Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

No separate article for the 1951 NL playoff?

I know we have an article on the Shot Heard 'Round the World, but I'm extremely surprised, given that we have articles on so many other tiebreakers (e.g., 1948 American League tie-breaker game), that there's no full article for the 1951 National League tie-breaker series (or whatever it should be called). Was this a conscious decision, or has everybody just been assuming the article exists ;-) ? -Dewelar (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Until fairly recently, most of those articles didn't exist. I believe Staxringold and Wizardman are working on that particular good topic nomination prep. — KV5 • Talk • 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would simply create a redirect from "1951 NL playoff" to "Shot heard round the world" or vice versa. There's only so much you can say about a 3-game series that culminates in a famous home run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just found out there's a template for these games (Template:MLBtiebreaker), and this is the only redlink on it (I even predicted the name, heh), so it may already be in the pipe. I did a quick writeup on the 1951 New York Giants (MLB) season article that could probably be used as a starting point. -Dewelar (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, if you want to take up this project it would be fantastic! I went with that red link target as it was in line with the other similar articles. The Shot used to be what everything pointed to for the whole tie-breaker, which can be very misleading (until about 9 months ago I didn't even know there was a special tie-breaker, let alone that it was a 3-game series, and I consider myself a pretty hardcore baseball fan). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive... -Dewelar (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Vital articles

Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/People#Team_sports, the baseball players and executives seems right. Better to discuss who to add and who to delete here. Thanks Secret ^account 04:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look this over more closely when I'm awake, but...Willie Stargell? Seriously? -Dewelar (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not as glaring to me as Sammy Sosa. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I said I wasn't awake ;-) . But, yes, Sosa has no business on this list. First name I thought of that isn't there was George Wright, and then Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Possibly also Henry Chadwick. -Dewelar (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For the most part it looks good now; a couple maybes for addition include Bob Feller, Ernie Banks, Sandy Koufax, Brooks Robinson. They're probably on the same lines as Stargell though, not quite there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Koufax is already there and doesn't really belong. Nor does Maris. Nor, really I think, does Ken Griffey, Jr. Or Steinbrenner. Yikes. Vital articles aren't WP:CORE, I get that, but this shouldn't just be a list of very good players. It should be the absolute tip-top players and other truly enormous figures (I would argue Nolan Ryan is overrated, eg, but so many call him the greatest pitcher ever it's hard to say no). Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm unclear on what the point of the list is. Is it a list of baseball personnel whose articles need significant improvement? As far as great pitchers, when he was in his prime, Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson were the best there were. And for all time... well, there's a reason the pitching award is called the Cy Young award. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is a list of articles that are the most important/significant, and thus the ones that should be pushed toward GA/FA status. Under those conditions, I think Steinbrenner is probably deserving of one of a precious few slots devoted to baseball executives. Right now it's just him, Mack and Rickey (and Landis, depending on your definition). Charles Comiskey might be deserving, or Walter O'Malley, or Bill Veeck, or Harry Wright (misspoke when I mentioned George above, but...tired). Bud Selig probably deserves a spot, too. Steve Carlton is another prominent omission. Maybe even Marvin Miller. -Dewelar (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree on Harry Wright, I was surprised to see him omitted. But I agree with Bugs that I don't think Steinbrenner should be included; I was shocked to see him on that list. — KV5 • Talk • 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My feeling on Steinbrenner is that he belongs as the most prominent baseball executive of the last 30+ years (unless you count Selig). By the same token, we might want to consider including Tony LaRussa as the most prominent baseball manager of the same time frame. There are a lot of recent players on the list (there are six players who are either active or retired within the past few years), but outside of Steinbrenner not a single non-player who has been active in the game since 1965 (Stengel). -Dewelar (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

List looks MUCH better now than it did last night (no worries Dewelar, I wasn't awake when I first commented either). Overrated or not, Nolan Ryan has the K's record and 7 no-hitters: he's a giant. I'm not sure about the Big Unit or Maddux. They were great, but that great? Steinbrenner is the most influential executive since Branch Rickey, I think. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Like I said, I agree Ryan is a titanic figure in baseball history whether I agree with the adulation he gets or not. As for Maddux and RJ, there are pretty serious arguments that either one could be placed amongst the greatest 5 pitchers of all time. As far as I'm concerned any mix of Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Lefty Grove, Tom Seaver, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and maybe Pedro or Koufax if you really love peak performances would be 100% understandable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think we're going to find far more coverage of players than non-players, just as I'm sure the Vital articles for film include far more actor pages than say... Cinematographers or key grips. They play an important role but it's just not where the focus tends to be. As for the players, the Gibson/Koufax response Bugs had to me is the problem with this sort of list. First off, I would say Gibson is wildly overrated. He had one truly world-breaking year (even when couched within the pitching dominance of the period). He was a great Hall of Fame pitcher, but this isn't that list. And herein lies the problem. If the critera for something like this is soft (as it almost certainly is) then every editor will have a different view of what belongs. In these cases I feel like it's best to be as stringent as possible, only including the really obvious titans of the game (Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Mays, Aaron, Bonds, Young, Clemens, Wagner, Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio, etc) and staying away from the Christy Mathewsons, the Koufaxs, the Gibsons, etc for whom there may be an argument but no unified agreement. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What we all should keep in mind is that we're not voting for the Hall of Fame (or even the Hall of Merit). We're talking about the most prominent figures in the world of baseball. That's why I take no issue with the inclusion of someome like Ryan -- whether he's an all-time great or not is not at issue. He's on the list because he's a household name, even today. Everybody knows who Nolan Ryan is, just as everybody knows who George Steinbrenner is, if for no other reason than his "presence" on Seinfeld.

As for the player/executive thing, I think that's wrong-headed. Steinbrenner is certainly not at the level of a cinematographer. If you look at the list linked, there are 151 people on the list of "Actors and entertainers", and there are 54 "Producers, directors & screenwriters". I would not hesitate to say there should be a similar proportion of players vs. non-players on the baseball list. So, if the list remains at 42 in length, that means we need about 11 non-players. We've got Cartwright, Landis, Mack, McGraw, Rickey, Steinbrenner and Stengel on there now, so that's only seven. Add LaRussa, Selig and Wright and you have ten. Close enough for me. -Dewelar (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And, if you want an eleventh, other possible off-field choices might be an announcer (Mel Allen? Vin Scully? Bob Uecker?) or an umpire (Jocko Conlan?). And please, NOBODY SUGGEST BOB SHEPPARD ;-) . -Dewelar (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Harry Kalas? :-D — KV5 • Talk • 01:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of lists with artificial cutoffs, but in the spirit of an encyclopedia, I think the key criterion to consider is who has played an important role in baseball history, such that a history of baseball without this person would be significantly incomplete. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and WHERE'S SATCHEL PAIGE, DAMMIT? ;-D -Dewelar (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Cyclone Joe Williams > Paige. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

He may have been a better player, but if Williams is a more prominent figure in baseball history than Paige, I'll eat the hats of the entire project. If anything, Buck O'Neil might be the only NeL'er that rivals Paige from the standpoint of sheer impact (Jackie Robinson is in a completely separate class). Rube Foster might be another good choice. -Dewelar (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, also Josh Gibson, one of three players along with Ruth and Bonds in the greatest ever discussion, but he's there already. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely Gibson belongs on the list. Didn't mean to give him short shrift. As you noted, I was thinking more of those not on the list. -Dewelar (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess if you want to go for true impact, we could add Marvin Miller and Curt Flood (for his off the field performance, of course). --Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned Miller above, and certainly from a historical standpoint both are good candidates, as is (to a lesser degree) Andy Messersmith. -Dewelar (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I added Paige and Wright and removed Randy Johnson Secret ^account 01:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're looking to add in another nonplayer or two, then alongside Wright or Miller I'd add in Ban Johnson. Granted, I think the list is pretty good now as is. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Johnson was one I considered as well. Good call. For historical impact, John Montgomery Ward is another name I'll throw out there. -Dewelar (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll add Marvin Miller and remove either Maddux or Bob Gibson, who should I remove. Secret ^account 01:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yastrzemski. -Dewelar (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea he didn't belong on the list neither, there's some suspistious entries in other topics, Cate Blanchett, Mike Royko, Dwyane Wade, Doug Williams! but we need to focus on baseball. Secret ^account 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Doug Williams has an argument, but the others are definitely suspect. Also, I'd remove Gibson before Maddux, if it comes to it. We haven't even discussed Mike Schmidt or Yogi Berra or Carlton Fisk yet... -Dewelar (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Joe Morgan should be on the list as well, as many consider him the greatest second baseman of all time Secret ^account 01:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh maybe if it's a list of terrible announcers I'd agree with you. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would consider Rickey Henderson to be the most glaring omission and McGwire to be the least deserving. Mark was a one dimensional player and that is very tainted. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea Henderson should be on the list, but McGwire along with Bonds and Clemens represented the biggest controversy the sport has seen since the Black Sox Scandal, there is a point for keeping his article there. Secret ^account 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If McGwire, then Sosa, and it was determined above that Sosa doesn't belong. I don't think McGwire belongs either. — KV5 • Talk • 02:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We should limit it at 45 articles, so there's two more to add, and after developing a consensus on who should be on the list, we should make the 45 articles FAs, I think we could do that by December if the whole wikiproject works as a team. What do you think Secret ^account 02:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We only have three on the list that are FAs Koufax, Robinson, and Musial (though a case could be made for Mariano Rivera to be on that list) Secret ^account 02:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Henderson. McGwire is a borderline case, so I'd have no issue with removing him. Rivera's a maybe also. Allow me to again bring up Bud Selig, not only as the current commissioner, but also as probably the most influential person in the game (both for good and for ill) of the past 20 years, from the 1994 strike/cancelled World Series, to the creation of the wild card, to the ASG shenanigans, and on and on. Like him or not, he has already cast a long shadow. -Dewelar (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it's not about McGwire and Sosa themselves. They're here in the context of 1998 Major League Baseball home run record chase, so that would be the important article, no? -Dewelar (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Added Selig and Henderson as the final two, should we make it 50 or fine with 45 and decide who belongs and who doesn't and make them FAs or at least GAs within the next few months once we develop a final consensus. I'm working on Shoeless Joe Jackson first, I'm also going to look at Roberto Clemente. The rest of the baseball articles could wait until we get these 45 articles to FA or GA status, that's includes season articles, etc. Pick and choose, I'll agree that there's better opsions than McGwire. Secret ^account 02:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just checked quickly, and it appears that in addition to the 3 FA's, four additional articles on this list are GA's, one of which is Clemente (the others are Bonds, Henderson and Young). Bonds was just promoted to GA, actually. Those can probably be set aside for now to focus on the others. -Dewelar (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Clemente article doesn't meet current GA guidelines for it's weird sourcing, and clear lack of context for his playing career (entire seasons are missing, etc). So that article doesn't count, but yea lets focus on the others, I'm sure Monowi can make Gibson an FA, he's working on it now. But let's pick the article, and yea McGwire shouldn't be on the list, who should we suggest, Flood, Berra, Schmidt, Morgan, Ban Johnson, Albert Spalding, there's alot to choose from. Secret ^account 03:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I could take a crack at expanding the Harry Wright article tomorrow, I think. Another thought I had was Lefty O'Doul, who has a big role in the PCL (the only 20th century minor league to rival the majors in popularity) and in Japanese baseball as well as being a major league star for several years. Heck, what about Sadaharu Oh, for an international perspective? -Dewelar (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh would be a good choice, but almost impossible to make as an FA as none of us read Japanese, to replace McGwire I'm down to either Mike Schmidt or Eddie Collins to the list, and remove Maddux or Bob Gibson for Berra (which I make an FA as well I have the biography). Secret ^account 03:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's thrown Frank Robinson out there yet. So...consider him thrown. -Dewelar (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Added the final six, see if you agree, Curt Flood was added mainly because of his role on free agentcy, I removed Griffey and McGwire. Secret ^account 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd better comment, being the 19th-century guy. If you want a top-5 list of the individuals who were the largest, most influencial figures in the first 30+ years of the game... I would use Cap Anson, Alexander Cartwright (both already there), then add Al Spalding, John Montgomery Ward, and Harry Wright. If you want to expand it a few more, then I would add William Hulbert, Charlie Commiskey, than maybe a few other players like Dan Brouthers, Tim Keefe, Pud Galvin, etc... but that might be going to far. There are others on the list who's career did span from the 1800s on this list, like John McGraw and Cy Young who are rightfully on this list.Neonblak ^talk - 04:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did a bit of work on Wright's article. It's probably enough to bump it to C-class anyway. I also found and added a reference for Wright's cricket career stats, which someone more knowledgeable in that regard should be able to mine for info. -Dewelar (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Popular baseball pages

