Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 3

MLB Team Season Articles

Hello. The start of the MLB season is 2½ months away. Similar to what I am doing with my NHL team season articles, I have started the concept of doing a similar project for the MLB baseball season this year. If anybody would like to work on this project, click here. The details and information is available on this site. Simply add your name next to a team, and feel free to create the article. I hope that this project is successful and has enough people working on it to get the articles for all 30 teams. Thanks. Ksy92003 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Cox

This article is a complete mess and needs work ASAP. Quadzilla99 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about player statistics

I notice that articles on players generally don't include their statistics. I assume the reason for that is that MLB statistics are widely available from other sources, such as baseball-reference.com, which can be accessed through an external link. My question is about players for whom this is not the case -- specifically, pre-1950 Negro League players and notable career minor leaguers. (I've edited articles for a few of these players.) For early Negro League and minor league players, their statistics may be scattered among various books or old baseball guides. Would it be considered acceptable to include the statistics for these players within the article (while citing the sources)? — BRMo 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposition of a merge between WPBB and WPBBP

I am proposing that the projects become one, I don’t see why the projects are separate. There are different ways you can do this and one way would be to make the WPBBP a subproject/taskforce of the main WPBB. This would have them using the same template, the discussions staying closer, etc.

Please comment --Borgarde 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What's WPBBP? -- KirinX 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball players --Borgarde 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for merging somehow. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I support merging. There's so much natural overlap, I don't see what the benefit would be in keeping them separate. This way we could keep consistent style/organization/etc. through all baseball-related pages. --Wayne Miller 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How long should we wait before taking any action, a simple move of the project to something like WikiProject Baseball/Biographies is all that is needed right now. --Borgarde 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Baseball

Baseball has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffpw (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Comments Regarding Player Birthplace

The Chien-Ming Wang article is the site of a dispute where a number of Chinese users are attempting to add Republic of China as Wang's birthplace. I've looked but am unable to verify this with a reliable source. I realize that ROC and Taiwan are the same, however since the threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia is verifiablity and not truth as per WP:VERIFY, I've asked for a source that includes Republic of China. The following reliable sources list Wang as being born in Taiwan: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], however I've yet to see a single reliable source that says Republic of China. Since this dispute is now starting to include personal attacks from a number of users 'recruited' by one particular editor, I'm requesting some third party opinions on how this should be handled. Thanks. Yankees76 00:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, if you are receiving personal attacks, you should talk to an admin about it and see about getting those editors/users straightened out, and/or banned. Here's a helpful link: [6]

As for your issue about Wang, I agree, I've never seen a source that places him anywhere but "Taiwan". -- KirinX 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the personal attacks, I've dealt with far worse in the past. I've templated/warned the users and will involve admins upon further transgressions. And yes, Taiwan is the only place I've seen any source mention regarding Wang. That's the problem - there are 3 Chinese editors who are insisting on placing Repbulic of China as Wangs birthplace - but when I ask for sources, I get strawman fallacies and runaround. Yankees76 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

I think it's about time we discussed naming conventions on articles.

While editting I've noticed articles that have players names and then (baseball), ones that have (baseball player) and ones that have (LEAGUE NAME player).

I can understand the use of league name player once there has been two players with the same name, but what is the default? (baseball) or (baseball player)?

Same goes with baseball teams. I've seen (baseball), (baseball team), and (LEAGUE team). Which one?

Should we not use (baseball) at all and simply put (baseball team)? And then if there has been two teams with the same name, one goes with the (LEAGUE team)?

I support the article that has the most significance to not carry a name in brackets. For instance, if a team has world wide significance, let them use the name of the article, and the one that is a hardly known minor league team to use (baseball team) at the end.

Any thoughts? --Borgarde 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:World Baseball Classic players

How should the sub-categories within this category be named? They are currently Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of Country or this way, Category:Country players in the 2006 World Baseball Classic

The current categories are:

• Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of Australia
• Category:Canadian players in the 2006 World Baseball Classic
• Category:Cuban players in the 2006 World Baseball Classic
• Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of Japan
• Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of South Korea
• Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of the Netherlands
• Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players for Taiwan
• Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of the United States
• Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of Venezuela

I prefer "Canadian players at the 2006 World Baseball Classic". Just want some thoughts into this. --Borgarde 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shoeless Joe Jackson

Sorry if this is not the place to put this, but I just noticed the tag on the discussion page of Shoeless Joe. It says that Joe's article is "middle-importance". Say it ain't so!

If you are looking at pure numbers over a full career, maybe this is accurate. If you are looking at pure talent it is not even close. If you are looking at the what he added to the legend, lore, and myth of the game he is probably the most important player ever (at least tied with the Babe, Ty Cobb, and Yogi Berra). If you are looking at how he affected the game of baseball and how baseball is viewed in American culture - it's just him and the Babe.

