Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 12

Merge manager templates?

There has been an idea that was brought of at WT:HOCKEY about the merging their current head coach template and the coaches by team template. So, does anyone else think that {{MLBManager}} and {{MLB managers by team}} should be merged? Links to the manager lists (from the the second) could be added next to the managers' names (in the first) instead of a link to the team. Every place these are used, there will already be plenty of links to the actual team article. We would slightly modify the heading of the first one just by removing "Current". The idea was created by — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ), so big ups to him. The current NHL head coaches template is at Template:NHLHeadCoach. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea. I prefer the look of the colorized Template:MLB managers by team, but either way it seems redundant to have both. blackngold29 20:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

An admirable idea, but I think something is lost by piping the team name to the list of the managers for the entire team history. If we could find a way to make that look a little better, I would support, but right now I am neutral. What if we used the Template:MLB managers by team and then added notation after each team, such as (current: manager name)? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started an example (incomplete as of yet) in my sandbox. Comments welcome. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

KV's example is what I was thinking. Not sure if we have to repeat "current" for every one. A note at the top like (current manager in parenthesis) would probably work. blackngold29 21:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed to reflect that. I like the current setup in my sandbox and support it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would honestly have this one implemented than one that is a copy of the NHL one. Nice idea, KV5. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say that we let this open for discussion for another day or two (arbitrarily, let's say the 22nd, UTC), and if no one objects or poses serious concerns, we can start the switchover. I'll post notice here when and if I copy this code into the Template:MLB managers by team. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: The merger is complete. {{MLB managers by team}} now contains the current managers. I wonder if there's a bot out there we could impose upon to change out the templates, removing the redundant one and replacing it with the merged one. Never mind, I became a bot and did it myself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gold Glove Awards

With the Silver Slugger lists mostly completed and off my plate, my next major undertaking is going to be the Gold Glove winners' lists. Again, I wanted to come here first and see if there are any major objections to merging these lists into 1 per position so that they aren't split up by league, as has been done with the Silver Sluggers. I envision, in the future, making "Baseball awards" into a featured topic, but I've got a long way to go to get there, and this is the next step after passing the Silver Slugger FT (helps that the Cy Young is already a GA or an FL, something like that). I would like to hear at least some acclamation of support from somewhere, though if I hear nothing, I will assume that silence means consensus. Thanks, all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm just glad someone is improving articles. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I try. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:MLBManager

Template:MLBManager has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Longest professional baseball game

I don't know if this has come up before, but is there a more appropriate name? Perhaps 1981 Pawtucket Red Sox – Rochester Red Wings baseball game? Grsz¹¹ 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:COMMONNAME probably comes into effect here. The most likely phrase searched for is the one it is currently named. -Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Project star

Do we have a project barnstar? I might just have missed it, but I can't find one. If not, do we want one? I will try to oblige. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be cool if it was somehow relevant to baseball, like the All-star Barnstar or Golden Glove star instead of just the "Baseball Barnstar". I'm sure somebody could come up with a better name than those though. blackngold29 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the design wouldn't just be a barnstar and a baseball. I'd love to hear some other name suggestions too (though I like the All-Star Barnstar (All-BarnStar?)), and then design based on a name. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A whirling white barnstar with red stitches might be interesting. I'm not sure what name would fit best with that, though. Rklear (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I found an image and created this one, Template:Baseball Barnstar, a little while ago, but if people are good with graphics could create something better that'd be great. Borgarde (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The World Series most likely won't be at Template:In the news anymore...

...at least not that easily. There has to be public upheaval of some sort for it to be included. Same for the NHL Finals and the NBA Finals. –Howard the Duck 06:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Maroons and NL Hoosiers

I figured it was about time to finish splitting up the Hoosiers into their separate articles, one for the AA team, one for the NL team, and one for the minor league teams (the FL team was already merged into Newark Pepper). In the process, I realized that the NL Hoosiers are essentially the St. Louis Maroons, just with different ownership and in a different city. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page for anyone interested in discussing. I'll post this at the OldTime subproject page as well. -Dewelar (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hoosiers article says the team "bore no relationship" to the Maroons. Different owner, different city. Were any of the players or the staff the same as with the Maroons? Or did Brush simply purchase the rights to the franchise itself, i.e. the slot in the National League lineup? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misread that. The article says the team bore no relationship to the earlier AA Hoosiers team, not the Maroons. As far as their relationship to the Maroons, six of the eight starting position players and the three most-used starting pitchers from the 1886 Maroons were also on the 1887 Hoosiers. I think there's no doubt it was the same franchise. -Dewelar (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I misread it. And if 6 of the 8 position starters were shared between the teams, that sounds like more than a coincidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I supported the merge at the article talk, but now I'm not so sure. Baseball-Reference believes that they are separate franchises. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If the owner changes and the city changes, but many of the players are the same, it's a tough call. It's worth pointing out that two of the pitchers came along too. In any case, the Hoosiers were a fairly miserable franchise. They and the Washington club fought for last place during 1887-1889, and both were dumped in 1890 when Brooklyn and Cincinnati came over from the AA. Brooklyn thus won the pennant in consecutive years in two different leagues. You probably knew that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be interested to hear what Neonblak or one of the other old-time experts has to say about the matter, but as of now, I'm sticking with the idea that they are the same club. -Dewelar (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I expect it would take some time in the Indianapolis library, looking at microfilm from the 1886-1887 off-season, to find out the real story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And then the question becomes did the Hoosiers totally disappear after 1889, or did they join a minor league? Things like that happened in those days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I have seen some sources that say that's exactly what happened to the 1884 Hoosiers (or Blues), who joined the short-lived first version of the Western League in 1885 before both folded. Baseball was certainly very different back then. -Dewelar (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball then was not the gazillion dollar business it is today. It was more like a series of ma-and-pa restaurants, whose existence was entirely dependent on one source of income, and if they didn't get enough patrons, they were done. There are some modern parallels, though. The Detroit Wolverines are an interesting example of a team that was run the way George Steinbrenner has run the Yankees. The Detroit owner decided for 1887 that he was going to pay big bucks and stock his team with the best talent he could find. The club won the National League pennant and also defeated the St. Louis Browns in an audacious 15-game World Series. But the club only survived one more season after that. The income was insufficient to justify the salaries he was paying, and he folded his tent. Same thing that happened with Providence, in their incredible year of 1884, where Old Hoss Radbourn pitched the second half of the season by himself, including 3 straight wins in the World Series. And after 1885, they were done. It wasn't until after 1900 that there was enough disposable income floating around to make major league ball (as well as high-minor league ball) a viable profession. It's no accident that they didn't build concrete ballparks until starting in 1909. To us in modern times, wooden ballparks seem silly as well as dangerous. But if your club could fold at any time, why spend money on permanent materials, when wood was way much cheaper? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Total Ballclubs by Donald Dewey and Nicholas Accocella seems to give contradictory information. In the chapter on the Maroons it says, "At the end of the 1886 season, with the Maroons unable to compete with the Browns at the gate, Lucas applied to the NL for permission to play Sunday games. That permission denied, he gave up and sold the franchise to Indianapolis interests that immediately moved the team to Indiana for the 1887 season." (p. 529). That language suggests a direct sale of the franchise from a St. Louis owner to Indianapolis owners. On the other hand, the Hoosiers chapter says, "It was not until March 8, 1887, only 24 days before Opening Day, that the National League awarded Indianapolis the franchise vacated by the St. Louis Maroons. The $12,000 purchase price covered virtually the entire St. Louis roster..." (p. 289). That passage suggests that the franchise reverted to the league, which then awarded it to Indianapolis. BRMo (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding what happened to the Hoosiers after 1889, Total Ballclubs says, "The PL [Players League] became a reality in 1890, with New York as the primary battleground because it was the largest market and because [John Montgomery] Ward had led a slew of Giants stars to the rebel circuit. To keep the NL New Yorkers on their feet [Hoosiers president John T.] Brush sold them Glasscock, Denny, rookie pitcher Amos Rusie, and several other players; other Hoosiers were scattered around the NL and the American Association. In return, Brush received a $60,000 cash settlement—a substantial profit over his $15,000 investment—and the opportunity to buy the Cincinnati Reds. After some initial excitement over newspaper speculation that the NL Pittsburgh franchise would move there, Indianapolis had to settle for a spot in the Indiana State League." BRMo (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this subject up, I hadn't seen this correlation before, but you're right, it does appear that, from references used in this discussion, that the Maroons were bought by Mr. Brush, and re-located to Indianapolis. If this is true, I suspect that retrosheet, baseball-reference, or any other historian, hadn't made the connection official yet due to a lack of definitive proof. I always hesitate to contradict those sources, but for our purposes here, wouldn't two or three publications explaining the details of the sale be enough to let us go ahead and merge them? I believe so.Neonblak ^talk - 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If they appear to contradict each other, both could be reported, as the kernel of truth might be somewhere in between. This opens another interesting can of worms, though. Note how the NL sought to strengthen itself in the face of the Players' League uprising - at the ultimate expense of the Association, and leading to the top-heavy NL monopoly of the 1890s, and the skullduggery in 1899, then the contraction, and then the rise of the American League. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If the decision is to go ahead and merge the two, I support it. Since I am in the "all-time" roster mode, I can merge those and do them like I have done with the Boston Reds and Worcester Ruby Legs.Neonblak ^talk - 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm still unsure. It's pretty obvious that the franchise was the same, but the situation is eerily similar to the one being discussed below regarding the Expos/Nationals, in that ownership reverted (or may have reverted in this case) to the league before the franchise was sold to new owners, resulting in a move to a new city and change in team name. If the Expos and Nationals are different, then perhaps the Maroons and Hoosiers are as well, and the reverse is also true. -Dewelar (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