I don't know how to set it up myself, but I think a page such as this one would be great for this wikiproject.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Page. We haz it. — KV5 • Talk • 11:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch? Because he owns FOX? --Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking that Rupert Murdoch, and by extension News Corporation, aren't really part of our project and should be removed; really a stretch to have them in there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, as a past owner of the Dodgers, he (or, technically, News Corp) belongs there as much as the guy at the top of the list does ;-) . I notice that even Danny Kaye is tagged as a baseball article (though Bob Hope is not, or at least not yet). -Dewelar (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Major League Baseball team captains

I recently came across the article Major League Baseball team captains. Can I get some of you guys to look at the article? Right now it's a completely unreferenced article subjectively describing a concept that, as far I know, is not officially defined anywhere. I was going to AfD but I thought I'd come here first. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would definitely AFD it. Not enough teams have "Captains" to warrant a list separate from the Red Sox/Yankees captain lists. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Baseball team captains. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Baseball articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Theres a few too many current Boston Red Sox players in there, we need to add our 50 vital players articles, and all of our FAs and GAs in that list. I'll take care of it. Secret ^account 02:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wooo, 5 articles I was a major contributor to are in there! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with archive access to these sites

Hey. Just wondering if anyone had or knew of anyone who would have access to archives of the Washington Post or any other D.C. area newspapers from the early 20th century. I've been working on Walter Johnson's bio offwiki (ETA end of October probably), and have come across a few instances where the source i'm looking at refers me to these papers, which I can't access. Let me know if you can help, if not no biggie. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have access to the Washington Post though ProQuest. Secret ^account 22:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind it's after 1987. I don't think they have archives from the Post that long. I have the complete NYT archives from 1800s on with ProQuest, and the Yankees did play the Senators countless times. Secret ^account 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've got access to Lexis Nexis and ProQuest as well if you ever need anything drop me a talk page line with what you want me to search. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Books

I just spend over $450 dollars worth of baseball books two days ago after I had a excellent weekend on my job. It includes almost every key history of baseball book that isn't outdated like the Concise History of Major League Baseball by Koppett, The Pitch That Killed by Mike Sowell, and Summer of '49 by David Halberstam (I already owned the James one) and key biographies of every player I could find that wasn't like 40 bucks, I bought six books that talks about Babe Ruth including his all his major biographies and plenty about the Yankees. I also bought a few from other sports and topics as well that interests me. Some arrived today. Let me know if you need research material for any subject you writing about, I also have access to ProQuest though my university. Thanks Secret ^account 22:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox images

Referencing an earlier discussion, is the project still of the general consensus that the image in player infoboxes should be the one that shows the player best, which may or may not necessarily be the picture of him with his current team? Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 15:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I know it makes sense to me to be the best available picture, but still trying to use current team if a number of pictures are close to being the same quality. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course that makes sense, but I'm talking about when one image is clearly superior in quality and resolution to another. — KV5 • Talk • 16:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a valid question. Obviously, the best choice would be a pic with his current team, with the next-best being one with no team affiliation visible. IMO, in order to pick something other than one of those two, it can't just be "clearly superior". The difference had better be something along the lines of "can't find one that shows his face" or "can't find one that doesn't look like it was taken by Foster Brooks". -Dewelar (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's basically what I was getting at. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Then, in that case, let me be specific to the situation I'm currently looking at. This image is of impeccable quality. It's probably close to ready for a featured picture nomination if it's cropped properly and the lighting is adjusted a bit. This image, on the other hand, is fuzzy, overedited, doesn't show the player's face, and is of a lower resolution, making it in nearly all aspects inferior to the first. — KV5 • Talk • 17:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I would definitely go with the first one. That second one is horrible, I wouldn't even use it on a page period. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. — KV5 • Talk • 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The second one is definitely Foster Brooks territory. -Dewelar (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Relocated clubs

Has there been any moves towards dividing up such articles yet? The Athletics, Giants, Braves, Senators/Twins, Senators/Rangers etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to stir up this hornet's nest again? If so, it'll be interesting to see if any stances have softened. (Forewarning: mine hasn't.) -Dewelar (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Merely seeking an update. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes work had started after the last consensus to start splitting them, see the History of the New York Giants (NL)/History of the San Francisco Giants etc. It hasn't really gone past that team however, as people are probably still pretty hesitant to split them which is why it hasn't gone any further. -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the "History Of" structure...I think that's something that needs doing either way. I was worried that we were talking about something else... -Dewelar (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The History Of structure was how we settled the debate on the other thing you are thinking of. (ie redirecting the old team name to the section of the history of structure that relates to team when it was that name)-DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The History of.. articles, are a darn good compromise between the pro-splitters/anti-splitters. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and still hold out hope that it's enough to bring the one outlier's supporters into a consensus (unless we did that already, too). -Dewelar (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I remember that bit. I think that happened right around the time I went on my self-enforced sabbatical, or shortly before. -Dewelar (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't put much thought into it after the Giants history split. I'd say anyone who has the ambition should go ahead. Wknight94 ^talk 15:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Inge and strikeouts

There is an editor that is an unabashed Brandon Inge hater. Recently, Inge set the Tigers franchise record for strikeouts. That is mentioned in the article text and a strikeouts stat was added to the infobox stats, which is fine. It's my belief that having the stat in the infobox doesn't provide any context as Inge isn't known as a player that strikes out a lot. Heck, I'd venture to say it's a BLP violation to put it in the infobox. Anyway, I'm just trying to get other opinions on the subject. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally, players that hold franchise records have that statistic mentioned in the infobox, unless it's something completely obscure. However, the article text should reflect that he is a record-holder in that statistic to back up the reasoning for including it in the infobox. On that article, for instance, hits should probably be removed, because it's not really doing anything relevant. — KV5 • Talk • 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Inge isn't known for striking out? JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 02:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

International coverage

I'm just wondering whether there's a plan to offer any Wikipedia coverage of the COPABE Pan-American Qualifying Tournament coming up this weekend. I can't find an article on it. Finding information on it generally is difficult, so a Wikipedia article on it would actually be a great resource on the internet. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you can't find information on it, wouldn't that be a case to indicate its not notable? Personally I have never even heard of the tournament in passing even. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Pan American Baseball Confederation would be the general article, wouldn't it? As for specific years, it would be something that could be notable, but I don't think "qualifying" should be covered in its own article. Possibly in a general article on the year (i.e. 2010 Pan American Baseball Confederation tournament). --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would think that at the moment, it could be part of "Qualifying" for the 2011 Baseball World Cup article. Further down the track, that article could then include details of other qualifying tournaments for it.  Afaber012  (talk)  06:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unquestionably notable in the sense that it "matters," it's just that the organizing body is so disorganized, and international baseball receives such little attention, that information about it is only inconsistently announced/promulgated. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The event appears to be a de facto continental championship for 2010, and it apparently was referred to names like that in 2006 and 2008. This year it is simply being called "Torneo Panamericano Clasificatorio." The results of the tournament will determine the 7 teams that participate in next summer's Pan-American Games Baseball Tournament and the 6 American teams that will participate in next fall's Baseball World Cup. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Hi Baseball Wikiproject, I note that WP:ATHLETE#Baseball seems very loosely defined with regards to the overarching WP:ATHLETE theme that "Sports figures are presumed notable ... if they have participated in a major international amateur ... competition at the highest level." This is in regards to Aaron Durley (see AFD), some input either way on how your wikiproject treats the notability of little leaguers would be welcome. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the AfD discussion, WP:ATHLETE#Baseball are the notability guidelines for baseball players under the heading of "Professional sports persons". Since the person in question is not a professional, these guidelines do not apply to him. Kinston eagle (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a mention that little league world series players are not among the "highest amatur level" in our notabilty guidelines is warrenteed. That would open up to thousands of little league players articles, all with dubious notability. Secret ^account 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its generally known that to be the highest amateur level there must be no age restriction. Because in order to be the highest the best need to be able to play, and if the best are older (or younger) than the age restrictions then its not really the highest level. I don't know equivalents for baseball, but there is a very major popular World Junior Championships for hockey which has an age limit of 20 or under, so even if they play in that event we don't consider it the highest because theoretically (and some have) the junior players could play in the World Championships which anyone at any age could play in. It might be written already on WP:ATHLETE somewhere I think. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is an Olympic female track athlete or olympic female hockey player playing at the highest amateur level of their sport? No. But, they are deemed notable by Wikipedia's guidelines since they are competing at the highest possible level for their sex. Were Negro League players competing at the highest professional level for baseball players of the era? No. But, they are deemed notable by Wikipedia's guidelines since they were competing at the highest possible level for their race at that time in history. Having age as a qualifier is not unprecedented in the sports notability guidelines either. Golf has notability guidelines based solely on age. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For the comments about females, yes they were playing at the highest level of their sport. Women's hockey or Women's track are considered different sports than Men's hockey or Men's track. Negro leagues are of course an exception to the rule, but they were professional were they not, not amateur so it wouldn't apply. (forgive me if I am wrong, don't know a tonne about them) -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not always, but in several cases female players in a particular sport are ineligible to participate in the male competition. Wasn't the whole point of the Negro Leagues being created that they couldn't play in the Major Leagues; perhaps not explicitly stated anywhere in a rulebook but it was true nonetheless.