In short, could somebody please check the umpire's eyeglass prescription?

Smallbones 16:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe it should be Mid-Importance. There is a set of criterion available here that you can take a look at.

While Shoeless Joe is an important part of baseball history, as an individual, he is not as important as the scandal he was a part of, and thus, in my opinion, should be "Mid", not "High". The Black Sox Scandal is "notable in a significant and important way within baseball", but people could even make an argument that it really didn't change much in how it contributes to the modern game. -- KirinX 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that the scandal did contribute a great deal to the modern game. It was the first time someone was banned for life from organized baseball (including the Hall of Fame), which echoes in today's Pete Rose debates. Also, this issue helped to establish and define the role of the Commissioner in baseball. Add to that the fact that it marked the end of the career of one of (perhaps) the five best players of baseball's first half-century and the 90-year championship drought for one of the AL's premiere franchises. Altogether a landmark event in baseball. Caknuck 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first players banned for life for throwing a game were Jim Devlin, George Hall, Bill Craver, and Al Nichols of the 1877 Louisville Grays. I'm not sure of the timing, but the banning of Lee Magee probably also preceded Shoeless Joe and the rest of the Black Sox; see [7]. BRMo 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Tagging

User:WatchlistBot has finished tagging baseball articles, with the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Articles. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help (like check the categories again and tag new articles at some point in the future). Ingrid 21:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug Harvey

Doug Harvey has been tagged as being part of the baseball project because it is is in Category:Buffalo Bisons players a category which says it is for a baseball team. It seems like this is a mistake though, since Doug Harvey is a hockey player (who played for a hockey team called the Buffalo Bisons). There may be other hockey players in this category as well. I'm posting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey as well. Perhaps someone from here and/or someone from there could work this out. For now, I've just got Doug Harvey explicitly excluded from tagging by User:WatchlistBot. Ingrid 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there once an umpire named Doug Harvey? I vaguely recall there being one. DandyDan2007 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Billy Rogell

I did the Billy Rogell page about six months ago but didn't get any feedback on it. Originally I'd planned to do a whole series, or at least continue my work through a good number of players. Is this what we're looking for here? Because if so I'd definitely be interested in taking time to work on some more baseball pages. Someone drop me a line here or email me: desjardfan@gmail.com

Desjardfan 09:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 Major League Baseball season

I have been involved with a dispute with Fahima07 about whether or not the scores of every single game should be listed in that article. After February 28, the actions needed will be taken to the article. Any disagreements may be posted here. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs}

• Don't Keep All the scores are gonna be on the individual team articles, and it would be a waste of time and space, and it wouldn't be that organized also. Please place your input. Thanks. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs}
• Do Keep I can't be bothered going to each team article to know the score, might as well have it on one page, just look at the FA Cup 2006-07 Qualifying Rounds page, that has around 1000 games on it but it's still useful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.118 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 February 2007.

Comment I don't believe that FA Cup 2006-07 Qualifying Rounds is a fair comparison. The teams in the FA Cup don't have their own individual article to show all their games. All 30 MLB teams have their own article for the 2007 season to show all the scores, whereas the FA Cup does not. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs}

• Don't Keep There are 2,430 regular season games in a MLB season, the article would be forever long. --Holderca1 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not Keep Each page has a 2007 page that can keep track of that team's records. It would just be redundant. — Linnwood (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not Keep Its just going to be listing something that is already available at at least one other location.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I have no opinion right now, but if it is to be kept, it should be somehow compressed into the format of the gamelogs in the current team season articles. example --Borgarde^talk 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not keep, I think it will be a waste of space, even compressed it's extremely long. --Borgarde^talk 04:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do not keep per WP:NOT. Keeping the scores sounds like making a huge "indiscriminate collection of information" to me. Those who are interested in scores can look into MLB.com if they want. Vic₂₂₆ 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do keep The scores would be easily accessable and you don't have to go to each team's article. It doesn't matter if it's too long, you can delete it if you want at the end of the regular season. Fahima07 talk 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note Or we could have one page dedicated to one month of games, like how each grand prix has a page of its own in Formula 1. Fahima07 talk 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment What is the point of putting a lot of information in an article, for 2430 games, if you're just gonna delete it anyway? Does this really make sense? And if there is an agreement to keep this included in 2007 Major League Baseball season, would you really want to be the only one to fill all the games in? Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do not keep We don't need any game-by-game season records for any team at all. WP:NOT has several references to why to not have this - indiscriminate amount of info, basically news source. It's bad enough people are putting 100+ lines of garbage for the teams season history,. The page will also most likely get too big and violate WP:SIZE, which is a guideline, but still a viable guideline.. Bottom line: There's no need for it. Retropunk 06:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Caribbean Baseball World Series"

The traduction is wrong. There is no "Caribbean Baseball World Series", but "The Caribbean Series". In Spanish the event is called "La Serie del Caribe", not "La Serie Mundial del Caribe de Béisbol". Someone must fix this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.45.125.51 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 12 February 2007.