World Series

We've got yet another editorial writer trying to use the wikipedia article to claim that the World Series is not really the World Series. I'm already at 3 reverts, so I'm done for now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted again, but it won't help. I've seen this user involved in such POV disputes before, and IIRC, edit warring is his favorite sport. I'm not opposed to some statement that the World Series is not an international tournament, but it needs to be cited properly, and be NPOV. When the WS was first played (as the "World's Series"), the US was practically the only nation playing baseball. Also, to my knowledge, his statements about the WBC are also incorrect. There has been a World Cup of Baseball for many years, and neither claim to be "the" international tournament to decide the "world champion" in baseball. I'm certain we'll need admin intervention on this one, but I would be glad to be wrong! :) - BillCJ (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The user's name does seem vaguely familiar. It's ironic he's from Philly... home of the World Champion Phillies! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a complaint about Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not asked that Baseball Bugs be blocked, not do I think he should be. He can certainly say that this is claimed to be the case on the Phillies website. That is a verifiable statement fact. But a private business making a self serving PR or marketing claim that they are not actually authorized to make (only the IBAF can sanction a world championship of baseball) does not in any way independently verify or actually make the Phillies the "world champions of baseball." A team cannot self anoint themselves with any other title than the one they have actually won: the 2008 World Series champions of Major League Baseball. However neither MLB, any of its member clubs, on any other baseball organization in the world is authorized by the IBAF to call themselves "world" champions. Lots of companies and other organizations make marketing and PR "claims" all the time to be the "world's greatest" this (ENRON comes to mind) or the "world's champion" that. These self servingly adopted titles, however, do not make it true or verifiable that they are actually that, only that they "claim" to be. For such a title to be valid, it must be sanctioned by whatever organization is, by international "consensus" (remember that term?), authorized to do so which in the case of baseball is the IBAF. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

I would also appreciate an answer to the questions that I have posed to User:Cirt at the link immediately below.(Centpacrr (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I'd like to know by what authority the IBAF can claim "governance" over baseball. Surely they have no jurisdiction whatsoever over MLB. And without the participation of MLB, the WBC would consist largely of players who weren't good enough for the big leagues. MLB, though physically based in North America, attracts the best players from all over the world. MLB is the top level of professional ball in the world, and its champions are the true world champions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The IBAF governs international baseball and, as are the other International Federations that govern organized sports worldwide, is the only organization that is authorized to sanction "world championship" tournaments whether it chooses to ever do so or not. Just because it doesn't, however, does not make the title free to be assumed and "awarded" by any other organization without the IBAF's consent.

The playoff champions of MLB may or may not also be the "best" team in the world in any one year, but that can't be proven unless MLB is willing to allow other teams from around the world to compete with them to win it in a tournament sanctioned by the IBAF. Competition for the "World Series" title, however, is strictly limited to MLB's 30 teams with no other clubs eligible to challenge for it. "World Championships" in any sport can only be determined in international qualifying and championship tournaments in which teams from all countries that wish to can participate. (The winners of the Little League World Series, for instance, could probably rightly call themselves the Little League World Champions of Baseball because all Little League teams worldwide are eligible to participate in an attempt to qualify for the tournament, and the international Little League organization controls the title.) The issue here is NOT whether or not the MLB playoff champions are (or are not) the "best" in baseball in the world in any particular year. World championships in any sport can still only be won in international competitions and on the field of play for which teams from all nations that wish to can compete to qualify. Even if no such world tournament is held by the IBAF, that does not mean that the title of "world champions of baseball" has been abandoned and thus can be seized by any private baseball organization that wants it and awarded to one of its members by fiat.

The system you propose does not happen in any other professional sport in which there are major professional leagues in North America such as ice hockey (NHL), basketball (NBA), or football (NFL). None of these leagues claims that their playoff champions are also automatically their sports' "world champions" as well. The best example of the difference, perhaps, is the FIFA World Cup in soccer in which the best professional and amateur players in each country form themselves into international teams representing their countries every four years and play in a tournament sanctioned by FIFA to earn their national team what can rightly be called their sport's "world championship." That is not the case with baseball except in such tournaments as the World Baseball Classic. If the IBAF choses (with the agreement of its membership national federations) to dub the winner of this tournament as the "world's champions of baseball" it could because it is the only organization that controls that title, but it does not have to.

Your confusion seems to basically be one of semantics. I am certainly not trying to denigrate in any way what it takes to win a MLB "World Series" title, only pointing out that the right to sanction the award the title "world champions of baseball" does not rest with MLB, it belongs to the IBAF. Thus comparing the titles "World Series" champions and "world champions of baseball" is like confusing apples for oranges. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

By what authority does the IBAF "govern" anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The IBF governs international amateur and Olympic (when played) baseball, and since 1938 has sanctioned the annual international world championship of baseball tournament called the "Baseball World Cup". [1] Professional baseball is operated and regulated by its various leagues as private, for profit entertainment businesses. Professional leagues manage their own regular seasons and playoff championships which are limited to each league's member clubs. As privately operated teams and leagues, these professional clubs do not participate in the IBAF's annual world tournament (which are limited to amateur national teams) and are therefor not eligible to compete for the title of "world champions of baseball." (Centpacrr (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Who authorized this IBAF to be a governing body? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The International Baseball Federation is the non-governmental organization recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to administer men’s and women’s baseball at the world level. It is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, and has a membership of 125 National Member Federations. The IBAF organizes the IBAF Men’s and Women’s Baseball World Cup, the AAA (18U) and AA (16U) World Championships, the Olympic Games Baseball Tournament, and it sanctions the World Baseball Classic, among other international baseball tournaments. The IBAF works to develop and grow the game of baseball around the world. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

So it's about development of the game around the world - in short, to help build the pool of potential major league talent. I don't see anything in that description that gives them any authority to either decide who the world champion is, or to tell MLB what to do or not do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, read the line immediately before the one you quoted which lists the various annual world championship tournaments which the IBAF sponsors and sanctions. I repeat again (and for the last time) that "world" championships in team sports can only be competed for and won by national teams (which are organized and sponsored by each country's national federation for that sport) in tournaments sanctioned by the sport's International Federation for which all such national teams are eligible to compete to qualify. MLB, on the other hand, is a privately owned entertainment business enterprise in the United States and Canada which operates two professional baseball leagues with a self limited membership of 30 teams. As the teams that participate in MLB and other similar "major" and "minor" professional leagues throughout the world are privately owned and not national teams, none are eligible to compete for world titles in international tournaments.

Professional baseball teams compete for championships only within their own leagues. Just because one of those leagues or multi-league umbrella organizations (MLB) then chooses for its own self serving marketing and PR reasons to then unilaterally claim that its playoff champions are also the "World Champions of Baseball" does not make that so as none of those teams have competed for any internationally sanctioned world title. The winners of the MLB's annual "World Series" tournament are certainly the undisputed playoff champions of Major League Baseball. But as the champions of MLB do not then participate in an internationally sanctioned tournament against the national teams from the rest of the world, they are manifestly not qualified to claim by fiat an additional for which they did not compete.

Championships in sports at all levels can only be won on the field of play, not by claiming them in press releases or in advertising and promotional materials. One of the most important functions of encyclopedias such as Wikipedia is to separate the factual "wheat from the chaff" and unilateral PR and marketing claims definitely "chaff." And that's just the way it is. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

An ultimatum isn't helping your case. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not meant to be an "ultimatum" -- I was only quoting Baseball Bugs who uses this phrase often when he does not have a independent or neutral source to back up his opinions. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm trying to track down the reference -- MLB was asked prior to the first WBC about how the WBC champion would be billed, and as I recall, Baseball Prospectus reported that MLB stated that the WBC champion would be called the world champion. (Of course, a quick search turns up a number of press releases on the MLB.com site that refer to last year's World Series champion as the "World Champion Philadelphia Phillies", so that plan might have gotten abandoned.)

With regards to official titles, I agree that the various international sports federations bodies are the ones that sanction international competitions and as a result, world championships. As stated, the World Baseball Classic is sanctioned by the IBAF. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "World Series" is short for "World's Championship Series", a term going back to the 1880s; and just because some self-appointed organization formed in 1938 claims jurisdiction in the matter, don't make it so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that Sports Illustrated, which is owned by Time-Warner, not by MLB, also tends to refer to the World Series winner as "world champions". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Adopting your logic then, I assume that you would consider Andrew "A.J." Johnson, an automobile salesman from Davison, Michigan, to be the undisputed "world champion of golf" because he is the reigning champion of the "World Series of Golf".

"Sports Illustrated" is a commercial sports magazine while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such these two "publications" have have completely different functions and editing rules. POV (i.e. "editorializing") and opinion are expected and desired in SI and similar publications while that is undesired and edited OUT of encyclopedia and reference writing. In other words, more "apples and oranges." (Centpacrr (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

And yet, SI fully meets Wikipedia's requirements of a reliable source, so your "apples and oranges" holds no water here, because SI is a viable publication and is used as a reliable secondary source for information. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You have hit upon the issue that Centpacrr does not seem to grasp, and it's the same problem as arose on the so-called "Miracle on the Hudson". Because he personally does not agree that it was a "miracle", then his opinion is supposed to override the reliable sources. Same with this. Regarding the golf question, the World Series of Golf has never claimed to be a world championship, it's merely a stop on the PGA tour. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

SI is a perfectly acceptable source for verifiable factual information, but it also publishes opinion and other POV pieces, "editorials", and a wide variety of unsourced material which is NOT in any way encyclopedic. If, for instance, an SI writer said in an article that "it is universally accepted that the Toledo Mudhens' franchise is the greatest in baseball history" would you accept that as true simply because it appeared in the magazine? Or how about if an SI writer stated that "despite the marketing claims of MLB, the winners of the "World Series" are not the recognized world champions of the sport as the WS is not an international competition"? Would you accept one, both, or neither of these statements in Wikipedia as verifiably sourced facts? If so, why? If not, why not? I'm afraid that we're still talking apples and oranges here.

Baseball Bugs you have exactly (although I expect inadvertently) made my point regarding the difference between opinion and verifiable fact. While I am not going to get into another debate with you about your religiously based beliefs in divine intervention as the reason for the unexpectedly fortuitous outcome of the US Airways 1549 accident, I will ask you if I understand correctly that you do not accept the champion of the "World Series of Golf" as the "world champion of golf" only because the sponsoring organization has not, as you say above, "claimed" (i.e. "asserted in the face of possible contradiction") that he is? What if they did make such a claim? Would that make a difference to you as to whether or not A.J. Johnson should be recognized as the "world champion of golf"?