You've got to look at the High school and pre-high school athletes section: to me its reinforcing WP:GNG to be extra picky about someone meeting the criteria. I'd also point out that when you quoted WP:NSPORT at the beginning of this discussion, you left out a key part: "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if ..." (Highlighting added by the editor.) Which would mean in the case you're talking about doesn't cut the mustard, at least in terms of WP:NSPORT.

He might be notable under WP:GNG, but given the number of "citation needed" notes and warning notices on the page, and a quick google of his name, it seems less likely he meets the criteria.  Afaber012  (talk)  21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Symbol for disabled players

I randomly looked at a minor league baseball team article and found a couple of players had "†" next to their names. Generally, "†" means someone is DEAD. It was only after checking the article then looking at the roster key that I worked out it meant they were on the disabled list. This symbol should probably be changed. Exxolon (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the dagger has multiple uses, one of them being death. But, it's also used for cricket, biology, mathematics, and a ton of other things. I think if we have a key identifying what it is, that will be fine. I see no need for change just because one of the dozen or so uses is death. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is very appropriate the way we are using it. From the dagger page it states, "The dagger is usually used to indicate a footnote, in the same way an asterisk is. However, the dagger is only used for a second footnote when an asterisk is already used." So I think that the use, although confusing to some, is correct. Again, as long as there's a key, it should be cool. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• A lot of our baseball lists also ues the dagger to show HoF status. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My browser renders it as a Christian Cross, indicating a grave. Presumably other browsers do this too? Exxolon (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

From the Dagger (typography) article - "Since it also represents the Christian cross, in certain predominantly Christian regions, the mark is used in a text before or after the name of a deceased person or the date of death,[1] as in Christian grave headstones. For this reason, it should not be used as a footnote mark next to the name of a living person. (emphasis mine)" Exxolon (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I was raised Catholic, and have never been aware of the dagger representing death. The fact that the quote Exxolon provided comes from an article that actually lists a whole bunch of different specific uses of the symbol - including in cricket to indicate the wicket-keeper, equivalent to a catcher in baseball - in addition to the general use of backup to an asterisk, seems to dilute the importance of the quote itself. In fact, I'm a little surprised that the quote has sat there for a good four and a half years without being questioned or outright removed. Given that the templates for rosters used all have the key for the symbols built in, and the key is fairly obvious as its in the same box that the roster itself is in, I really don't think there's an issue here.  Afaber012  (talk)  21:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Game logs

OK, I'm going to go ahead and open up a discussion here, since I can't find a really good discussion about it in the talk archives.

I know game logs in team-season articles are popular and all, but are they really worth the time and effort? I tend to think they violate both WP:NOT#STATS and WP:UNDUE (some of the logs on pages for past seasons make up 75% of an article's size). They're also presented without any context. I might be convinced that they're useful as placeholders until an actual season highlights section can be written (see 1935 Detroit Tigers season for a good example), although I question even that. However, in general I believe they don't belong in these articles. Not to mention the logs that I occasionally see in minor league articles... -Dewelar (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate gamelogs and think they take up way too much space in these articles but people seem to like them for some reason. I would have no problem with them being removed but If others want them I'm not going to push it too much.Spanneraol (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think they are a good reference. I'm not convinced of their absolute necessity, but I do appreciate their utility. I know that when I wrote 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, it was promoted to good article with the summaries written essentially for each series, and the game log expanded upon that. Now, if you view 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season, there is, I believe, at least a one-sentence summary for every game, lessening the log's utility. That said, I don't think they violate WP:UNDUE, because they should be collapsed. That means that, although they take up bytes, they don't take up an inordinate amount of space unless a user chooses to view them. They could, perhaps, be considered in violation of WP:NOT#STATS, but they are in compliance with the part of the policy that states "In cases where [listing of statistics] may be necessary... consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". If the logs are collapsed, I don't believe that they "reduce the readability and neatness of our articles", and they certainly are not confusing. The requirement for sufficient explanatory text is something we're currently missing on a lot of articles, but there is no deadline. Since baseball is such a statistics-driven sport, I think that their utility outweighs the desire to delete. — KV5 • Talk • 01:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ that's alot of detail at that 2010 page. Possibly too much. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One sentence, or max two, per game for 162 games is too much detail? I hardly see how. Look at 2010 Toronto Blue Jays season if you want to see an example of something being given too much detail. — KV5 • Talk • 19:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think all 162 games need to be covered, sort of like Dewelar says below. I like the way 2010 New York Yankees season tries to stick with the most notable moments, but there are some that haven't been added yet. The Phillies page is fine, just longer than I would write it personally. That Blue Jays page definitely needs to be trimmed. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Who determines what "most notable" is? It's easier to give equal weight to each game, as each is of equal importance, adding one win or one loss to the standings. — KV5 • Talk • 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer, of course, is that third-party sources determine what is most notable. To state that each game is of equal importance is, in itself, a violation of WP:NOR, because sources do not treat them as such. -Dewelar (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Every game is covered with an article by such sources as Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, and the MLB website, and linescores on the statistical websites like Retrosheet and Baseball Reference are also the same for every game. Don't confuse what is "most important" to a particular team with what is "most notable", because they are completely separate concepts. — KV5 • Talk • 01:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Every game might be covered with an article, but games that are "more notable" will be covered by multiple articles, and are covered by media outside the sports world, which confer notability in a broader sense. Considering notability from nothing outside the sports media is tunnel vision at best. I would be careful of using statistical sites as an example here as well, and not just because of WP:NOT#STATS. Such sites make no differentiation of any sort, where we must. -Dewelar (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for news coverage; just because there are reliable sources covering something does not make it notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is supposed to be a third-hand source of information, a second-hand source that provides a summary of the season ought to be used to determine the notable events of the season. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But seeing as we already have articles on the topic, and that these articles have been found to be notable topics over and again, all of the available information should be included. Note that "[these] notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." The secondary sources to which you refer, in the case of this project and of this sport, are the sources previously mentioned, such as ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, and the like. — KV5 • Talk • 12:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the events in themselves that lack sources; it's the determination of the notable events of a season that require a source. Again, not everything covered in the news is notable to the degree of inclusion within a Wikipedia article. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that's what I just outlined. Maybe I'm not understanding you properly. — KV5 • Talk • 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A season summary isn't just an aggregation of every single article related to the season, right? So although the articles have been sourced and have information that has been deemed notable, all of that info isn't necessarily notable for the season summary. Plus the day-to-day events are not in any other Wikipedia article, and their notability in context of the season summary should be established by a second-hand source. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that having hidden sections is a sufficient technique to deal with undue importance considerations. If it were, then it would be a huge loophole to let everything in. Regarding having a sentence about each game: how would the line be drawn? What distinction can be made between having a team season summary and a player season summary, with a sentence about each game played by, say Albert Pujols? Isaac Lin (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course the obvious answer to that is that the page is about the 2010 team... we dont have a 2010 Albert Pujols season page as that would be covered in the Cards season itself. Spanneraol (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if every game is worth a sentence, what is the justification for doing it on a team basis but not a per player basis? Isaac Lin (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Common sense. Spanneraol (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen with the discussion above, the common senses of different persons are leading to different conclusions. There should be a rationale based on Wikipedia guidelines that can be debated—for example, it can be argued that there is greater notability in the narrative of a team's season (which can aggregate the most notable events of its players) than the story of a player's season. I understand why some editors may like to craft the tale of a team's season, but others may want to do the same for a player, and so if a consensus can be reached on the degree of notability where the line is drawn, it hopefully will help avoid hard feelings later. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• There's a rather simple answer. Games are team events, not individual ones. We have a 2009 World Series article, not Derek Jeter in the 2009 World Series and such and such. The game results are the season, so the same reason the 2009 World Series article includes box scores we need some summary of what happened in every game because those games are the actual elements of the subject. If anything I would say the game log is the most essential element of a season article because ultimately that's what a season is. Everything else needs additional sourcing to satisfy GNG, you need to show why mentioning a trade or an altercation during the season is notable to mention. But the game results themselves are the season. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Going back to an earlier analogy I'd drawn, to me that's a bit like saying "a movie's script is the movie, and thus having the script in the article is the most essential element of an article about the film because that's ultimately what a film is" (copyright issues aside, of course). -Dewelar (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I get the analogy, but there's a difference. A script with nothing else is a book, not even that it's a manuscript. 154 or 162 (depending on era) regular season games are a season. There is obviously depth surrounding those basic results (162 blowouts? 162 close games? Records? Trades? Events? Injuries? But those 162 games are the season. Everything else is describing what happened in those 162 games games. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not as much of a difference as you seem to think. The analogy might work better with the script for a stage play, which typically describes everything that happens on stage (blocking, lighting cues, and so forth). It describes the play in its entirety in the same way a game log describes the season in its entirety. The analogy comes in that every line of dialogue and every stage direction, while indeed individual components of the play, and when taken together are the play, are not all required to inform the reader about the play. -Dewelar (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I was discussing prose descriptions of each game, rather than a statistical summary, and I'm not sure if that was what you were intending to address. However, following up on your line of discussion, why not a play-by-play of each game, since that is what a "game" is, rather than just a summary of its results? Isaac Lin (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZE concerns. — KV5 • Talk • 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If deemed notable, the usual technique of breaking out the information into separate articles can be used. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• My issue there would be what KV said, size concerns. Additionally, while you can technically find sources covering the game, Wiki seems to have established a semi-unofficial stance on topics that get their notability from easily farmed sources like game summaries. ESPN, the AP, and MLB.com each write a summary of basically every game played for every team during the regular season (MLB.com actually writes one for each team's perspective actually, IIRC). But I think you'd face problems trying to write an article for a random 7-4 Cubs/Pirates game with no big record, event, etc to create individual notability. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Size concerns have been raised for game summaries, too (whether they are a sentence or a line in a table). I believe notability of a season's events from a second-hand source is the best neutral option for determining what events ought to be included in a season summary. I'm not sure what the semi-official stance you are referring to is, but in any case, coverage in a reliable source does not equal notability within the context of a season summary, whether in the form of prose or statistics. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is no article on a random May game played by the Pirates, and I 100% guarantee if it was created if would be snow deleted at AFD almost immediately, despite several outside sources that covered that game. That's what I mean by a weird semi-stance, even though you could find the sourcing to satisfy GNG, it likely still wouldn't survive. And this mystical claim of using sources to decide which events are notable is destroyed by the same problem, there is heavy sourcing for every event in the season. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a place for news. All the ins and outs of a political campaign are covered in myriad detail by many sources, but nonetheless these sources are not proof of the notability of every event. A reliable source that summarizes the key, notable events of a campaign can still be used to determine the notable events for an article on the campaign, in spite of the existence of the other sources (which are irrelevant for determining the key events for the campaign article). Coming back to baseball, season summaries are often published by the sports media in newspapers, radio, and TV, and they can serve as sources for season summary articles. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just going around in circles and is getting away from the original discussion which was about game logs not the style used for season articles. If someone wants to exhaustively cover the Phillies thats fine with me.. unless it gets cluttered with extraneous original research like the Blue Jays article.. This is just a discussion that will never end cause of the differing opinons.. Return to the gamelogs discussion at the end of the section.Spanneraol (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• One of the big problems I have with these gamelogs is that they are often left incomplete. Especially the logs on the pages of the lesser teams.. once the teams are eliminated whomever is updating the gamelogs seems to get bored and quit... thus we have tons of unfinished logs.. that just looks bad. Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I was thinking of putting a brief note on 2010 New York Mets season about the firings of Minaya and Manuel, only to see that both the narrative and game log were abandoned. I'm not going to pick it up. I think these game logs should be deleted as they're replications of game logs we can find on B Ref, ESPN, etc. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing them for reasons others have said. It's an excuse to not bother writing out prose for what happens in a season. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that our game logs, in their current format, prevent any baseball season article from reaching featured status, as I found when I tried to get the 2008 Phillies season promoted. Hidden boxes, whether collapsed or open by default, aren't allowed in featured articles. That's why the 2008 and 2009 seasons for the Phillies remain GAs. — KV5 • Talk • 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, though...would the removal of the game logs (presuming sufficient prose exists to compensate) have any effect on whether these articles are GA's? -Dewelar (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That, I do not know. As I said above, when the summaries are only one per series, then the game logs have added utility. So I think that depends on the amount of prose. — KV5 • Talk • 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe a discussion of every game is necessary. The prose regarding the playing of the season should be more a narrative than a chronology. The 2010 season...well, that's just overkill, by orders of magnitude, at least IMO. -Dewelar (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• See above. — KV5 • Talk • 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually kindof like the work that KV did on the Phillies page, actually followed his lead with my work on the 2010 Dodgers page. Spanneraol (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Put me down as not being a fan of the tabular game logs. I might have thought it was a good idea at one point, but I don't like how they turned out. They're just less reliable copies of information found in numerous other external sources. How about just linking to one of those instead. Wknight94 ^talk 16:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Baseball-reference has game logs, why we don't use them instead, add me to not a fan. Secret ^account 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined at least to delete the ones that have not been updated. Spanneraol (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Joe Evans deletion