This is correct. A non-admin can't do the move, since Caribbean Series already exists as a redirect. I'll post it to be moved, when I have a minute, or maybe someone else can beat me to it. --Djrobgordon 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting the move now. --Djrobgordon 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the template {{CaribbeanWorldSeries}} be altered and the other links be moved? Seeing as the correct name is Caribbean Series? --Borgarde^talk 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Previously existing teams

It's probably been discussed before, but I find it annoying that teams like the Philadelphia Athletics and St. Louis Browns are listed under their current incarnations. Shouldn't they have separate articles? At the least, it would seem to make the current articles not so long. Hockey has articles for the Minnesota North Stars and Winnipeg Jets, I think baseball ought to be the same way. DandyDan2007 13:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1994 strike year controversy

I'm having a problem on the Atlanta Braves page. An anon user with multiple IP addresses keeps changing the article so that the Braves only have 11 consecutive season division championshps from 14. He/she/it refuses to enage in any discussion at all on the issue, and has reverted several attempts at a compromise that gives both positions. If wyou would like to weigh in on this specific issue, the discussion and details of the problem are on Talk:Atlanta Braves.

I would like to know if the project has dealt with how to handle the strike year and its effects on team records before. Is there a consensus from the project on what to do in these situations? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. - BillCJ 03:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, all fourteen championships were consecutive because at no point in that span did another team hold the title of division champion. For what it's worth, Baseball Reference doesn't credit the Expos with winning the division that year. The Nationals' official website credits the Expos with having the best record in baseball, but not with winning the division crown. [8] The Braves' official site credits them with fourteen consecutive division championships. [9] The anon's edits may be in good faith, but they're not correct. --Djrobgordon 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I'm going to repost your comments on the Talk:Atlanta Braves page, and try to work the references into the article. Thanks again! - BillCJ 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a favorite announcer on radio? Please think about being bold and placing a WP:RADIO banner tag on their talkpage

Hello, I am a member of this project and WP:RADIO too. I grew up listening to Vin Scully and Jerry Doggett. I've added a couple of the Dodger (no booing or hissing, please) to the Radio project with the talkpage tag. You can see it on those articles.

It is a real shame that great announcers like Doggett does not have much of an article. Like all the greats, he drew a picture and I remember scoring games as they were announced on radio. Those were the days when you had a program to do boxscores. Just a thought and a tip of the hat to my Dad who started me down this route. Cheers, Ronbo76 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Roush Fenway Racing

Any idea if Roush Fenway Racing should be included under this project? While it seems this turn of events will have the largest impact on NASCAR itself, it seems to me that this is going to have an important and extremely notable recognition within Major League Baseball as well, since this is the first time anything like this has happened within any of the so called "four major sports" in America. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is marked as a baseball stub, I think you'll find that when Watchlistbot updates the articles through the use of categories, this page will be added. I'm not to sure on it's context though, just that if it is marked a baseball stub it will be added automatically. --Borgarde^talk 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm holding that it will gain relevance as it could introduce a new demographic to baseball. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This page now automatically archives, discussions that are 28 days without comment are archived into the current archive. I put 28 days because 4 weeks seems a reasonable amount of time to consider a discussion dead. I've also made a link to all the archives in the project to try to organise it a little better, might put it in a table or something later, but for now it's all fine. --Borgarde^talk 03:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 MLB team articles

Assessments

The 2007 team pages for the Major League Baseball season, right now they are all more or less at a start level I'd say. Does anyone have opinions on their importance? Low? Mid?

You could say they are mid-importance for the current season, but in the overall project they are low. Just want some opinions before I mark any. Thanks. --Borgarde (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think mid seems reasonable, as long as they're demoted at the beginning of the 2008 season. I sort of despise season articles, particularly current ones, but they're nonetheless visible, so maintaining them needs to be a priority. Djrobgordon 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Game Logs

Are we just going to go with one month at a time or are we going to go with an entire season in the article? Also, why do we need to show off days? It take up unnecessary space in the article. Kingjeff 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See: WP:Baseball/game log — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

All Time Rosters

Not sure if this discussion should happen here or at the Players Task Force pages.

I've been trying to clean up links on the All Time Roster pages, and have noticed there is almost no standardization, particularly in what data is included. Some pages only have players with existing wikipedia articles, and no other information. Unfortunately, this makes them a duplicate of the category for that teams' players, which is discouraged by wikipedia. Some rosters include everyone who has been on the 40-man roster, whether they appeared in a game or not, while other rosters restrict the list to those who played in at least one major league game. Also rosters vary as to whether they include the years played and position played.