If the NHL "claimed" that the 2008 Stanley Cup champion Detroit Red Wings were automatically also the "world champions of ice hockey" by fiat, would that then make it so in your view? (The 2008 world champions of hockey happen to be from Russia.) In your view, would the 2008 NBA champion Boston Celtics also entitled to be called the reigning "world champions of basketball" if David Stern, that league's commissioner, were to suddenly issue a press release to that effect? (The current basketball world champions happen to be from Spain.)

It is the same thing with baseball. Just because MLB makes a self serving marketing "claim" that its playoff champions are also the "world champions of baseball" does not make it so. World championships in any organized team sport are only won by national teams participating in world tournaments sanctioned by their international federations -- not by unilaterally "claiming" the title by fiat. But as I promised earlier, I will raise your contention that this is so with my high school classmate, Phillies' co-owner, general partner, and President Dave Montgomery, when I see him at our 45th anniversary high school class reunion to be held at Citizens Bank Park this weekend. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Regardless, name-dropping has no worth here. No one cares who you went to school with. It doesn't establish anything, and it doesn't make you any more credible. Regardless of your opinion, reliable secondary sources trump all. The San Francisco Examiner, the Boston Globe, and the New York Times, as far back as 1909 all name the World Series as the world championship of baseball. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not mention Dave Montgomery as "name dropping" -- only to indicate that I was going to follow up by asking someone with an intimate inside knowledge of the actual positions of MLB and Phillies to explain them to me in a further attempt to resolve this issue, and that I would report back what I find out here. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

That might be of some casual interest, but it doesn't matter for the article, as it would constitute original research. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The state of baseball has changed, of course, and so although the World Series champion was the defacto world champion in 1909, with more nations playing baseball in the 21st century, it would be difficult to have an undisputed claim without an official agreement in place. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the discussion is at cross-purposes at the moment. It is true that there are many third-party references to the World Series champion as "world champions", be it out of inertia from a time before professional baseball was an international sport, or be it a parrotting of MLB's marketing. It is not clear that anyone, including Sports Illustrated, considers the present World Series champion to be the official world champion in baseball. I see no problem in using the term colloquially in the World Series article, as long as it is clear that it does not imply the team is the official world champion.

On a side note, the discussion about the authority of the IBAF is a red herring. Teams compete internationally after having agreed upon a common set of rules, which can include agreeing on naming the winner of a given tournament the world champion. The IBAF is simply the current framework under which these agreements are made for baseball. Absent any agreement, there can be no undisputed world champion (which is the situation baseball is in now). Isaac Lin (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point!! MLB's claim should be considered and recognized for what it is: a PR/marketing tool. I am perfectly willing to accept that there is no current undisputed world champion of baseball, but it there were to be in the future it would be sanctioned through the IBAF and its member national federations and confederations. Such a championship would most certainly not be determined, however, by MLB which is a privately owned sports entertainment business enterprise with a self limited membership. MLB can't claim the title just because "Bud Selig says so" or "that's where the money is" as neither of these is an acceptable criteria for the awarding of a "world championship" title or anything else.

If this is the consensus of the group, then the World Series Wikipedia article should be affirmatively edited in such a way as to make the difference between "World Series" champions and "world champions of baseball" abundantly clear. (I think I will just leave that task to someone else, however.) (Centpacrr (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

If the World Series champions are not the world champions, then there are no world champions. And the article already avoids saying that the World Series winners are world champions. So there's nothing to be fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of a demurrer, I will take from the above that Baseball Bugs now accepts that these two championships are separate and distinct entities, and that he now unequivocally withdraws his previous opinion and claim that the Philadelphia Phillies (or any other previous or future "World Series" winners) are also the de facto "world champions of baseball. However, as MLB's playoff championship series includes the word "world" in its title, and MLB uses the phrase "world champions of baseball" for PR and marketing purposes, the distinction should still be made clear in the article so that its readers and editors are not, as was Baseball Bugs previously, continually misled in to thinking they are the same. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

I have not changed my opinion one iota. Your own Phillies are the world champions, and there are plenty of reliable sources who say so. You have yet to provide any alternative reliable sources either contradicting that point, or supporting the idea that there is a different team that's the world champion. You're basically looking for a way to weasel your editorializing back into the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I am glad to see now that at least you are now willing to acknowledge that this is your "opinion." However in order to determine exactly what MLB and the Phillies mean by their use of the phrase "world champions of baseball" I will ask Dave Montgomery to explain that to me when I see him at CBP on Saturday. I trust that he will be an acceptable as a "reliable source" as to the positions of both organizations. I will report in here what I find out from him, but until then I do not intend to comment on this issue further. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

My opinion is backed by sources, and your opinion is backed by nothing. And your talking to a Phillies official would have no bearing on this article, as it would constitute original research. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The only "sources" you have quoted (or appear to have relied on) in here to support your opinion are the MLB website ("Bud Silig says its so"), the promotional banner on the Phillies website, and unspecified third-party repetitions of MLB's promotional marketing slogans in other publications. You still have not answered why MLB should be different than the other major professional team sports leagues in the North America (NHL, NBA, NFL) none of which claim that their playoff champions are also "world champions" even though they all have players from many countries and are the world's highest paying pro leagues in their sport (the other two criteria that you advanced for considering "World Series" winners de facto world champions as well). I did not say that I intend to post anything Dave Montgomery tells me in the Wikipedia article, only to report back what I learn from him in here (talk) which is perfectly appropriate. (You are, of course, perfectly free to not read it.) (Centpacrr (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

• I've provided third-party reliable sources, but apparently you just dismiss reputable and wide-reaching newspapers as parrots. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here can easily convince me of the validity of their argument by providing a link to just one reliable, verifiable third-pary source that identifies what internationally recognized sports authority, organization, or international federation (other than MLB or its member clubs of course which are not disinterested parties) has officially designated and recognizes the winners of the MLB "World Series" as also being the de facto one and only "world champions of baseball" (as you certainly can't have more than one at a time), how and when that designation was made, and under what international authority it persists. (Sportswriters and broadcasters don't count as authorizing organizations.) I would also like an answer to my questions about why MLB would be the ONLY privately owned and operated professional sports' league in the world to have control of the awarding of a world championship title, and why the NHL, NBA, and NFL would not be so designated even though they are, like MLB, arguably the best leagues in their respective sports in the world.

Answer those two questions, backed up by reliable third-party sourcing, and you will have made your case. Absent that, you haven't. The ball is now in your court gentlemen. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

You're starting off here with a fallacious assumption. When the World Series was originally given the name "World's Championship Series", back in 1903, there was no international governing body, simply because nobody else was playing the game. Therefore, I would posit that, in fact, until someone challenges the winner of the World Series, they are the World's Champion by default. No Johnny-come-lately organization like the IBAF (not founded until 1938) has the authority to supersede that without making such a challenge. The fact that MLB has refused to acquiesce where the other professional sports leagues have not is not MLB's problem.

Based on that, find me a reliable third-party source that says that MLB recognizes a World Champion other than itself, because until you do, we here reserve the right to continue mocking you mercilessly *grin*. Ready? Go! -Dewelar (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The only sources we've seen call the Phillies the world champs. If you can find sources to the contrary, please present them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that is a cop out. It is you who is making the affirmative claim that these two championships are the same. All I am asking you is to prove it by providing just one reliable and verifiable source as to how and when that came to be. Just because a sportscaster, sportswriter, or headline writer uses the one of MLB longtime marketing expression owing to years of inertia really does does not constitute a reliable source. (Many fallacies gain similar traction over time owing to inertia such as Robert Fulton building the first steamboat in New Orleans in 1811 where is was actually John Fitch in Philadelphia in in 1787) I have written more than 2,000 published articles and three books on sports and sports history as well as having been a broadcaster over the last 40 years so I know how sportswriting and sportscasting works with regards to using such hyperbole. If your contention is correct then it should be no problem for you to quickly come up with the proof requested. Asking me to disprove your claim (i.e. prove a negative), however, is a canard. The burden of proof in this matter is completely your's. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm not entirely clear on why sports writers columns are suddenly void. How are you sure that they are saying the Phillies are the champions because the MLB says they are? Perhaps they're saying it of their own accord, as they are not being paid by MLB, in which case they are independent of MLB. And "it's in your personal experience" is not a legitimate reason, because this is the internet and really nothing in anyone's claimed personal experience holds any weight. blackngold29 03:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We've pointed to various sources, while you have failed to provide any sources to back your viewpoint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You have only supplied citations to the use of a longtime MLB marketing expression as having been employed by sportswriters and sportscasters. I have no doubt that it has been, but that is not my question. I have searched assiduously to try to find something that supports your contention the "World Series" is officially recognized as the "world champions of baseball" by any baseball organization, authority, or federation and have come up with nothing. As you continually refuse to supply such a source to support it, I gather you don't have any. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Meanwhile, you have supplied no sources at all in support of your viewpoint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid that this is just becoming circular. I am not disputing that the expression "world champions of baseball" is in common and wide use as a colloquialism, and has been for a long time. That doesn't prove that it is literally true, however, only that it is an expression that is ingrained in MLB lore and one which that organization promotes. If it is really as you say (i.e., something other than a colloquialism or marketing expression), then you should be able easily prove it by providing a link to just one reliable, verifiable third-pary source that identifies the internationally recognized sports authority, organization, or international federation (other than MLB or its member clubs which, I expect you will agree, are not disinterested parties) that has officially designated and recognizes the winners of the MLB "World Series" as also being the de facto one and only "world champions of baseball", how and when that designation was made, and under what international authority it persists.