Hey, I came across a red link for a player, Joe Evans, and it seems as though the article was speedy deleted on 19:17, September 2, 2010 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs). I think this may have been a mistake. Normally, it wouldn't have struck me as odd, but Evans played 12 season in the majors and earned a World Series title with the Indians in '20. Links to the page include the Cleveland Indians and Smoky Joe Wood. It seems that a user, Shebeee (talk · contribs), was vandalizing the page about a month ago and the article could have been mistaken for nonsense as a whole. Input? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Shame. Is there an admin who can recover an unvandalized version of the page? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I contacted the admin who deleted the page, but I thought it would be quicker to take it here to get it recovered. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. The admin has restored the article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to what I can see in the deleted edits list, what's there now is all that was there before the vandalism. The article itself wasn't deleted; the nonsense revisions were just deleted from the history. — KV5 • Talk • 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a red link, and the admin admitted it was a mistake. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and expanded the article, so hopefully it won't happen again. -Dewelar (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What if the player is listed in the wrong position

Just a quick question. Mitch Moreland is listed as an outfielder on the Template:Texas Rangers roster. This matches the info given from mlb.com, but he is really a 1st baseman who can fill in as an OF. He has primarily played 1st base so far in the majors (40 games to 7 in RF). Is the proper way to list him still as an O because the source used is wrong/debatable? Should it be based on his MLB playing time? Or should his position be determined by his total (including minors) playing time? Thanks. Majors, minors.Red3biggs (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If he's listed on the official roster as an outfielder, then that is how our roster must list him as well. -Dewelar (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree on this. Yes, if he's listed as an outfielder on the team website, it should say outfielder, but there's no reason to exclude first baseman, especially if it says first baseman on Baseball-Reference, which is one step removed from the league and therefore likely more reliable. — KV5 • Talk • 16:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

On official positions. mlb.com would be the more reliable because what he actually plays is different from his official position as identified by the team/league. That being said you could list both...I personally would go with what the official team page has. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The question wasn't about his position on his page. It was about where he's listed in the roster box. You can't list both there. Obviously, on his own article, he should be listed as a first baseman. -Dewelar (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the depth chart (which is also linked from the template), Moreland is listed as first baseman there. So there is an inconsistency with mlb.com. In these cases, I think we should go with what he "really" is, which in this case appears to be first baseman. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen quite often that MLB's website doesn't always have its ducks in a row when it comes to rosters (transactions can sometimes take days to get fully processed), which is why I worry about using it for things like this. — KV5 • Talk • 17:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Both valid points. I have no problem with reflecting reality in the abstract sense. I'm just concerned that not using the Rangers' site info might fall into original research. Mind you, all of what I've said thus far applies in-season. Once the season is over and we replace the template with a real roster, we'd reflect the historical record anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Would using other cites and contrasting information be concidered original research? In this case the 'official' source is incorrect. Does incorrect official sources take precedent?Red3biggs (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about the location of one name in a table of names, that based on precedents would not have an individual footnote source next to it. There are sources that claim different things on this: some pages on MLB.com claiming he's a first baseman, other pages on the site claiming he's an outfielder, and others like Baseball-Reference.com showing a record of him predominantly playing at first with some time in right in the Majors, but slightly more at right than first in the Minors. (It looks like he's had virtually a 50-50 between first and right/outfield.) There's going to be some small level of Original Research - even if its consensus OR rather than an individual's OR - in determining which source(s) to accept. I think because there's this confusion, we'd need to take a look at what he would be notable for: his Major League career is what makes him notable enough to have his own article, and in that career he's played significantly more time at first than he has in the outfield. For this season at least, I think he should be listed in the infielders section of the roster, while obviously reassessing for future seasons.  Afaber012  (talk)  23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If the question is where we should put him for this season, now that the season is over, then I agree. I was under the impression that the question was where to put him while the season is ongoing. If I'm wrong, that's fine. -Dewelar (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there's much difference to the timing. In this case, the Rangers' season is still going on. But even if he plays in every game of the postseason in the outfield, and the Rangers wind up going to the World Series and each of their series are decided in the final game (i.e. they play 5, 7, and 7 games), he still will have played more games at first base in the Majors than in the outfield.  Afaber012  (talk)  03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, where we put a player on the roster once a season is completed does not take into account his postseason appearances anyway. In fact, as far as I know, there is no question about where to put a player on the roster once the (to clarify) regular season is over. That is based on number of games played during the season. It's only while the regular season is an ongoing concern that there would even be any question of where to put a player in the first place. -Dewelar (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the playoffs Moreland and Cantu will share 1B and would assume that Moreland will play some outfield too. I would go with the official roster page since it would bring up problems further along the road if we would make an exception. I will probably be changed in the offseason anyway. Ositadinma 17:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"South Korea" vs "Korea" national baseball team

User:Fetx2002 has just (as far as I can tell, at least) unilaterally decided to move "South Korea national baseball team" to Korea national baseball team. Rather than just move it back and potentially cause problems I've brought it up here and invited him/her to speak up about why.

The Wikipedia article for the nation is at South Korea, rather than at either "Korea" or "Republic of Korea". Having the article name with only "Korea" rather than "South Korea", seems to lead to possible confusion as to whether or not the team represents North Korea as well as South Korea.  Afaber012  (talk)  11:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Move reverted, detailed explanation on Fetx's talk. Exxolon (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1941 Play Ball Cards and Goudey baseball cards

Has anyone checked the copyright status of these baseball cards, it's quite possibly it's PD-not-renewed as the companies long went out of buisness (out by 1963), and Topps and Upper Deck are using the design of the cards on their brands. If they are in fact PD-not-renewed we might have found a gold mine of images from an era which is nearly impossible to find out if the image is in PD or not. Thanks Secret ^account 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe even the old Bowman series (though I think their copyright was renewed as they were taken by Topps) Secret ^account 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This website here suggests that Gum, Inc., the maker of the "Play Ball" card series', halted production for WWII, then re-started 8 years later as Bowman, who is, as previously noted, is now owned by Topps. As far as Goudey Gum Company, this article may suggest that the copyrights may have expired since the company has been long out of business and the owners decendants receive no financial dividends involving any of the product.Neonblak ^talk - 02:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The same PSA webpages indicate that there are other card sets out there, like the 1922 E120 American Caramel and 1910 E93 Standard Caramel that may not have copyright issues either. I don't actually know if baseball cards are considered "photographs" or not.Neonblak ^talk - 02:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ok so Play Ball is likely copyrighted, but Goudey is likely PD-not renewed. I also noticed that Upper Deck forgot to register a copyright license to many of their products, everything Topps is copyrighted, but only few of Upper Deck acually are. So that's a big breakthough. Secret ^account 03:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This should also be brought up at Commons. Many people have many resources for researching such things. Wknight94 ^talk 12:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I bought it up on commons the same time I bought it up there, let me check what their reply. Secret ^account 18:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep Goudey baseball cards are in the Public Domain I just checked. I'm not 100% sure about Play Ball or early Bowman yet as I haven't searched. Secret ^account 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok so where do we find said cards? Personal collections, or elsewhere? — KV5 • Talk • 18:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ebay and other websites, just search Goudey on images. Secret ^account 18:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never thought about expired copyrights on sports cards before....going to have to see if any exist for hockey. Not likely though since most companies that have made them from way back then still exist. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:PeteFoxbaseballcard.jpg an example upload. Secret ^account 19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This has the potential to be huge for my current project. What a boon. — KV5 • Talk • 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been using the tobacco cards for a long time for 19th century baseball players, but never would have thought Goudey would be usable.Neonblak ^talk - 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] 1933 Goudey checklist. Secret ^account 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We might want to make a special tag for Goudey cards, just to group them. Wknight94 ^talk 21:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I uploaded a few but theres hundreds of images that needs to be uploaded. I'm bad with templates, the template must be similar to the Baseball Digest and Time Magazine templates. Secret ^account 01:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I can whip something up. I'll see what I can do. Secret, can you provide the sources here that verify that Goudey is PD? — KV5 • Talk • 11:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[2] see the ones from each year from the 60s the era when the copyright was supposed to be renewed there's nothing on Goudey, other than a children's book author

