come up with a new organization for the WikiProject which is the problem. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Djsasso, I am drafting a summary of what was talked about that will include what was supported and what was not, however there was absolutely nothing formal going on, this was an impromptu chat that materialized, and some action, i.e. setting up a WP:BASEBALL specific IRC channel, was taken. Talk page discussion will come as soon as I have time to finish writing up my summary, which will happen hopefully within the next 36 hours. Thanks. Go Phightins! 13:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand how nice it is to be able to speak to people in real time. I can see how this can be useful when discussing ideas in the embryonic stages. But if the discussion progresses further, then this will cut out anyone who doesn't use IRC, for whatever reason, or just isn't available to be on IRC at the same time. I also am wary of the lack of history; when I see comments such as the one below stating that "There's a lot that's going to be turning around from IRC conversation," I am curious to know what is being discussed in full. For tasks that need co-ordination in real time, a live communication channel is certainly beneficial. However I hope other discussions will continue to centre around this talk page. isaacl (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%, Isaac. Go Phightins! 20:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree as well. Issac, check out the IRC channel and check if you like it. All major decisions should be made here, any inappropriate canvassing or IRC chatter is not tolerated. Some people are blowing the idea our of proportion. If for some strange reason we got an emergency on our hands, the discussion will be logged. But that's only in rare exceptions. Thanks Secret ^account 20:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to notify the Wikiproject but my Internet temporarily crashed, we kinda edit conflicted but yes all discussion is going to be discussed here. Secret ^account 23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, several people from the baseball wikiproject are getting together after Wizardman's sudden retirement to figure out a better way to organize the Wikiproject. One of the ideas we came up with is having our own IRC channel to help each other, as well as new users with collaboration and content. If you need help connecting to IRC join #wikipedia-coffeehouse ^connect. The IRC channel for Wikiproject Baseball is #wiki-baseball ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 23:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Any idea why Wizardman retired? Is he gone for good or is this like one of your retirements? I've never used IRC so how does that work? Spanneraol (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: Click on the green 'connect' button after the 'wiki-baseball' link, and you'll see what to do. -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Note I will help out anyone with connecting to IRC, so far it has been a success with several users who never done IRC entering and discussing potential changes. User:Go Phightins! will leave a summary on what happened. Just connect and try it out. Thanks Secret ^account 02:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We've had a good majority of editors join IRC at this point. There's a lot that's going to be turning around from IRC conversation. This is a good start. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I will be in IRC the whole day today, answering questions about logging in, the intent of this channel, getting cloaks and other IRC aspects you need to know while having general discussion. Aranda56 is my IRC nick. Please join! Thanks Secret ^account 16:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)