I intend to press my old classmate hard on this issue when I see him on Saturday. He may very well be able to provide me the proof I am asking you for, and if he does I will be perfectly willing to accept it and that will settle the issue for me. But so far I have been unable to find a single source that supports your position after many hours of searching. All I am interested in knowing is the truth of the matter one way of the other. If you are correct I will be pleased to acknowledge that. If I am, I hope you will be willing to do the same. This is not personal for me, only a search for the truth whatever it turns out to be. I will return to this matter in here (i.e. talk) on Sunday after I have spoken to Dave Montgomery at our class reunion at CBP on Saturday night. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Just keep in mind that unless he finds valid references, his comments are of only passing interest and are not valid for the article - no matter which direction his comments go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated several times above, I do not intend to add anything Dave says to me to the World Series article, only to report what I learn from him in here. I will be asking him to provide me with the same sourcing that I have asked you for, or to direct me to where I can find it. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. His first comment is liable to be, "What have you got against the Phillies?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Bugs. WP:RS states that "[articles] should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." David Montgomery isn't publishing these things; you could put words in his mouth. Frankly, it's WP:OR at its finest. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Bugs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also concur with Bugs. I've been watching this conversation and I see one side of the argument that has a ton of sources that support them and the other side with zero sources. And apparently, there's nothing to change either way. So unless some sources are presented that directly refute the claims that the Phillies are the Champions of the Known World I see no point in continuing this. blackngold29 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC: 2004 World Series

Just letting yo know that 2004 World Series has now been nominated. BUC (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:ATHLETE

There is a proposed change to WP:ATHLETE found here. Interested individuals are invited to comment. Grsz¹¹ 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot to update season stats

I was hoping to create a bot that would be able to update season team pages like 2009 Pittsburgh Pirates season and the supporting templates {{2009 NL Central standings}}. I would like to get all of your opinions of this before I do so. Should the project be worried about edit warring, etc., I certainly could provide an opt-out provision for certain pages (or rather an opt-in page with all the specifications on it, e.g., colors). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, I've been hoping someone would do this for a very long time. Perhaps the older pages too (anywhere from 1876-2008)?   JJ (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This would probably be a good thing overall, but I actually don't want it to happen. Updating the pages for my home-town teams (San Francisco and Oakland) allow me to keep up with them, which is difficult since I live on the east coast. I'm not against such a bot (it makes perfect sense and will be a boon to the project), but there's a part of me that doesn't want such a bot to exist. faithless (^speak) 05:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Coaching information in infobox

Should the championship totals (e.g. number of World Series championships) in a player's infobox include championships won as a coach? If so, should the list of teams in the infobox also include teams for whom the player was a coach? Would sections like "last MLB appearance" have to be reworded? Isaac Lin (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Montreal Expos

From WP:CONSENSUS:

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable… Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.

Someone had to do this at some point. I understand that wounds are going to be poked, and feelings might be hurt. But, I must say, it's not the fault of the editors who make the decisions. If you want to blame someone for your hurt feelings, blame MLB, blame Bud Selig, blame Jeff Loria, I don't care. It's not our fault. The Nationals are now in their fifth season, and we as editors complete them as a completely new team. However, all available evidence suggests that is not the case. Several arguments may be present, such as the re-assignment of retired numbers, etc., etc. That argument, in particular, holds no water. Even the article Montreal Expos outlines the transition of one team to a new location under the same franchise. The Expos navbox acknowledges that the team is now the Washington Nationals. Three teams are suffering because their histories are split up over various locations. History of Washington, D.C. professional baseball contains assorted histories of the Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers, both of whom have long histories and neither of whom have history articles because half of their information would be deleted as duplication of the first article. The Nationals also have no history article, relying only on the history of baseball in Washington. While few will argue against the quality of this article, the franchise would be much better served if the information in Montreal Expos was merged into History of the Washington Nationals. The fact remains: we are treating the Expos and Nationals like two separate franchises, when in fact they are not. Baseball Reference says so. I think that it's time to have this discussion; in fact, it's long overdue. Cries of "It's not fair to Montreal!" and "They aren't the same team!" don't mean anything without viable support from reliable sources. I have heard enough mentions of this issue from WP:BASEBALL members that this discussion rightfully ought to be resurrected. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this gets brought up so often, per every other type of article not just sports, when articles get too long you split them at logical places in order to not have to cut out important information. In regards to a sports team an obvious red neon line where to split an article in two is when the franchise moves. There is absolutely no reason to have to try and cram all the information about the franchise into one single page. If you cram all the information into one page you have to cut something out which then causes POV decisions on what is important and what is not and favours recentism. There is absolutely no reason why there can't be a History of the Montreal Expos and a History of the Washington Nationals, with see also links pointing to each in each article. Also I don't think history of the Twins and Rangers article would be deleted as duplicate as you would write them from the point of view as being a history of the team, where as the article you link to above should be written from the view of history in Washington DC, which theoretically should be a very different type of article. -Djsasso (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To expand on my comment above, the Expos page itself is 63k and most of it would rightfully be copied over to the Washington Nationals page which is already 50k itself. both pages are already at the upper limit of what the page size should be for an article. So once you merged them you would then have to split out about 50k to another article, what would you name such an article? The most obvious would be Montreal Expos, in essence you would be merging only to have to unmerge to some new article. -Djsasso (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is not, intrinsically, that there are two separate articles. The problem is that they are treated by the articles themselves as two separate franchises. For example, when you click New York Giants, it goes to San Francisco. When you click Philadelphia Athletics, it goes to Oakland. When you click Montreal Expos, you DON'T go to Washington. You go to a team that no longer exists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe when you click New York Giants it should go to an article about the New York Giants not San Francisco, that redirect happened because people didn't want to write histories in depth about old teams as is proved by dewlar's comment below that it would less resistance to merge. Same with Philadelphia Athletics should have its own article. -Djsasso (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I agree with KV, but also that I would suggest that it does not and cannot end with just the "History Of" article. As I have said in the past, there really is no reason to treat the Expos/Nationals situation uniquely, which is exactly what we are doing. We need to bring them into line with the teams above in all ways. Montreal Expos should be merged into Washington Nationals, period, and the all-time roster, manager list, and so forth need to be merged into their counterparts. Since the alternative is to start building full structures for not just the two Senators teams and the Browns, but also the 1901-02 Orioles, the 1901 Brewers, and so forth, I support the path of least resistance, which is to merge the full Expos' structure into that of the Nationals. -Dewelar (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I agree with Dewelar; I used the history articles as the most glaring example. One team is one team and should be treated as such. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you in the past, the Expos are not unique, there are many professional teams that have been treated this way. Nevermind other historical subjects as I mentioned above. And yes, the other teams that aren't split should probably be split. Just because other teams are done wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't fix them because it will be more work. -Djsasso (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit confilct - oh, and KV, you link to Wikipedia:Edit count above *grin*) If you are asking me for an opinion on how we should continue to treat them, then no, I don't personally believe the other teams are done "wrong". I believe, as the project seems to believe, that franchises should be treated as entities, and that a franchise does not become a new entity just because it moves to a new city. I prefer, however, not to argue from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Given that, I would understand if consensus held that they should be treated in such a manner, but at this time it does not. I feel more strongly that franchises should all be treated in the same manner, and that is not happening. -Dewelar (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree they are the same franchise, no arguement there, but they are different teams. I think thats where the two sides of this debate come into it. There is an obvious continuity, but at the same time there is a nice bright line to split the information so that information about both sides of the line can be expanded on without having to cut out important information. Of course I will always bow to consensus but I certainly can disagree with it. :) -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The 2005 Washington Nationals were indeed a different team than the 2004 Montreal Expos, but only in the sense that the 2004 Expos were a different team than the 2003 Expos. That's why we have team-season pages, to split things out year by year. There is no other meaningful definition for "team" that applies here and that doesn't also mean "franchise". -Dewelar (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The biggest difference is location and fans and then going down to the less important things like office staff being different, not honouring the traditions of the old team like retired numbers and records etc. Fans of the old "team" tend to not be fans of the new team which could possibly be the biggest difference. To be blunt, the only thing really linking the two is that they kept the same franchise slot in the league, nothing else is the same. There is more different about the two than the same. -Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A franchise is more than a "franchise slot". If it weren't, then we wouldn't even be having the discussion above about whether or not to merge St. Louis Maroons and Indianapolis Hoosiers (National League) -- while they were unquestionably the same franchise slot, there is some debate as to whether they were the same actual franchise. Nobody is going to argue for the merger of the 1879 version of the Syracuse Stars (baseball) and Worcester Ruby Legs, even though one directly replaced the other in the NL in 1880.

Also, I note that at least one other major sport, basketball, does not handle this consistently. The Minneapolis Lakers do not have their own page, nor do the New Orleans Jazz, nor the Vancouver Grizzlies, nor the Philadelphia Warriors, nor the Kansas City Kings, and so forth. -Dewelar (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Many other teams have moved, but only one is treated as unique. The situation is not unique, but our treatment is. The other teams being merged is not "wrong"; it's the way the project has chosen to delineate franchise continuity. There's nothing wrong with it. The Los Angeles Rams and St. Louis Rams aren't treated as different teams by the NFL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This topic gets brought up about every 6 months so pardon me if I get a bit frustrated with it, but the treatment of it is not unique. Quebec Nordiques -> Colorado Avalanche, Atlanta Flames -> Calgary Flames (FA btw), Winnipeg Jets -> Phoenix Coyotes (There are only a few I could go on and on). This topic was brought up at a wider discussion (ie not just wp:baseball) in the past and it came down on the side of splitting article, but in reality most of the articles never got split. But you are correct consensus can change, thought I don't really see why it should. -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• This looks like a bit of Canadian bias to me. The Hartford Whalers have their own article, but all of these other teams, all of which are hockey teams, have a Canadian connection, which leads me to think that it may have been a matter of a difference in thought regarding sports franchises between Canadian and American editors that started this controversy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Minnesota North Stars -> Dallas Stars. Cleveland Barons -> Minnesota North Stars. Kansas City Scouts -> New Jersey Devils -Djsasso (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Don't even get me started on the North Stars. I was a fan of the Stars for the better part of my childhood, and while I was livid when they left Minnesota, I accept as an inevitability that the Dallas Stars are, for all intents and purposes, the same team as the North Stars. Also, again, all hockey. KV5 (Talk

• Phils) 15:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• That's just cause those are the ones I can pull of quickly, there are numerous basketball teams that are split as well but mostly minor league, would have to look or nba level ones. -Djsasso (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obviously this is a matter of disparity between WikiProjects. Most of us focus on our specific sport projects but a discussion at WP:SPORT would likely go unread by all but a few serious sports editors. I'd like to read the "wider discussion" if there's a link available. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I will see if I can find it, might be linked from the expos talk page, because as usual it was the expos who sparked it. Would have been 3 or 4 years ago so I would call it a stale consensus at this point. With no real bearing on if it should be done or not anymore. -Djsasso (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos might be what I was thinking of. I will keep looking though. -Djsasso (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This comment from Kingturtle accurately sums up my feelings:

P.S. The FRANCHISE remains the same. All history about the FRANCHISE should now be placed under the new name of the FRANCHISE, Washington Nationals. Wikipedia does not still have an article under Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; it was moved to and now redirects to Pope Benedict XVI. his name has changed - his location has changed - but he's the same person - any parts of his history are now under the new name. Travelers Group redirects to Citigroup; WorldCom redirects to MCI; Bell Atlantic redirects to Verizon Communications; GTE redirects to Verizon Communications. Every single MLB franchise follows these rules. I am not convinced by one iota that the Expos deserve an exception. Kingturtle 06:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killervogel5 (talk • contribs)

• To be blunt, is the Montreal Expos situation the same as the Cleveland Browns situation back in 1995? If no, then the stuff should be combined. And since it's not, well, there you go. Wizardman 15:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• How is it not the same? The owner picked up the franchise and the team (players, etc.) and moved it to a different location. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• He is actually agreeing with you, the Cleveland Browns didn't move the franchise, technically the Baltimore team is an expansion team. -Djsasso (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, having lived in the Baltimore metro area for a year, I should have known that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The old Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. The NFL created a new Browns team, and decided to officially pretend that the Ravens were an expansion team. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The NFL decided to award the old Browns history to the new Browns. MLB had tried to do that with the Senators in 1961, but within a couple of years, the facts overwhelmed the P.R. This is different, because there is no new Expos team. And the more the Nats play, the more they look like the Expos. (If they start playing some of their games in San Juan, that will be a major clue.) In short, the articles should be merged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• What they said. If anything, this is a classic case of the exception proving the rule (in the way that phrase is meant to be used, rather than the common usage). -Dewelar (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with other franchises that have moved cities ignores that Wikipedia was created after most moves, and that Wikipedia articles have for the most part risen organically out via the accretion of many contributions, rather than through some master plan. The natural course of someone creating a stub article about, say, the Dodgers, would be to create one article and start filling it in with information across all of the franchise's history. I don't believe this organization arose from a deliberate plan as opposed to a happenstance occurance. Given this opportunity to plan ahead, I think it is useful to be able to allow for distinct periods in the Nationals' franchise history to be linked to separately, and following this natural division point in the team's history also conforms with summary style (note the Montreal Expos have notability independent of the Washington Nationals). Isaac Lin (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems obvious to me that they are one team. If people are worried about info being eliminated or whatever the create two seperate articles: History of the Montreal Expos and History of the Washington Nationals, if that isn't enough for you then see the five-part History of the New York Giants and copy that. I also see some complatints about the size of the current Expos article, well the entire "Historic games" section is unsourced and has no criteria for inclusion, so it is all POV and should be removed; that should trim some size. I hate to bring this up, but I will: the Oklahoma City Thunder are the new Seattle SuperSonics. The fact that both of those teams have an article is irrelevent to this discussion as the NBA people can do what they wish, I don't know perhaps their guidelines are different or they havne't gotten around to merging them yet. Either way, the Thunder's article has a good section summary of the SuperSonics with the link to the main article; we should have a one section summary of the Expos with a link to the aformentiond History of the Expos article. blackngold29 16:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What the basketball and hockey projects do is relevant, as this is really an overall wiki idea. Projects are not a closed bubble remember, the baseball project has no more say than any other editors over what happens to an article, in otherwords this will have to be listed on the article page itself and on the page for requested merges before the project just systematically decides to merge. -Djsasso (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I question that, because if one project makes a ridiculous policy for their sport why should we have to take it into consideration? Are there any specific discussions by the hockey or basketball WPs that say there should be two articles? I mean, I can see above that most do have two, but was there ever a formal discussion? blackngold29 16:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about basketball or sure, but I know the hockey one has numerous times. The most recent for hockey was only a few weeks ago when someone wanted to merge I think it was Lists of Coaches. Eitherway the Expos don't only fall under the baseball wikiproject, they fall under numerous other wikiprojects. One project cannot overrule another project, a general discussion at the article has to take place and the appropriate merge request templates etc have to be posted up. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blackngold, since the move only happened 5 years age, we all KNOW they are the same franchise, we lived to see it. Since the Montreal Expos' article is quite large, there is no sense in merging the whole article. Rename Montreal Expos to History of the Montreal Expos, write up a good sized summary (w/refs) for the Washington Nationals page and call it good. I Believe you could do the same thing with the Giants, Senators, or Athletics. All that means is someone hasn't been ambitious enough to do it yet.Neonblak ^talk - 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think most people disagree with doing this. It the simple wipe out of the history that merging the pages would mean that most people disagree with. -Djsasso (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can see separating the history article into time periods in this fashion, and in fact this could be done for any of the pre-expansion franchises quite easily. Since this would be an article that focused on an historical period, calling it "History of the Expos" might be OK, but "History of the Nationals: Montreal Expos era (1969-2004)" might be more appropriate. -Dewelar (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The actual name isn't as important as making sure the History of the Montreal Expos and Montreal Expos redirect to whatever the name is. -Djsasso (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, the team name should redirect right to the team article; however, if that's not an acceptable compromise, try the Lakers' example. When you search Minneapolis Lakers, it takes you to the Minneapolis section of History of the Los Angeles Lakers. I personally don't agree with that, because then players clicking an Expos link aren't taken to a team page. As per above, if you click New York Giants (baseball), you go to San Francisco. This is especially helpful for old-time baseball articles, or articles like List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers that cover a lot of historical ground. It's a lot easier than pipelinking every single entry. If the redirects exist, we should use them. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it comes down to common sense, someone typing in Montreal Expos into the search are looking for information on the Expos, not information on the current Nationals which is what they would be flooded with if they were redirected to the Nationals team page as opposed to the history page containing the expos information. -Djsasso (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

But someone clicking Montreal Expos in a table or list is going to expect to go to the current team, just like someone clicking on Kansas City Athletics or California Angels. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think an experienced wiki editor might expect that, but I don't think the average common reader would. And remember we write this wiki for them, not for other editors. Why would the average person expect to go to a page with information different from the link they are clicking when every other link (for the most part) on any given page takes them to exactly the information one would expect by clicking the underlined word. -Djsasso (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Then do we need to go back and change every redirect to point to a specific section of the history article or team article? Standardization seems to be where we are headed, so should we change Brooklyn Dodgers to link here? New York Giants (baseball) to here? Does it ever end? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Neonblak suggested, and what I would support. No, it never ends, thats what wikis are all about, constant change nothing is static. -Djsasso (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that truly does make sense. The Expos are part of Washington's history, the original Baltimore Orioles are part of the Yankees' history. I would support that change as well. What about teams who had a name for one year and thus won't have a significant section in their respective parent articles' histories? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You could probably just redirect to the history page without a section specifically, or to the section that was closest to that time period. I am not sure. -Djsasso (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or we could go through all of the history articles and make sure that each team has its own section, even if it's just a paragraph. While time-consuming, it would make things the most accurate. The next chore, I suppose, is making sure that every team that needs a history article has a history article. I don't think History of the Rockies or History of the Rays are necessary at this point; the teams are still very young. But the Minnesota Twins don't even have a history article. That's kind of crazy, considering how long the Sens were around before they moved to Minnesota. I'm guessing that I will probably be taking care of that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I have broken out the history of the Senators/Twins into a new article (see History of the Minnesota Twins). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea of sectional linking is probably the absolute best way to handle this, yes, and it's what I've done when linking to the various teams within Kansas City Cowboys (baseball) and Syracuse Stars (baseball). However, it's also a logistical nightmare, because if someone happens to change the header name, the links all wind up being useless, and we'll have a devil of a time tracking them all down to fix them. -Dewelar (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think having level-2 headers that are just the team name are probably the best way to go. Then we always know what's right and what's wrong. If we set a convention here and achieve consensus, then we can fix the inconsistencies first and then move forward with the shifting of redirects. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the anchor template helps ensure that fragment IDs within an article remain stable. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As already mentioned, ya'll should really consider splitting all your MLB franchises articles. Splitting has done wonders for the NHL franchises articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that really doesn't provide any rationale that helps us make a decision. You're looking at a much larger scope here as well. We're also toeing the content fork line by splitting. If we split some, we have to split all for continuity's sake, and some of our articles would be no more than a few paragraphs and are very forky. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me weigh in with a comment, did MLB not award Quebec Baseball the entire history of the Montreal Expos? I seem to recall that shortly after the move to Washington, the history of the Expos (e.g. retired numbers, stats etc. but not logos and names) were given to Quebec Baseball as guardians of the Expos. If this is the case, this is indeed akin to the situation of Cleveland Browns whereby the NFL gave Art Modell the physical franchise slot, but not the history of the Browns. If the Expos' history is indeed the property (or whatever the correct term should be) of Quebec Baseball, then it would make sense not to make this under the purview of the Washington Nationals. I do think in the interests of keep each article unwieldy that the Expos should be kept separate. Perhaps a redirect could be made that if you type in History of the Washington Nationals you are taken to this page. Another idea is to fold this information (along with the Royals and other teams) into a History of Baseball in Montreal article. Thus preserving the article as is. All the important events such as the founding of the team, the move to Olympic Stadium, the 1981 playoffs etc. could be added to the Washington Nationals article, with a simple notation that for more in-depth information see History of Baseball in Montreal. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The minor league articles