Fantastic. I'm almost done with the template on Commons, and I'll tag the 5 or 6 images we've uploaded when it's finished. — KV5 • Talk • 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The template now exists on Commons to apply to any and all Goudey baseball cards uploaded there. — KV5 • Talk • 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I just searched for Bowman, nothing before 1989 was its copyright was renewed, [3] and from 1989 to present only a few sets are listed, so that's another thing we should look closely to. Topps most of their stuff is copyrighted but they also forgot to copyright some of their years as well. I been searching, many of the baseball cards companies stuff aren't in the copyright catalog, other than a few random sets, etc. It's either the copyright catalog themselves forgot to add their copyrights while creating the website or they aren't copyrighted at all. Secret ^account 15:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok it's everything before 1978, not after. So Bowman and most of the Topps sets before 1978 which weren't registered though the copyright office is in Public Domain, like the 1958 Topps which I searched. Secret ^account 16:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of Win–loss record

Just wanted to let you all know I've started a WP:RM discussion at Talk:Win–loss record. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Squad maintenance

I made Template:Squad maintenance that is intended to facilitate the updating of squad templates (including removing squad templates in former player articles). Please have a look at WT:WikiProject Football#Template:Squad maintenance for details and decide if it is also useful for this WikiProject. --Leyo 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So this is basically doing all of the roster updates automatically? That would be immensely valuable. — KV5 • Talk • 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. :-( Please click the link in Template:New York Yankees roster navbox (currently up-to-date) to see what is does. --Leyo 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Probably should be using 'team' instead of 'squad'.Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it; it keeps crashing Google Chrome. — KV5 • Talk • 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Fixed now, I think. — KV5 • Talk • 16:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's ood, as I'm using Chrome also and it worked for me. It looks potentially useful, although I generally don't do real-time updating, so I'm not the one to ask. Re: the template name..."Roster maintenance" would probably work better than squad/team. -Dewelar (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I took the naming from Category:Football squad templates. If you like, I can create a copy of the template (with Squad replaced) at Template:Team maintenance or Template:Roster maintenance. --Leyo 16:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No reason to copy; just make a redirect and Wiki will do the rest. — KV5 • Talk • 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When using a redirect, the title in the table (Squad maintenance) remains the same. --Leyo 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to make it Roster maintenance instead, so as to avoid potentially confusing terminology (and unnecessary duplicate templates, which will probably get TfD'ed anyway). -Dewelar (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer squad, especially for football templates. Might it be the case that this different expression is a matter of British vs. American English? --Leyo 17:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the template spans multiple sports and is not nation specific, it should stay where it is per WP:ENGVAR. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not just change it to Team Maintenance since that would apply in most if not all situations and avoid engvar issues? -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested "roster" -- it's my understanding that "team" and "squad" are the two variants, while "roster" is more universal (i.e., both teams and squads have rosters, to which this template would apply). -Dewelar (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't sure. I thought roster and squad were the equivalents. But it doesn't matter to me, I don't like those kind of navboxes anyways lol. -DJSasso (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, roster and squad are equivalent, with the former being more commonly used in the US, the latter in Britain. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to repeat my suggestion from above: Why not creating Template:Roster maintenance for sports that are more important in North America (e.g. Baseball, American Football, Basketball)? What is the harm of having to similar templates? Template:Squad maintenance will be transcluded >> 100 times. --Leyo 14:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I created Template:Roster maintenance now. --Leyo 12:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - If it's possible (and not difficult) - could there be one more column to check the main roster template (not the navbox) and see if the players are listed in both? That could make life much easier. For example, check Template:New York Yankees roster and make sure every player listed there is also in the navbox template. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a matter of the Toolserver tool used in the template, not the template itself. As there is no such tool, unprocessed API output would be an option: roster vs. roster navbox (alphabetical list of all links; best two open in two tabs and switch back and forth). --Leyo 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What about adapting the template in a similar way as in this example: {{Boca Juniors squad}} vs. {{Boca Juniors squad|format=table}}? Like this, only one roster would have to be maintained. --Leyo 15:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't know it was possible to do...... Something that should definitely be looked into. I'll play around with it if I have time in the near future - unless someone else wants to try first.... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

We're all talking in circles now, and I wish I hadn't brought it up. So never mind...