As I'm sure the regular participants of this project will be all too aware, there is some debate going on as to what to do with the two hundred odd articles, predominantly created by Gjr Rodriguez. I have been discussing the issue with Fabrictramp and Kelapstick, who have somehow just about put up with my ignorance of baseball. My suggestion is to create a kind of umbrella article for all the players with a similar structure to List of fictional United States Presidents- entitled something along the lines of List of Minor League Baseball players who don't qualify for their own articles. Obviously, that wouldn't be the exact title! It would be a shame to see all this work go to waste so anybody with any opinions or suggestions, they'd be gratefully received since I'd like to establish a consensus before embarking on such a project and I would need some help due to the amount of information and my lack of baseball knowledge! Many thanks, HJMitchell You rang? 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We actually had those articles: List of Philadelphia Phillies minor league players and the like. I don't know where they went, though... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit): I found them. No "List of". Philadelphia Phillies minor league players and so forth. The info could be (and should have been, per our consensus here) merged into those articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw that several were redirected into such articles. Pragmatically, it's certainly better than nowhere, certainly. My only concern is the headache that'll be caused when X player moves from Y team to Z team within the minor leagues. Am I right in thinking that if X player moves from Y team to A team- a major league team- tha the becomes notable for his own article. That's easy enough. However, by redirecting to organisation, if he moves within the minor leagues or that organisation disbands or some such, that he has to be moved to another page. By creating the umbrella article I propose, we would, at least keep them all in one place and if one should move, we can simply change the sentence currently plays for X team to plays for Y team. I'm happy enough to do the grafting, though I might need help finding all the info. How does that sound? HJMitchell You rang? 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was originally proposed to keep them separate by minor league system because the players are under contract with the organization as a whole. I don't think there's any problem with copy-and-paste moves due to trades anyway; not EVERY minor leaguer is supposed to have an article or even a subhead here, just those who don't meet the full criteria for their own article, but have done something worthy of mention. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the current system of sorting them by team works well.. copying the info to a different team if they get traded and repointing redirects is easy enough.. Combining them all into one page could get a bit too large and difficult to navigate. Spanneraol (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to argue against the consensus. However, I do think we could do with an easier way of finding information on the players who are on WP but aren't notable enough for their own article. I shall leave it with you. Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 20:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have a concern that when a player's minor league career ends without ever making it the majors, we'll be left with redirect pages without an appropriate article to point them to. While they could go through the redirects for discussion process, I think it would be preferable not to create hundreds of redirects that will eventually become obsolete. BRMo (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Statistics in season articles

Dewelar and I (Timpcrk87) have stirred a debate recently about how to include statistics in the individual season articles. I've uncovered a previous discussion here (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_4#Stats) that came to some consensus that only the team leaders in certain statistics should be included as seen here (2007_Los_Angeles_Angels_of_Anaheim_season#Player_stats). Dewaler's view is represented by their layout in this article (1882_St._Louis_Brown_Stockings_season#Player_stats) with them separated into several tables. While my original view was to include a full table of the statistics like here (2008_Boston_Red_Sox_season#Player_stats. But after finding that old discussion, I'm inclined to agree with it that only a table of the leaders should be included. Is there any kind of consensus on this issue? Timpcrk87 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the method Timpcrk87 is using is meant for ongoing seasons, and that the multi-table format, originally introduced by Soxrock and which I tweaked per my comments here, was meant for completed seasons, once stats don't have to be moved around any longer. Part of this is based on silence implying consent, of course, but it does seem to be how things have generally been done. -Dewelar (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to also note that by my count, over 85% of team-season articles are currently set up using the method that I've been using. I can stop changing them (and will until we get some more input), but a vast majority of this phase is already done. -Dewelar (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dewaler, and any other poster, what do you view as the pros and cons of the various methods? The more I think about it, I favor the style on the Angels page. I like the concise way it presents the information, you can easily see what players had significant contributions to the team's success or lack there of. The other two formats have basically the same information but with a different format. I still fail to understand the point of breaking them up though. It makes it more difficult to compare, and stats like Position, Games Played, and Games Started for pitchers allow those distinctions anyway. But like I said, I'm favoring the Angels style now. Timpcrk87 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to hold off on discussing this in detail until a few more folks have weighed in. I've been asking around, both here and privately to folks I see working on these pages, to get some kind of input for months. The lack of response outside of a couple other editors is what led me to pretty much keep doing what I'm doing. I actually don't have a strong preference, other than that there should be a standard. I thought the standard had been settled, but of course, as with anything on Wikipedia, consensus can change. Other interested parties, please step forward! -Dewelar (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of showing only leaders. At 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, I used the format shown in the Red Sox article. I don't think that there is a problem with the other format, though. I truly have no preference, though I really don't want to go back and change that article now... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the Red Sox method because it is easier to compare the players than the multiple sections for "other batters" and "other pitchers". Spanneraol (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm beginning to wonder if anyone thinks what I'm doing is worthwhile other than myself. Yes, I took it upon myself to get this standardization in place, but it seems that the only opinions are either that I'm doing it wrong, or people have no preference. If that's the case, then I can certainly fold up that tent and focus my attentions elsewhere. Should I just move on and do something else, like adding infoboxes to player articles? -Dewelar (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that the vast majority of readers will never come here to comment -- only a few hardcore editors do that. So you'll never know if any of your Wikipedia work is worthwhile in the big picture. In the end, you have to do the work that pleases you.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh...it was pleasing me just fine until I started hearing complaints :) . -Dewelar (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

On a little more serious note, part of what pleases me is knowing that what I'm doing is useful. If what I'm doing isn't useful, then I'll move on to something that is. -Dewelar (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't think your not doing anything useful. I'm just suggesting a way that in my opinion would be better. You've done great work adding the roster boxes to countless team pages, and I know how tedious that stuff can be to do. It's just my nature to stir stuff up, especially so that standards don't end up like this inglorious monstrosity. Timpcrk87 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I think my point is more that I don't want to continue along the path I've been traveling if we're going to have to go back and change the format of everything before I can start filling them in. I just wish you'd raised this objection earlier, because if we change now it will mean a lot of time has been wasted. If that happens, I will probably just leave the task to someone else and move on to, as I said above, adding infoboxes or something equally non-controversial. -Dewelar (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it's very useful to have a set of statistics for every player that appeared in a game for the team that year, not just the team leaders. My reasoning is that the stats are the only place where you get to see all the players on the team. I'd rather list that in a stats table as opposed to the roster template because the roster template implies a "snapshot" in time of the roster and the roster is a continuously-changing thing and none of the snapshots are the complete set of players that played on the team. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've been working on updating all the roster tempates for all the season articles so that they do include every player who played on the team for that season. I have done all the American League teams through 1960 and the NL through 1950 so far. Spanneraol (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing the upkeep on 2009 San Francisco Giants season, and IMHO that is the best way to go (I don't mean that to sound cocky at all, honest!). In that article I've been including only the top ten pitchers and batters (pitchers by innings pitched, batters by plate appearances). I think ten, aside from being a nice, round number, is thorough without been overkill. Also, I find that listing players by ABs (batters) and IPs (pitchers) is the most fair and objective way of doing it. Just my $0.02. Best, faithless (^speak) 06:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with faithless. Dewelar likes to throw the term standard out, but in baseball statistics, it's standard to list all batters together by number of at bats and all pithcers together by number of innings. I'm not sure I agree with just the top ten players in each, though, because it's so arbitrary. Timpcrk87 (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been civil thus far, but I will now ask that you please stop mischaracterizing my remarks in order to make your own case look better. If your case does not stand on its own without having to tear me down in a misleadingly disparaging manner, then perhaps you need to its validity.

The only "standard" to which I refer belongs to Wikipedia and, more specifically, WikiProject Baseball. I do not make, nor have I ever made, any other claims. Wikipedia is not bound by any other media's format, nor should your reasoning for its presentation be "other people do it this way, so we should too". Make a case for your format on its own merits. -Dewelar (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of a random, arbitrary cutoff point borders on POV and OR, so all players should be included in some format. This is a matter of design and aesthetics, not criteria for inclusion, which are strictly and easily defined. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides that I think the format also makes it more difficult to view and compare the statistics, this is also why I oppose the current format. Listing some players as starters or bench players and relievers is a POV, especially since most teams platoon one or multiple positions each season. Dewelar, I understand that you got that info from baseball-reference, but I still thinks it's conjecture on their part and a mistake we should not repeat over here. The statistics include games played and also games started for pitchers so readers can discern that info easily. Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball-reference lists the player who got the most starts at each position, which is useful information and should be included in some way on these articles. If we decide to use a different format, then a separate listing should be made, similar to the Opening Day lineup section that is present on a number of pages.

As far as your portrayal of their listings as "conjecture", I would argue that, at least among position players, that the contrary is true, and that more than 99% of the time no conjecture is involved at all. The only exception is when a particular player starts the most positions at multiple positions (i.e., the 1978 Red Sox, for whom Jim Rice started the most games at both LF and DH), and Mr. Forman must make a choice (probably determined by computer algorithm) regarding who to promote to the starter list.

Pitchers are another matter, of course, which is why I do not entirely follow their listings in that realm. Generally, I have placed only those who are obviously starters and relievers in those two categories, with all others in the "Other pitchers" bin. One could argue that "obviously" is a POV matter, of course. -Dewelar (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deweler, do you not see the big mistake with that 1978 Red Sox season as the stats are currently portrayed? It currently lists Bob Bailey as a starter at DH even though he only played in 43 games (27%) and Carl Yastrzemski as a bench player even though he played in 144 games (89%) because Yaz played multiple positions. The position played is a defensive/fielding statistic anyway and shouldn't be used to organize offensive stats. Timpcrk87 (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Our philosophies differ. What you see as a big mistake, I see as communicating useful information. Unless you want these pages to be nothing but bunches of stat tables, compromises must sometimes be made. -Dewelar (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Now, getting to my own opinions, which I promised above.

• I agree with those who say that all players should be listed, as it seems most logical. If someone is listed on the roster, they should be listed in the stat tables, or someone will wonder why they are not.
• As for two tables vs. five, I like five only because it is more reflective of players' roles on the team rather than all thrown together in a mish-mosh. Some have mentioned comparability, in which case I would argue that I prefer to compare apples to apples (starting pitchers to starting pitchers, starting position players to each other, etc.) rather than apples to oranges (starting pitchers to relief pitchers, starting position players to bench players). It is also more aesthetically pleasing, at least to me.
• Sorting players by at bats and innings pitched (or, ideally, plate appearances and batters faced) as a default should be the way to go, at least for starting pitchers and position players. Using sortable tables as we do allows the user freedom to do as he/she wishes, but immediate presentation should put stress on those who played the largest role in the team's fortunes. Games played might be a better measurement for bench players and especially relief pitchers, though.

Above all, we must remember that these articles are meant to represent a snapshot of a season in a team's history. To that end, the way in which things are presented should reflect that in the most accurate way possible. Each of my opinions above are held with that in mind. Obviously, as with anything of this nature, YMMV, but there you have at least a bit of my reasoning. -Dewelar (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

OK, after three days without discussion, I guess this is dead. Among those who had a preference, we had one for the Soxrock method with tweaks (me), one for all-inclusive tables (Spanneraol), one for the old consensus (Timpcrk87) and one for something completely different (faithless). That's about as far from consensus as it gets. I will say I'm disappointed in the lack of input to the discussion, but in the face of (a) most people at least wanting a standard of some kind and (b) no consensus on what the standard should be, I guess I'll plan to go ahead with my own original project as it was. I'm going on vacation in a few days, but once I'm back in mid-May I can pick things up with 1967. If there's more discussion in the meantime, great :) . -Dewelar (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

National League articles

A heads-up: User:Rangond has begun creating standings pages for the Turkish National League, a football/soccer league that operated from 1936-50. The article titles are of the form National League 1936-37, etc. I'm not sure what kind of conflicts or confusion this might create, but I thought I'd let wiser people than me know. Rklear (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting Position Templates

I would like to propose that the recently created starting position templates need to go.... There are too many discrepancies. They are supposed to go by the mlb.com depth charts but those aren't always updated fully. A number of positions on some teams are platooned... or just go with the "hot bat". These things just aren't kept fully up to date for all teams. Thoughts? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, things change every day, and there just dumb to have.--Yankees10 17:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur per above discussion. Nice to link players, but way too crystalline and recentist for me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#MLB Position Templates JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for video

For the baseball article, seeing if anyone has high-quality, free-content video that might make an appropriate substitution for and improvement on any of three current instructional images: pick off attempt, tag out attempt, or the bunt. The existing photographs are all good ones, so we're looking for video of at least comparable quality. Awadewit has offered to edit any submission and transfer it to Wikipedia-ready format. Thanks very much.—DCGeist (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Championship templates

Just an FYI, using the above link to template deletion, the discussion over Template:Pittsburgh Penguins 1991 Stanley Cup Champions might have future implications over baseball's templates.Neonblak ^talk - 13:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably won't as the baseball templates were put up before and kept. It basically became a situation of we don't touch your templates if you don't try and force us to have templates. Though wp:navbox does say you shouldn't have navboxes for winning a championship or holding a position etc. so technically they probably could be deleted if people wanted to try and do it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Could you explain to me where WP:NAVBOX says that? Cuuuuuzzzz... I'm not seein' it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using {{succession box}}. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is where I think that this guideline doesn't make sense. You can't use the succession box to link groups of players. I know that you and I are of a different mindset on this, but unless we link "starting center fielder for the 2007 World Series champion" in a succession box... so on and so forth... we lose the opportunity to group these players. I know that you've expressed the opinion that this isn't worth grouping, but I beg to differ. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• While this isn't what I would do, because as you mention I don't think they need to be grouped at all, but I recall seeing other sports, soccer I think it was, where they just list the team name in the succession box linked to the season page of the particular team which would have the roster of all the players on it. This of course relies on the reader to click on the team to take them to the list of players which I know is not your preferred way of doing it. I am just pointing out there are other options. But like I said no one is suggesting we wipe out your templates. The hockey project is just redeleting a recreated template in that discussion. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. If you think about it, pretty much every navbox we use could be deleted under this guideline. I'm not sure I could come up with one that could be legitimately kept. -Dewelar (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot of stuff on WP that could do with some deleting, though. I'd be in favor of the succession box for the team, rather than these templates. If the teammates were so important, then articles would have blue name drops of teammates all over them, but that's not the case. If you want to know about the players on a championship team, you would be looking at the team article instead of one of the player articles anyway. Timpcrk87 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That creates one-way navigation, though, which is contrary to WP:BUILD. We want readers to be able to freely navigate through related articles. If you can only get from one player to his teammate by clicking to the season that they played together and then to the player... strikes me as quite inefficient, don't you think? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to what a persons definition of related is. I think the idea is that these player articles are not related enough to be considered related. Which is the whole idea behind expecting articles in navboxes to already be linked in a complete version of the article. That Joe Smith may have played one game on a championship team with John Doe does not mean the two articles are very related. However, the articles would be related to the team season article which is where atleast in my opinon most people would be navigating from if they were wanting to look at various figures on a championship team. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So true, and I know that this is where Djsasso and I differ, in that I hold the opposite opinion. I feel that since a team is made up of players, and since through the combined efforts of all said players a championship is won, the articles about each of the said players should be connected to one another directly rather than indirectly. I certainly see, respect, and can understand the other side of this argument as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I see yours as well for what its worth. I can't think of an equivalent baseball player but Henri Richard in hockey and Bill Russell in basketball have both won 11 championships, eventually the links to minor depth players just become white noise compared to the strongly related links like teams he played on or locations of birth or whatever. But I fully see your side of things. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the criteria for player inclusion in the navbox? Using the 2008 Phillies as an example, there are 30 players included yet 40 played at least one game for them that season. There are 28 of 40 in the 2007 Red Sox navbox. I am in favor of the navboxes, and want to keep them, but there doesn't seem to be any uniformity. Is it a certain amount of games played that determine who gets included? Why are coaches included in some, and not others?Neonblak ^talk - 16:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The players in the 2008 Phillies navbox are the players who were on the post-season roster (or should be). Coaches ought to be included, but otherwise, I don't see any reason to include a random call-up in the championship navbox. That's what the season rosters are for. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Should post-season roster be the only criteria? Some of those players could have as little time with the team as a month (September 1 being the cut-off for post-season eligibility). Is the reason for keeping the navboxes to associate the players as each having significant contribution to the championship team's success? If so, the post-season roster + anyone who played a certain amount of time, say 50 games for position players and 10 for pitchers? I have no problem with coaches being included as they are significant contributors to a team's success, but I think it would have to be stopped there, or else trainers, physicians, front office people would make it very large.Neonblak ^talk - 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And thus you have illustrated one of the other problems with the boxes, who to include. Anytime you make a criteria that isn't definable via a fact like "played in the post season" then you start having issues with being arbitrary and point of view based. ie what makes someone who played 50 games a significant contributer but not someone who played 49. I don't know if baseball has rules for who is considered to have been on the championship team or not, fortunately the NHL has a complex set of rules for whose name gets on the cup if we were to be in the same situation of trying to decide who to put on a box. -Djsasso (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I look at this and ask "what are readers really wanting to know?" If they want to know the roster of the championship team that player x played on, then they really want to be directed to YYYY Team Z season anyway, which should include the full roster. Also, I really believe that if a teammate is not important enough to get a blue link in the prose, why should they be in a catch-all pail at the bottom? Timpcrk87 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport

I've started a discussion on the guidelines of Template:Current sport and their application here, for those who are interested. --Conti|✉ 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD for Category:New York Mets first round draft picks

A discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 1#Category:New York Mets first round draft picks may be relevant to participants here. Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning here. Wknight94 ^talk 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

MLB positions by team navboxes

Any opinions on the different player position templates by team, as listed in in the category Major League Baseball position by team nav box templates? Does this seem like a useful enough navigational aid to warrant the number of navigational boxes that may end up being added to every player's biography? Isaac Lin (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. Shows an order of succession for team history and so forth, but I don't know that it's really necessary. What happens to utility guys? What about players who sub in during DL stints? I think it's a little too WP:DIRECTORY for me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lastings Milledge, All Star?

A friend of mine who posts at Sons of Sam Horn told me that there's a movement by some pranksters there to get Lastings Milledge elected to the 2009 NL All Star team. Somewhere along the line in the SoSH discussion, some wise guy poppped the inevitable question--"Hey, why don't we put it on Wikipedia?" Sure enough, a new account added a section on it yesterday, followed by a couple of IP users who did some cleanup. Another IP user has removed it for now, but don't be surprised if there are more attempts to get it in the article. Rklear (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete the Sons of Sam Horn article too while you're at it. Wknight94 ^talk 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

All-time rosters by team

I was sure this must have been discussed before, but while I was able to find several discussions regarding the all-time roster articles in a search of the archives, I couldn't find any about this specifically.

Has there ever been discussion about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of including in these articles each player's statistics during his time with the team? I'm thinking the same type of basic counting stats that you see in the newspaper charts, or whatever else has been deemed standard by the project. The question is sparked by looking at one of the set of similar articles for hockey teams — List of Ottawa Senators players — which happens to be a featured list.

If this hasn't been discussed — and, again, I'd be shocked if it hadn't — I'd be interested in hearing what project members would think about the idea. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it, per se, but it would be a monumental task, plus it probably kills the format we currently use, which is a straight alphabetical list. Some franchises, which have been around more than 110-120 years, may be using subpages by now considering the size. We would have to lay down an accepted standard for statistics to be included, and then pitchers and position players have to be separate. In the early game, many pitchers played multiple positions or position players pitched when needed; some players HAD no primary position. It becomes quite the daunting project on examination. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be a monumental waste of time... That information can be easily obtained... For example: here's the all-time batting stats for the New York Yankees. Attempting to recreate that on wikipedia and having to regularly update the current players is just pointless. Your Ottawa Senators example was really only possible because the team has only existed for 15-20 years. Also hockey teams on average use less players in a season and have much less stats to keep track of. Recreating stat tables is just a huge waste of time... It invites vandalism and keeping it up is too much. (I feel the same way about individual stat tables on player pages). JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although positions are complicated and stats might be a waste of time, there could be some value added to the lists if they were changed to sortable tables with columns for the players' first and last years with the franchise. In addition to the alpha view, readers interested in a certain era could then reorder the list to get a view of which players were there at the time. Rklear (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My brain is shot right now from cleaning up a bunch of articles that were up for deletion, but I seem to recall some issue with the sortable tables that drove me nuts. Please, please, please don't change to sortable tables on these articles.