Blahblah32blahblah (talk · contribs) is more interested in move warring than discussing so I figured I would bring it here. S/he is blindly going to the last step of WP:NC-BASE and is insisting on these two useless titles: Alex Gonzalez (shortstop, born 1973) and Álex González (shortstop, born 1977). I defy anyone to guess which of those is which based on those titles. I had thought of a slightly better disambiguation: Álex González (Venezuelan shortstop) and Alex Gonzalez (American shortstop). Granted, not a massive improvement, but at least nationality has some hope of being useful, as opposed to birth year for two shortstops whose careers overlapped by nine years. Opinions? Perhaps a new nationality bullet point to #4 of WP:NC-BASE (for those more dependent on naming conventions than common sense)? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 03:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Since I'm the one who originally moved the articles to use birth year as a disambiguator, I figure I'll chime in. I moved the Alex Gonzalezes based on WP:NC-BASE as part of trying to get these standardized (I've done the same to a few other such names as well). That said, using birth year is certainly...I guess you might say "inelegant". I'm not convinced using nationality (or, in this case, nation of birth is probably more accurate) is any better. However, I'm also not convinced it's any worse. I know I could never keep the two AG's straight when they were both active. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we decide to use nationality, I don't object to it, but before we do we have to agree to make the change to the naming conventions. Until then, I would say leave them at birth year. On a similar note, I have often wondered why in some cases, player articles use the birth year (e.g., Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1929) vs. Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1968)), and in other cases they use the years when they played (e.g. the four Bob Millers). Are we interpreting the part about decades to also include year ranges? Should we be? Obviously, this doesn't apply to the AG's, since one is still active, but I figured I'd throw it out there. -Dewelar (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Very Nice... Instead of starting a discussion on naming conventions - you attack me for warring... Thanks. Very nice of you. Now I'll get on topic. All I'm doing is going by a set wiki policy.... But I happen to think "nationality" is a horrible thing to use. How will you define it? Place of birth? Where they grew up? Current citizenship? Country represented in international competition? Too many variables to be used as a useful standard naming convention. Birth year, while ugly, is as straightforward as it gets (for a last resort disambiguation). I know what country some baseball players are from. I may have a vague idea of when some started playing - as Dewelar alludes to above. I don't know what year any of them were born. Quick - what year was Hank Aaron born? I don't know either. But I can tell you off the top of my head that his career was from 1954 to 1976, and that he's from America (Alabama if I recall correctly). Year of birth should be a distant third choice in this subset of disambiguators. Wknight94 talk 04:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC) (ec) Yes, but I see what Blahblah is getting at above as well. "Nationality" is often open to interpretation, and indeed can change over the course of time. That is not the case for year of birth (barring Dominican et al. tomfoolery) or years played (presuming the player is retired). That would be what makes the latter two better choices. -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC) BTW, if the formal naming convention is the main focus, then I've started a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (baseball players)#Proposal to include nationality or nation of birth before year of birth as a disambiguator. Wknight94 talk 05:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC) My two cents on the Alex Gonzalez thing: I have no idea if the active one is the American or the Venezuelan. I have no idea which year of birth belongs to the active one. There is no perfect answer here, short of making one of them agree to change their name to something that hasn't been taken. Given that's a bit tricky, I'd agree that year of birth is less ambiguous than nationality. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Not to 26 million people in Venezuela. Or millions of other Venezuelans around the world. Or to millions of other people who put great stock in their nationality, and the nationality of their sports figures. That's a lot of readers potentially assisted by that naming convention, where "born 1977" assists almost no one - until they actually open the article. Wknight94 talk 05:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Theoretical example - Let's say there was another baseball player named Mike Lowell that also played 3rd base in this decade. What is the current Mike Lowell to you? Puerto Rican? American? Cuban? Cuban-American? American citizen of Cuban descent? (good luck with that one in an article name) There seems to have been a never ending debate at his page over what he is. That's why you can't use nationality as a naming convention. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC) One counterexample - and, worse, a "theoretical" counterexample - doesn't make an entire point moot. Álex González (Venezuelan shortstop) is indisputably Venezuelan as far as I can tell. The point remains - it's a better disambiguator than year of birth. Wknight94 talk 06:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Oh god, nationality as a disambiguator is about one of the worst. Because its far to far open to interpretation and no easier to know than year of birth. We should be aiming to use nationality in as few places as possible for any reason because its such a cause of contention and far to much of a case of POV in many instances. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I have yet to see a single example of this - where there is both ambiguity about nationality and a name clash with another player. But I guess everyone is terrified of something that might happen someday, so never mind. Wknight94 talk 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Well thats the whole point of naming conventions, to stop the unneccessary discussion before it happens. So there is a clear standard for when such things do come up. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I thought the point was arriving at something that was least confusing to readers, but I guess that's "born 1978" vs. "born 1979" - because everyone knows players' dates of birth </sarcasm>. Wknight94 talk 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) It's only your opinion that years are harder than countries. I could have guessed the birth years of players based on when they played. But I had no clue the nationalities of the players mentioned above. Not even slightly, I had no idea one of them was American and I wouldn't have known at all that one was from Venezuela at all. Just knew they were latin american. Not to mention your concern is easily removed by creating your prefered version as a redirect. Thus when they use the search box both options come up as potential targets and the person searching can choose the one they are most likely to know while at the same time leaving out the possibly controversial naming on the page itself. Anyone that hits the disambig page itself shouldn't have an issue either because we can clearly label who is who by way of teams they played for etc etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC) You could have guessed Francisco Rodriguez born 1978 vs. born 1979? Of course not. No one can. But the zillions of people in this world keenly interested in nationality (even basing their entire belief system on nationality) may have known the difference between the Venezuelan Rodriguez and the Mexican Rodriguez. Just because you're not one of those zillions does not make it untrue. And I've already created the redirects - hence why I stopped pursuing the issue a week ago. Wknight94 talk 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC) No there are obviously some cases where that doesn't work. Which is why people use hatnotes at the tops of articles. Far more people are likely to know when a player has played than their nationality. Especially in baseball where nationality is not something that is closely followed as it is in other sports. In baseball players from latin america all tend to be grouped into a single latin american group when talked about in the media, atleast in my opinion. I rarely see their full nationality mentioned. Unlike say soccer where a players nationality is constantly pushed in your face. People with the same name that are only a year apart are exceedingly rare enough that a hatnote works incase they get to the wrong player. But once you get to 4 or 5 years apart like the other example above, yes I would think people would most definitely be able to tell the difference by years played. In those rare cases if a user has to make two clicks then so be it. However, I would bet most people searching (ie readers not editors) would just type in Francisco Rodriguez without the brackets and would end up at the dab page anyways where they would get all the information they need to choose the right one. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) The only way I can tell the difference between these two specific players is by the team they primarily played for. For example, if you told me that Álex González (shortstop, born 1977) played primarily for the Marlins, and Alex Gonzalez (shortstop, born 1973) played primarily for the Blue Jays, I know which one you are talking about. I wouldn't have a clue who is who, in this case, by birth year or place of birth. Just my two cents.Neonblak talk - 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC) The particular subset of people on this thread happen to have no interest in players' nationalities, and are unwilling to concede that others might. Maybe because it's English Wikipedia and not Spanish Wikipedia. If anyone would like to close this, please do. Wknight94 talk 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC) That's funny, since I conceded on the naming conventions page that, in the case of the Gonzalezes, the two methods of disambiguation were about equal in my view. The same would be true of the Rodriguezes. I think it's you who seems to be unwilling to concede that there aren't as much support for your position as you expected there to be. In the process, you've lashed out at the rest of us. "Zillions of people" base "their entire belief system on nationality"? Wow. Just...wow. -Dewelar (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC) As have I. I said not always will my prefered version be a very good option, but I think that hatnotes cover such situations. -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I proposed an alternative as I thought it might be be useful for a broader group of people. I apologize if this gave the impression that no one has any interest in nationalities. I just thought that using a rough indication of the start of a player's career should be considered. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I saw that on that talk page. I'm not sure signing year/draft year would be better than birth year for that purpose, but am willing to consider arguments in its favor. For retired players, I agree that career-span is better than any of the alternatives being discussed here. -Dewelar (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) For players in MLB, year of first game could be used. I believe first MLB appearance/signing year is a number that would have been published from time-to-time in the media, obviously when it occurs, and then in future recaps of the player's career. Birth year is probably not mentioned very often. (Age is mentioned, but then it's a two-step recall process: the reader has to remember the age, and remember the year it was reported.) Isaac Lin (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) True, but remember that these disambiguators will in the vast majority of cases only be used comparatively -- i.e., generally the only times when the reader will have to remember this, he or she will be choosing from a list. Thus, it won't be age/birth year (or signing year, or nation of birth, or what have you) that the reader will have to remember, but which is older (or debuted earlier, or was born in the US/Venezuela/Mexico/wherever). That's why I think, even in the best case scenario, they're of approximately equal value. They're unlikely to know any of these data specifically in any case, thus let's present them with the one that makes for the greatest ease of comparison. To me, the age comparative is the one the average reader is most likely to have a handle on. -Dewelar (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I think first year in MLB is more likely to trigger a recollection of when the reader first saw the player and what other players broke in at the same time. Who's older is a more difficult thing to judge, and the baseball age/real age issue confuses things further. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Dewelar, "Wow. Just wow" is a bit histrionic, eh? And I just said that I was finished here by creating the redirects. How much more concession are you looking for? I only noticed the latest few responses because this is on my watchlist (which I may remedy soon). If I'm trapped in some sort of last-word war, by all means, take the trophy... Wknight94 talk 19:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC) If you want to call what I said "histrionic", then I guess my answer is "like begets like". -Dewelar (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Here's a quick test. Without looking, which of these facts can you name off the top of your head: Which country is Bernie Williams from? What exact year was Bernie Williams born? What exact year did Bernie Williams begin playing? Which country is Sammy Sosa from? What exact year was Sammy Sosa born? What exact year did Sammy Sosa begin playing? Which country is Mariano Rivera from? What exact year was Mariano Rivera born? What exact year did Mariano Rivera begin playing? If you're like me, and the only ones you can answer definitively are 1, 4, and 7 - or even some subset of 1, 4, and 7 - then the country the person is from is, in general, a better disambiguator. That's all I'm trying to say. If that doesn't warrant a full-fledged naming convention change, then so be it. Year of birth is 100% useless - esp. in cases where (1930s pitcher) suffices. I was just looking for something maybe 90% useless instead. (BTW, career start year ranks as 99% useless in cases where only one year separates, but is still better than year of birth). Wknight94 talk 03:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC) And, as I said above, it doesn't matter whether anyone knows any of these data exactly, because they're never going to be looked at in isolation. They're going to be looked at in comparison to other players. Honestly, despite being a huge baseball fan, I know the answer to none of those questions exactly without looking it up (I'm about 90% sure that Rivera was born in Panama). That's because where they were born literally does not matter to me. It's not pertinent data to their status in my mind as players. However, I do know, with 100% certainty, that this Bernie Williams was born later, and that his career started later, than this Bernie Williams. -Dewelar (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC) First, the Bernie Williams example isn't relevant to what I'm saying. I'm not trying to supersede the (1970s outfielder) dab method. I'm trying to supersede the "born X" dab method. Second, just because where they were born doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to anyone. I've seen dozens of stories on ESPN about where players are from. Sosa is (or at least was) worshiped in the Dominican Republic, Rivera in Panama, etc. Am I the only one that remembers Fernandomania and how popular the Mexican pitcher was in Los Angeles where the Mexican population is over a million? It's hard for me to believe everyone here finds nationality so inconsequential. Although I'm not suggesting going to a state or city level, I am quite aware of the many players that are from the area where I grew up - don't you think people who share an entire nation of origin would have the same awareness? Wknight94 talk 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I was only sure about Bernie and Mo because I'm a Yankee fan. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC) You and how many millions of others? But the point is that you probably didn't know any of the rest besides 1, 4, and 7. Wknight94 talk 04:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) You're missing the forest for the trees, I think. You're missing the whole concept of disambiguation being used as a comparitive, not as an absolute. Additionally, you seem to think I put the Williams example in there for entirely the wrong reason. Say, for the sake of argument, that the elder Bernie had played from 1978-82 instead of 1970-74. Now, we have eliminated the decade possibility from the argument, because both players had significant careers in multiple decades. Now, since I have no idea where either Bernie was born, I might presume that the younger Bernie was born in the U.S., because honestly, he doesn't look Hispanic to me. In fact, I always thought he was African-American until I was told otherwise at some point. I don't recall seeing him interviewed very often, so I don't remember if he spoke with an accent. So, given that, if I didn't know better I would probably assume that the elder Bernie was the one born in Puerto Rico. With year of birth (or year of debut), that mistake doesn't get made. -Dewelar (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC) That's all way more complex than I meant any of this to be. That's almost as good as flipping a coin. For people that don't know where Bernie Williams is from, my preference and the born X method is a push. And no offense - and maybe I'm misunderstanding - but assuming that dark-skinned people are not Hispanic is a very poor assumption indeed. Williams, Sosa (until recently apparently), Clemente, Alfredo Griffin, Tony Fernandez, George Bell, etc., etc..... Wknight94 talk 05:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Well, presuming he was African-American was also because his name is "Bernie Williams". Tell me that when you see a guy with dark skin, and a European name, that you wouldn't think the same thing. The rest is stuff I have already addressed, so will not rehash it. -Dewelar (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I can't answer any of them, however I can more easily guess at the approximate year, I would not be able to guess at the approximate country. This is the point, when comparing the two people that will show up in the search box the years are more likely to help me than the countries because the countries are completely impossible to guess on. Whereas years if I don't know exactly I probably know within a couple of years. But again, most people will end up at the disambig page where the teams they played for etc are listed so its really a moot point. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, in the end, the whole thing is a moot point, and I regret raising the issue in the first place. I'm happy to conclude the discussion by saying that consensus is overwhelmingly against me. I just wish someone had conjured a better counterargument. Wknight94 talk 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I might have disambig'd them by (the one who booted a double play ball in the 2003 NLCS) vs. (the one whose team benefited from that boot). Which vaguely suggests what to me would be a better solution, which would be to parenthesize the primary team or teams a player is known for. Regardless of years played, birthplace, or birth year, anyone who truly doesn't know what he's looking for has only a 50-50 chance of selecting the right one anyway. And that includes me, since I don't know what years they played or their origin info, or which one has accent marks on his name. But I know which teams they played for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC) That is already step #4 on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Basically this discusion is about step #5 which is, what to do when #4 no longer works. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured topics to wrap up

Hey. Just thought I'd leave a note that, per here, the draft picks topic only has seven articles left to finish, and the opening day pitchers one has eight. If we each took one we could wrap these up and have more baseball topics finished. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on the Minnesota Twins Opening Day starters when I get a chance. — KV5 • Talk • 22:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, strike that, I don't know how much time I'll have right now... — KV5 • Talk • 23:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll start with one when I get home. I'll pick at random and ID it before I start. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I went and cleaned up/nommed the Cincinnati ODS list. Luckily those are all about 95% ready, just needs the extra 5. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've had very little time for Wiki lately, but I'll snatch up a draft list (and note here which one) if I find some time! :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability of minor league team-seasons

A discussion is beginning here regarding whether or not we should have pages on minor league team-seasons (e.g., 1980 Lynn Sailors season, 2008 Huntsville Stars season), and whether such subjects are inherently notable. The guidelines are unclear on the matter, and input from anyone would be helpful in establishing a consensus. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• The discussion is actually a discussion of the notability of 1980 Lynn Sailors season. There are those who wish to turn it into a discussion of the notability of a whole class of articles, but that is not what the AfD process is for. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on the page, I requested a suspension of the discussion so that guidelines for the class of articles can be formed. Whether the class is inherently notable is particularly pertinent to that specific AfD. Therefore, the guidelines should be established before the AfD is closed. -Dewelar (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started a discussion on the notability guidelines page here for those interested. -Dewelar (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• • As noted in WP:NSPORTS, the guideline refers to "top professional leagues". The Eastern League is not a top professional league. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think having an article about the 1980 Lynn Sailors or any other minor league team is worthwhile unless that particular team did something truly outstanding. The 1980 Sailors are already mentioned on the 1980 Seattle Mariners season page and the Lynn Sailors page itself is pretty sparse. I also don't see any reason for 1980 Eastern League season either... Spanneraol (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• In my anecdotal observations, typically a given minor league club's article might have a line for each year indicating its record and standing in the league, and the league's article might have a line for each year indicating champions, and possibly other playoff qualifiers. That would seem to be sufficient. They're called the minor leagues for a reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability of minor league players on 40 man rosters

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Uviedo, there's a discussion about the notability of a minor league player who has been on the 40 man rosters of two organizations. We currently give everyone on a 40 man roster their own page, but could keep them on sections of the minor league pages. What do we think? --Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

While it's easy to identify recent players who've been named to a team's 40-man roster, how does it work for history? Is there a reliable source that identifies all the players who've ever been on a 40-man roster? BRMo (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that raises another question: How long have 40-man rosters existed? I'm not sure how long ago they were created. I'm sure it must've been a fairly recent development of collective bargaining. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they pre-date collective bargaining and go back at least to the 1950s. Going back to your original question, though, I don't think there's a need to change the guideline in WP:BASEBALL/N. That guideline allows for articles on minor league players as long as the article cites reliable and independent secondary sources (which should not be limited to statistics sites). For players who've been named to a major league team's 40-man roster, it generally shouldn't be difficult to find adequate sourcing for an article. If there isn't enough available to write more than a short stub, then I'd leave it on the minor league players page. If there's enough to write four or five paragraphs, I'd go ahead and make it an independent article. Without a reliable source to determine which players have been on 40-man rosters, I think it would be problematic to make that a separate criterion for notability. BRMo (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Task Force

Why dont we have task forces for every MLB teams(current ones)? Instead of having only little bit of team task forces. Spongie555 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember a while ago, someone created a Padres task force and kept trying to pimp it out here, only nobody was interested. There just isn't enough interest for some teams. Even the Yankees task force, which I'm a member of, seems to be inactive often. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentor?