As to the stats, I don't remember any such discussion, but I do remember there was a discussion on the inclusion of positions played. The consensus was for less detail, not more, such as using only IF instead of having C and 1B on a single player and only including positions where the player spent significant time (so no listing Nick Swisher as a pitcher). That would indicate to me that we probably shouldn't include the stats. If we really want stat-by-team for a player, it seems like the player article is the place to have it. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:MLB yearly infobox

Just a thought: if this infobox is for Major League Baseball teams, shouldn't the lead year link to the Major League Baseball season, instead of the year in baseball? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but it seems like a lot of work to change it now. Spanneraol (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't be; the templates aren't substed, so it would just be a matter of changing it at the source... I think. Also, is there a way to code an image parameter into that infobox? An article that has a lot of images throughout seems bare without a lead image. I am getting ready to go for FA with 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season and these are just some little housekeeping issues I'd like to take care of, if possible, before going there. There is a good picture way down in that article right now (an image from the WS parade) that I'd like to use in the infobox. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We used to have the uniform pictures in the info box before the picture nazis deleted all of them... You could probably tweak that parameter. Spanneraol (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out and leave a message here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the links to point to the MLB seasons. The image param works now, but I don't know how to make it optional so that it doesn't show up if there's no image. I'll do a little more research. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The player template has an optional image parameter. You might want to look at its coding. -Dewelar (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! I got it. We've now got the option to add |image= and |caption= params to the seasonal infoboxes to add relevant seasonal images to the lead of the articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had it. I don't. Can anyone take a look? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess I do have it... just needed a purge. I also added the |imgwidth= parameter so we can set image size independently. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons

I've taken a crack at fleshing out the List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons article, using the corresponding article for the DBacks as an example. I'd be interested in getting some feedback from those of you who are regularly involved with the project. Anything that would be worthwhile that I've missed or, conversely, that I've included that doesn't need to be? Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things that I see:

• Get the strikes out of the references and into footnotes.
• On List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons, I also included the This Year in Baseball Awards. I don't know if any Blue Jays have won them, but it's possibly worthwhile to have.
• Additionally, I included footnotes on stadiums (stadia?) in that article, because the ballpark plays a big role in particular games.
• Give the lead a check-over for spacing and proper placement of references.
• SkyDome is the same as Rogers Centre, so they started play there in 1989, not 1999.
• If you're planning on taking this to WP:FLC, some of the criteria there have gotten more stringent in terms of MOS and ACCESS compliance since the promotion of the Diamondbacks list, so I would take a look and get some symbols in there to accompany your colored cells. You can't use bold per WP:BOLDFACE.

Just a start. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In order: done; they seem a little new for my taste, but I'll have a look; done; done; that was a brain fart, and I've corrected the typo; done some, and I'll keep reviewing. Mlaffs (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've listed this for peer review, so I'd welcome any further comments anyone wants to provide. Mlaffs (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

2010 World Series

I came across 2010 World Series while working on dead end pages. Just wondering if we really need this article 15 months before we can say anything about it, other than it probably will happen at some point. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there reliably sourced information about it yet? If not, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's not like we know the site of it or anything, so I'd say kill it off for the moment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, we don't even know the date yet. Obviously sites won't be determined until the playoffs are over.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually, we shouldn't work past the end of the current season (or approaching season if we're in the offseason), so at this point, we shouldn't have anything past the end of the 2009 season. After the '09 World Series, we can create the 2010 season pages, playoff series, World Series, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and prod it. That way if anyone who didn't see this conversation today objects, we have plenty of time to hear reasons to keep.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Navbox issue - Request for other opinions

I've been involved in an edit war that I've probably let go on for too long with Beast from da East regarding a few specific WS championship navboxes. The dispute has been about the scope of the navboxes regarding which players hould be included. Since te navboxes have been created, the standards seems to have been the postseason roster and other players that made a significant contribution (but were on the DL, etc). Beast from da East has added everyone who got an at bat at any point in the season. We discussed the matter on each other's talk pages quite a bit, but I think we've gotten to the point where further discussions are unconstructive. As you can see from the discussions, I am of the opinion that the navboxes should be limited to the postseason roster (with maybe a few exceptions), but I just need to take two steps away from it and solicit some other input. So whether you agree with my position on this issue or not, it would be great to get some other viewpoints on this. It seems this situation touches on some of the issues raised in the navbox thread above, and, frankly, I should have some here for feedback before the edit war got to this point. The navboxes involved in this situation are Template:1996 New York Yankees, Template:1998 New York Yankees, Template:1999 New York Yankees, and Template:2000 New York Yankees (which later spread to Template:1997 Florida Marlins and Template:2003 Florida Marlins). Thanks in advance. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have no preference as to how to handle these navboxes. Has there ever actually been an attempt to get a consensus on the issue?

One thing I will note is that Beast doesn't seem to understand the purpose of a navbox, which is the crux of the problem. Where these players get, for want of a better word, "recognized", is in the team-season article, e.g. 1996 New York Yankees season. You might have been better off pointing that out right off. -Dewelar (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just added the players who stayed with the organization through the series, not the players who were traded during the season. The template is called World Series Champions for a reason and players who played during the season not only get a World Series ring, but are recognized as World Series Champions due to fact that they are part of that team (Example: Roberto Kelly and Allen Watson on the 2000 New York Yankees). It is my belief that each player who was part of the World Series team deserves credit, from the top star to the bottom player. Mason clearly has no unearthly idea what a champion is.Beast from da East (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking potshots at other editors doesn't help anyone out. Dewelar, good point and I should have brought that up, but I'm not sure if that would have been convincing enough. Something that may have caused part of this issue is that in October, I switched the word "roster", which had been used in each of the navbox title lines, with "Champions". This was mainly a cosmetic move to more closely match the navboxes used in other sports. Perhaps reverting that switch could resolve some of this ambiguity? Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Players who are included on the post-season roster should be included. A guy who gets one at-bat or throws one inning during the season, not so much. Here's a recent example: Lou Marson traveled with the 2008 Phillies to the World Series games in case of injury. It even says that in his article. But he never got into a game. He was never officially added to the roster. You get a lot of extra guys who wouldn't normally be on the post-season roster, and they get added in September. Does that mean they should be included? No. The 25-man roster for the World Series (not the LCS, not the LDS) and any players added to that roster during the series is a non-arbitrary and easily definable cut-off. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. These nav boxes should only include the players on the World Series roster. Spanneraol (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, but I am open to having players that were on the postseason at any point (LDS or LCS included), or to include players that played a significant amount of time, but for a reason such as injury, couldn't play in the postseason. I think that has been the sort of unwirtten rule with these navboxes for the most part, though I think that is a minor issue within the larger one. The Lou Marson's of the world should (or, to address the disputed templates, the 1996 Ricky Bones' of the world) should be no-brainers. I mean, if folks want to discuss each player at each template, I am open to that as well, there just needs to be some reasonable limitation. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If we start including other players beyond a set limit, then we get into this same issue. For an example, Nomar got a 2004 World Series ring from the Sox. But he's not in their roster box, as well he shouldn't be. He was traded away, even though he made significant contributions. That's why we should have one set of criteria and stick to it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I see the problem with introducing too much ambiguity into the situation. I think that including LDS and LCS players, though, still adheres to that bright line, set critera goal. A player is either on or off any postseason roster. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's very true, but then these become "post-season roster boxes", rather than "World Series champion" roster boxes, then every team in the playoffs ends up having one... see where I'm going? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this, we include every member of a particular World Series Championship team regardless if he is on DL or only played a few games, just as we would for the Super Bowl Champions. All Masonpatriot has to do is allow these players to stay on the navbox, you know due to the fact that they are champions. I really don't understand why Mason has such hatred for thes players. As for Nomar, he clearly was not in the organization during the World Series and could not have played for the team in the postseason, Ricky Bones was on the team and could have played for the Yankees if need be.Beast from da East (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Players who played, played. Players who sat, sat. Regardless of who gets a ring, it's the players who go in the box. You've got so many possibilities of players being on the DL. If the Red Sox had won the 2004 World Series with Manny on the DL, he shouldn't be in the box, because he didn't play. In this particular (hypothetical) case, Manny is just the same as Joe Schmoe pitcher who got no face time and didn't play a lick in the World Series.KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mason, all players that were on a roster for the postseason (LDS, LCS and WS) should be included in a championship navbox. If a team's best player is injured in the LCS and does not play in the WS, but the team still wins, that player should be in the navbox, IMO. Since it may not be possible to know the postseason rosters, then I'd limit it to players that appeared in a postseason game (easier to verify). Players on the postseason roster are a good indicator of players that contributed to the team's success, and eliminates September callups. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Based upon this discussion and the opinions shared, my plan is to revert the navboxes listed above back to their original state, with the reduced links (listing the post-season roster. I know there is still talk regarding who fits that definition, but there seems to be stong sentiment, aside from Beast from da East, in support of this. I will revert the navboxes soon, unless anyone has any objections. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I don't have a large issue with the navbox including players on the whole post-season roster, so I'll step back from the World Series only podium and support Masonpatriot's undertaking. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support handling it in one of two ways: either listing only the players who participated in the World Series itself (or, where available, players on the World Series roster), or listing everyone who played for the team during the season. Anything in between and things get mushy. Bright lines are needed in cases like this, IMO. -Dewelar (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I really think it should be just players who played in the World Series. It makes no sense otherwise. Spanneraol (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I truly would prefer that as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In the end I think it works out both ways. For navboxes pertaining to teams from earlier eras, the "test" of who played in the WS is the best choice, because it's likely that sources don't exist for who was on the "active" roster for, say, the 1917 Chicago White Sox. All you have is the record of play and statistics. For modern teams, however, especially the past 10-15 years, there are available reliable sources that indicate who was on the postseason roster for whichever series. Just my $.02. I will revert the navboxes soon. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't they all have the same standard? Why have different standards for the 1917 White Sox and the 2008 Phillies? The World Series boxes should list the players on the WS roster.. otherwise it should just be a postseason box and you need to make tons more for teams that lost in the division series. Spanneraol (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just throw the September Call-Ups out the window (Even though Bones was not a call-up but arrived via a late year trade). How can we leave Dwight Gooden off the 1996 World Series Champions when the man clearly had the highlight of the 1996 season? How can we leave off Yankee legend Roberto Kelly a man who was the star of the truly horrible late 80's/early 90's team who returned to the team in 2000 and earned his first and only ring?Beast from da East (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a World Series navbox... not a season box.. for the season roster you can go to the season pages and get the whole roster. The World Series Champion boxes should only list the people who played in the WS. Maybe we can add a link to the full season article from these boxes? Spanneraol (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite the consensus reached above, Beast has again begun adding players to these templates. I have reverted them, and added a friendly warning to his talk page. I hope that this is sufficient for him to get the message. -Dewelar (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)