I sense a need for some kind soul to mentor baseball fan Brewers345, who has made the following recent edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brewers345

--Epeefleche (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on the site regularly enough to be a proper mentor at the moment, but I at least fixed all of the edits. — KV5 • Talk • 12:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hall of Fame taskforce

I propose the creation of a Hall of Fame task force. I noticed there are so many poor articles on Hall of Fame baseball players while uploading Goudey cards, many of them are barely more than unsourced stubs that it should be fixed Eddie Collins, Joe Cronin, etc. Hall of Fame baseball articles usually has top priority for biographies in here. Does any one agree. Thanks Secret ^account 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Past baseball uniforms

Is it okay putting up past uniforms of MLB teams using the template used on all team pages? I see certain NFL teams showing past uniforms, so why not for MLB teams. --Dekabreak101 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Because the uniform images are fair use. Showing more than one would be (and is, on the other team pages) a violation of fair use rules and, as a result, copyright law. — KV5 • Talk • 12:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Just wanted to get this here. [do these] external links to baseball cards add something to the articles or should this be removed and stopped? Red3biggs (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look useful to me. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary but some might find it interesting so I wouldn't remove it. Spanneraol (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if they were in any way, shape, or form complete, they might be useful as a reference. However, none of the first three I checked were anything close to complete. For instance, the Matt Cain link only shows two cards total. I think he's had a few more cards than that. Get rid of them. -Dewelar (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

None of them are complete. Are these linking to a website trying to sell cards? Doesn't this violate our policies on external links? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a sale website, per se, but definitely not reputable. — KV5 • Talk • 01:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though they have an ebay account on the sidebar, it doesn't seem like the cards linked to are for sale, but really just a reference. The images seem to be user uploaded, so I'm not quick to jump in and say the site creator is adding these links. That said, I don't think the links should stay. Delete all and post a friendly level 1 notice that these should not be added. Vodello (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Series quotes"

I remember there being discussion that we don't want pages on the LDS, LCS and WS to include these randomly selected quotes, which add little of value, but I can't find it. I just want to confirm before I continue removing those sections from older articles. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1000% agree. If a quote is unsourced, it should absolutely be removed. Then even with sourcing (often something weak like simply citing to the TV broadcast) you have to ask if it adds anything to the article. The vast major (Joe Buck screaming that someone recorded the last out and someone won) really don't. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Independent Baseball: HELP

User:Top Jim is attempting to have most independent baseball leagues deleted. This includes the Pecos League (new for 2011), Super Independent Baseball (new for 2011), the Independent Spring Baseball League (new for 2011), and Liga Mexicana Novato (Mexican Rookie League) (new for 2011, and in the USA as well). I mean, some I can understand as they are new, but there is NO WAY the Pecos League should even be a candidate for deletion. Please give input. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Top Jim is not attempting anything of the sort. I nominated two of your articles on new leagues for deletion. Two other editors nominated two other of your articles, and one endorsed my proposed deletion of Pecos League. Please WP:Assume good faith, and let's discuss notability of the newer leagues. Top Jim (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounded exaggerative. Just saying that you (I assumed the other two were you too) were trying to delete some of them. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yikes: at Template talk:Professional Baseball#Stop Top Jim you claim I'm trying to get them all deleted. Top Jim (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you object to the WP:PROD's, you can remove them and whoever tagged the articles can start an WP:AFD where it could be fully discussed. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It looked like you were when you nominated the Pecos League for deletion, which I felt was actually more notable than some of the established leagues. After all, it is basically an expanded CBL.

Although removing a PROD which has been endorsed twice is likely to result in deletion anyway through AfD if sources aren't provided. — KV5 • Talk • 00:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

K, I'll do that. Still, I need people here who know a lot about the subject to help out if it gets to the brink of deletion. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure those leagues are notable... but In any event the pages dont really qualify for speedy deletion.Spanneraol (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see how the latter three could be considered non-notable, as I haven't included enough sources on the pages yet. But I do not see how the Pecos League can be considered non-notable at all. Minor basketball leagues that don't even have official websites on the other hand... Jntg4Games (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody tell me why they AREN'T notable again? Thanks. Jntg4Games (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to prove that they are notable; the burden of proof is not on the deleter or the proposer. You have to provide reliable secondary sources that verify the subject's notability. — KV5 • Talk • 01:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've been adding some secondary sources. I just need to know what criteria the secondary sources have to prove to make it considered notable. Jntg4Games (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The links above explain it: WP:RS and WP:V. — KV5 • Talk • 01:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

News sources, eh? I can get plenty of those. :) Jntg4Games (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for more. But as you can see, I have multiple sources for each now (part for Liga Mexicana Novato), as I'm just getting to that. And more are coming. Now, how many sources do I need to prove notability? Is it based on number of sources quality of sources, etc.? I think I have done enough to save the Pecos League, and maybe SIB and I'm getting closer on ISBL, but it has changed names from International to Independent Spring Baseball League, so it's taking a little longer to accumulate sources for that one. What do you think of the progress though? Jntg4Games (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality of sources is more important than quantity. Blogs arent good sources for one. Spanneraol (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought so, but the only blogs I added were news sources that present their sites as blogs that are noted in the guidelines to count as reliable sources, as they are from (local) news sites (and fit the requirements it explains). Jntg4Games (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And another question. Even if these leagues are found non-notable, when they begin play (barring folding before season), would then then become notable? Jntg4Games (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Union Professional League

Does anyone have any info on this short lived professional league. I had never heard of it before working on the baseball info for Alfred Lawson's article.. Apparently it as intended as a third major league in 1907 and even started playing before folding. We have no article on it and it seems to be hard to find info. Spanneraol (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There's information in Jerry Kuntz's book on Lawson—see [4]. If you do a Google news archive search for Union League in 1907-08, you'll find a few articles (for example, [5]). I haven't seen any evidence that it was ever considered a real competitor to the major leagues. BRMo (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth writing an article about or should it just be expanded into Lawson's article? Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of writing an article on proposed major leagues a while back. But I soon saw that there were articles for specific leagues that never panned out. Maybe writing the first suggested article, the proposed leagues as a list, would be the route to go if there are limited sources on the topic. Or possibly its own article if there are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This (an incomplete article in my sandbox) is sort of what I'm talking about. If you were to go this route, it would be more focused on proposed leagues and why they failed. If you were to create a specific article, it would be more in depth to the specific league. Now that I think about it, I don't see why we can't create a list of proposed major leagues, assuming there have been quite a few over the years, and the article for the Union League. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

History of baseball in the United States

Maybe we could all work on this article to featured status, as it currently stands it's very poor. Secret ^account 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I see is that the article from the 1870's on is entirely about Major League Baseball with the exception of a very brief section on the Negro Leagues. Most people who have played baseball in the United States did not play at the Major League level or even professionally. Youth baseball, minor league baseball, women in baseball, US baseball in international competition, college baseball, adult amateur baseball, mill league & factory league baseball - they are all ignored in the article. Some mention should also be made of how the game has been adapted for scholastic, co-ed, age and gender concerns - wiffle ball, kick ball, softball, indoor baseball, metal bats, etc.... An alternative to addressing these issues would be to rename the article History of Major League Baseball in the United States which is what it is at the moment. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I don't agree that mill league, adult amatur baseball, or factory league baseball should be listed on the article. Maybe a paragraph on the formation of the Little League and woman in baseball and a couple of sentences on how the Minor Leagues turned from fully independent leagues into farm teams of the majors are fine. Secret ^account 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel as though you are greatly under estimating the importance of adult amateur baseball, mill league & factory league baseball to the growth of the game in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In an era when transportation was still primitive for many Americans and there was no television or radio, these were the games many people in the country followed and could actually attend on a regular basis. I know from my own research that Kinston covered their own amateur team on the front page of the local paper and it was the source of great civic pride for the town. The rivalry between Kinston and New Bern got so heated at some points that riots would break out after close calls. 95% of small towns did not have a professional team, but nearly all had an amateur local nine that represented the community. The importance of these teams is discussed in many books on turn of the century baseball as well as Ken Burns' video series. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If sources support it, please feel free to add. Wknight94 ^talk 11:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What the various levels of baseball in America speak to primarily is the popularity of the game, especially among the working class, that made it possible for MLB to exist and flourish. That same situation follows for the other major sports too. Cricket, which is also a good game, never gained much traction in the US because you couldn't either play or watch it unless you were wealthy and could take 5 straight days off from work (assuming you actually did work). Soccer never caught the public fancy that way either, although enough kids play the game now that it might start to resemble a major sport here within a generation or two. As Wknight94 says, find the sources. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it would be a big mistake to talk about the other areas of baseball only in relation to how they relate to Major League Baseball. These other manifestations of the game do not exist to help MLB "exist and flourish", they exist because people enjoy playing baseball. Again, the focus of this article should not be the history of Major League Baseball, but the history of the sport of baseball of which MLB is just one facet. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As an example of what I'm talking about. See History of American football. Unlike the baseball article, the football article does not focus all its attention on the highest professional level. That article has achieved FA status. Kinston eagle (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at the football article to see what I am talking about? Kinston eagle (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally would move it to a new name History of Major League Baseball and create a new article about general baseball history at this location. Sort of like History of the National Hockey League with its 3 or four subpages that split up the eras of the league. All of which are featured article except for the summary one linked here which is a good article. This is a good way to have both types of history with extensive information on each. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you still interested in working on this Secret? I didn't want to make a lot of changes without your input since you were the one who initiated this discussion. Let me know. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess not. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still interested, I got some books and such, but I want to finish several projects first before working on the article. Secret ^account 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indy Proposal

Here is my proposal:

• 1) All leagues that have played already should be kept. So this keeps all except the: Pecos League, Super Independent Baseball, Liga Mexicana Novato, and Independent Spring Baseball League.
• 2) The Pecos League also be kept, as many of its teams are teams from the now-defunct Continental Baseball League, which recognizes the Pecos League as equal or greater, and it is a high level of Indy-play.
• 3) The Mexican Rookie League (Liga Mexicana Novato) also be kept. It is in both the US and Mexico and I have my reasons for this one, but I don't feel like rambling on just yet.
• 4) Super Independent Baseball be deleted as it probably is non-notable and it has only announced two of its 32 teams, neither of which have names or websites, and I doubt 32 expansion teams will be able to get off the ground anyway. However, it will be included, but not linked, in Template:Professional Baseball.
• 5) Independent Spring Baseball League. There aren't enough details yet, so I suppose it is non-notable. However, it should also be included, unlinked, in Template:Professional Baseball.
• 6) If/when the SIB and ISBL begin play, they shall be re-added.

How's that sound/work? Jntg4Games (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All I'm reading here is "keep this and delete that" without any reasons as to why. Notability isn't a negotiation. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he does give reason to keep the Pecos League, namely most teams came from another, defunct league. But, the others simple show no notability at all. And at no point should something be "mentioned but not linked" in a navbox. The point of a navbox is to link Wikipedia articles; if there's no article, nor any likelihood of an article being created, it isn't included. Period. oknazevad (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But if the template is supposed to include All Professional Leagues, then shouldn't there at least be a note somewhere that notifies of the existence of such leagues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.59.5 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Independent league baseball could be a good place to list them, with references, rather than create separate articles for each new league. Top Jim (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Navboxes are not meant to be all comprehensive. They exist to link related articles in lieu of massive "See also" sections. List articles, or articles with list components, such as the one Top Jim mentions are the best place to mention non-notable examples. oknazevad (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated Independent Spring Baseball League and Super Independent Baseball for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Spring Baseball League, since I'm seeing strong consensus here for deletion or merge to Independent league baseball. Liga Mexicana Novato has already been speedied. I'm leaving out Pecos League for now, since it seems to have more substantial coverage from what look like reasonably WP:Reliable sources online. Here's hoping it stays afloat 'til May. Top Jim (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

World Series prediction

• We have a history of violating wp:notaforum on this page, so that its editors can indicated (before the WS starts) who they believe will win the World Series, and in how many games. I'll kick it off.

1. Rangers. In 6 games.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Rangers in 5. — KV5 • Talk • 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Giants in 6--Yankees10 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Giants in 6. -Dewelar (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Giants in 7. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Rangers in 7. And as a New Jersey Devils fan, and the son of a New York Baseball Giants fan, that hurts me to say. But i must be honest.oknazevad (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
7. Rangers in 6 Vodello (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

   So far so good. I have the Rangers losing Game 1 and Game 4. Vodello (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

8. Rangers in 5... I hope... I hate the giants. Spanneraol (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Rangers. In 6 Adam Penale (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Giants in 6. Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Rangers in 5 – Neonblak ^talk - 02:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
12. Not the Yankees in 2010 Kinston eagle (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

    To channel Facebook:  Like . — KV5 • Talk • 12:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

13. Giants in 7. What's more, the road team will win the majority of the games. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
14. I realize it's a bit late, but I would've said Giants in 6 or 7. I'll be aggressive and say 6 since they won last night. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
15. Giants in 5 — X96lee15 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, Giants won it in 5. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And none of us called it exact. So Dewelar, Yankees10 and I split the right to gloat over your asses. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you 3 were the closet. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll expect my share of first prize in the mail :) --Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that being a Dodger fan, my judgement was too clouded to make an objective prediction. I'll just forget that this whole 2010 World Series never happened.Neonblak ^talk - 17:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with it never happening. I didn't watch a single minute of it, and they do say "See no evil..." — KV5 • Talk • 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't ya mean, you'll forget it 'ever' happened? GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure. Perhaps the house keeps the money. But -- out of curiosity, did any of you win last year, as well? I think there were three of us (or so).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions Re: MLB yearly infobox

I recently noticed that succession boxes had been cropping up on team-season pages for certain franchises (Angels and Dodgers, mainly). I had started deleting them -- they duplicated info that was in the franchise templates, and at first I thought of them as clutter. However, after a brief discussion with Spanneraol, I realized that they're a useful tool. It was the placement with which I had an issue. Then a thought came to me: why not put a succession in the yearly infobox? My thinking is that it would work similarly to the ones used in Template:Infobox album by Wikiproject Music. Do folks think this is a good idea, or would folks prefer to keep them at the bottom of the page? Or would they prefer not to have them altogether?

On an unrelated note, what is the reason we don't use franchise colors for the yearly infobox the way we do for the MLB player infobox? I never thought about it before, but now that I have it seems odd. -Dewelar (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've often thought we should have a succession in the infobox. I would support that. — KV5 • Talk • 11:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We do that in the hockey project with our season page infoboxes. If you wanted to steal the code off our infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The way you are doing that with the hockey pages looks like it should work for our uses. If someone wants to try to add that code I'm fine with it. Spanneraol (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked but it's way beyond me. — KV5 • Talk • 14:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of out of my experience as well. I'm not sure I like the way it's formatted anyway. I'll do a little fiddling soon in the sandbox and see what I can do. -Dewelar (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I can probably figure it out, but it might be a bit because I am moving in a month so not usually on in long enough stretches to figure it out in one shot. So if no one gets to it in the next month I will see what I can do. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started working on this in the sandbox. I'm trying to do it all with the field names displayed conditionally, but it's a bit of a struggle. Here is how it looks with and without the new fields filled in. The latter looks a bit ugly, but if we think this is a good idea we probably don't have to do it conditionally at all, so it may not matter. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making a few changes to your code, and saving it in a new sandbox. Instead of creating new variables "last season" and "next season" for the links to neighbouring seasons, I wrote some code that constructed the links automatically from the pre-existing "season" and "team" variables. This way we don't have worry about the fields being conditionally displayed or to go back and add the new parameters to ever usage of the template. I kept optional "prev_season" and "next_season" variables which can be used when something funny happens in the franchise's history, such as relocation, folding or expansion. Here is a demo of the template. The first uses no additional parameters, while the second and third show how to deal with non-standard franchise transitions. TDL (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Of course, it's late, so I'll make sure to have a better look tomorrow. -Dewelar (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if your code takes into account name changes or not. This is why we have the previous and next season parameters in ours. I think but I may be wrong, that ours does what your code does but if the next season or previous season param is filled in then it over rides the automatic creation with that variable. Which is necessary for team name changes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I should have read you message better...looks like you said it does. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the code, and it uses the prev/next season fields as overrides. If the fields aren't present, it defaults to current year +/- one with the same team name. -Dewelar (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, exactly. We'd just need to specify the optional parameter to deal with name changes. TDL (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any objections to implementing this change? I'll be happy to handle adding all of the necessary overrides, unless someone wants to write a bot to do it. Note that a corresponding change would need to be made to the pre-1969 version of the infobox. -Dewelar (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Could "previous" be used instead of "last", to avoid confusion with "last" meaning the most recent season, or the final season?

A purely aesthetic suggestion: what about changing the format so it only takes one line instead of three? It seems to take up a lot of space for a very small capability. For example:

Previous season · Next season

Isaac Lin (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first suggestion. Perhaps the other one should use "following" rather than "next" for the same reason? As for the second suggestion, I actually tried it that way first, and it wound up making the infobox too wide. -Dewelar (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I never realised there were two versions of this template. Is the only difference the inclusion of the division? If so, why don't we just make the "division" argument optional in the main template and only display this line if it is specified? That way we can turn the -pre1969 version into a redirect. It seems crazy to have two nearly identical templates floating around when one could do the job just as well.

Also, I agree with the suggestion to use previous instead of last. TDL (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the only difference is the division, but when I tried to make it an optional parameter, we lost the formatting that had the division indented the way it is. That was, apparently, a deal-breaker. If you can find a way to do that, feel free. My knowledge in this is still fairly limited. -Dewelar (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand: the current proposal has Last season, This season, and Next season all on one line. How can changing that to just Previous season and Next season, and eliminating the other two lines, make the infobox wider?

It may have been my own lack of knowledge that prevented me from getting it to work. By all means, have at it! -Dewelar (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Up to a little while ago, I knew nothing about Wikipedia templates :P. I gave it a shot; I couldn't figure out a way to make the middot appear in the right scenarios, so I dropped it. The template requires a "none" value to be given when there is no previous or next season. Here is the sandbox template and here is the demo. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See, we're all learning! :-P Anyway, I don't see the field values on your demo. -Dewelar (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Previous season" and "Next season" text are links. The text could specify the year, similar to the NHL season infobox. Unless there is a cancelled season, the year information is redundant, though. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I care for the way that will work. Mightn't someone not familiar with the Expos be confused if they jump from 2004 Expos to 2005 Nationals? Even worse will be things like 1886 St. Louis Maroons to 1887 Indianapolis Hoosiers. Not worth saving one line, IMO (for whatever that's worth). -Dewelar (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the other proposal differs; you still jump from the season article for one team name to the next. The heading in that proposal is definitely redundant (and looks somewhat incomplete, since there are only two other seasons that you can access, not all of them), and I think only one of the following two lines is required. Given all the discussion that goes on about other infoboxes or templates adding clutter, I assume that minimizing the amount of overhead for this addition would be desirable (as well as the width of the infobox; having minimal chrome doesn't increase the width as the other proposal does). Isaac Lin (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's something I've been dinged on in the past, which is the principle of least astonishment. If the text of the link tells you where you're going, you won't be surprised when that's where you end up. Since you've also cut the header line, I just don't think you're providing the user enough information. I mean, it's still better than the one I saw on the hockey templates, which takes it even further to the extreme, but it's still too minimalist for my taste. YMMV, of course. -Dewelar (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the text is pretty clear; it shouldn't be surprising that clicking on a link labelled "Next season" takes you to the next season. I do agree that the obviousness of the link might need some enhancement. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the word "next", I think "previous" and "next" parallel each other sufficiently so that the intent is clear. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look and see what I can do about merging the two templates. TDL (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the "division" argument optional here. And here it is in action. The first usage drops the "division" argument while the 2nd and third specify it. All the formatting is maintained.

Also, I changed Last -> Previous and This -> Current. TDL (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it ready to use yet? Spanneraol (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)