Any thoughts?--Kathy A. 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a player should have played in at least one Major League game to appear on an all-time roster. MLB.com seems ambivalent on the issue. For instance, Preston Larrison, a career minor leaguer on the Tigers 40, is on their official all-time roster, but John Smoltz, who was in the same position twenty years ago, is not. I'll be interested to see what they do with the minor leaguers on this year's 40 if they never play in the majors.

As for the other stuff, I think years are useful, while positions are not. There are many players it'd be difficult to list only one for, and a list of every position a player appeared at could get unwieldy, and wouldn't be particularly informative. Listing Willie Mays as a CF/1B doesn't accurately depict his career. Or if we're just listing one, it would be a pain to have constant debates about whether Craig Biggio should be on the Astros' roster as a 2B or CF. Actually, that one's pretty obvious, but you see what I'm getting at. --Djrobgordon 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good points on the positions. One advantage to restricting the rosters to those who actually played a game would be that everyone on the list is automatically notable - no problems with people thinking they need to make articles for non-notable career minor leaguers.--Kathy A. 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely include the years they actually played at least one game in the majors. Positions could be included, but probably only in the more general sense (ie. P,IF,OF). One argument in favor: you can easily see who was a pitcher. Also I would suggest including some kind of notation if the player is especially notable, such as "MLB-HOF". —Mike 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HOF is a good idea, and one that hadn't occurred to me. The P, IF, OF makes sense, too, but what to do with Djrobgordon's example of Craig Biggio? Choose one, or have both IF and OF? (Yes, I do know that Biggio played about 2300 games in the infield, and less than 400 in the outfield, but I'm sure there are other players who played a more equal number of games in each.) --Kathy A. 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He actually caught more games than he played in the outfield, so if he would get an OF next to his name, he would be due a C as well, not to mention that is how he broke into the majors. I say put their position as what they are most known for and list that specific position, if they played multiple positions, get more general like OF, IF. How about Alex Rodriguez, obviously if this is by team, it is easy, since he played SS everywhere else and 3B in New York. --Holderca1 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If we decide that it's useful to include positions, we could simply set a rule, noted at the top of each roster, that the position indicated is the one that player appeared the most at with that team. If we're really interested in accurately representing multi-position players, we could list any position at which a player appeared at least, say, 1/3 of the time, but I wouldn't want to be the one to do all that math. --Djrobgordon 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So to summarize the thoughts so far: include only players who played at least one game for that team, include the years they played for that team, include where they played the most for that team (P, C, IF, OF), and include HOF as appropriate. Also include a paragraph at the beginning of each roster saying who is included.--Kathy A. 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Maybe standardizing these rosters would be a good project for the Players task force, either concurrent to the infobox project, or once that's done. --Djrobgordon 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Portal

I'm in the early stages of reviving Portal:Baseball, and it occurred to me that this might be a better place to post a notice than the talk page of a moribund Portal. Ideally, I'd like to have it up and running before opening day. Right now, I'm working on a redesign, since the color scheme and layout make it pretty difficult to read. If anyone's interested, my work in progress is at User:Djrobgordon/sandbox. I realize doing edits in my sandbox isn't the most transparent way of going about it, but I thought it was better than using the real portal for my experiments. Even if you're not interested in being permanently involved in the portal, I'd love some constructive criticism. If you have any comments please leave them at Portal talk:Baseball, rather than my sandbox talk page. That way I won't have to move them there after the redesign is complete.

Ideally, I'd like to have a few other editors help evaluate articles and images to feature on the page, as well as to update the News and Did You Know... sections. I don't particularly mind doing it myself, but it's not really in the spirit of Wikipedia. It seems like the Portal has had two spurts of activity, led by individual editors who abandoned it soon after. I don't plan on abandoning it, but I could get hit by a bus or something.

Thanks for any help you can give. --Djrobgordon 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on a few minor things (I'm not really happy with the "Topics" section yet), but for all practical purpose, the redesign is complete and the portal is live. I have it set up to rotate the articles automatically, so it's not a simple matter for someone to help with the coding, but what I could really use is for people to keep an eye out for articles and images that could be featured there. Each section has a "Nomination" link at the bottom where any user can suggest material to be featured. It takes more time to find good material to include than to author the portal itself, so any noms would be a great help. Also, any user can vote for or against a nomination. --Djrobgordon 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Article standardization project proposed!!

Hey all ... this project is attempting to cover a wide variety of things within the category of baseball. Although commendable, its certainly hard to manage everything all at once! I would like to help by proposing to develop standard article templates for all team and league articles to promote consistency among the articles. I understand that some aspects of this has already been done (for example, major league teams should follow a specific ToC), but may not be consistently applied (especially for minor league teams and leagues). What I'm proposing is ensuring that we have a standard a number of things, including:

• Tables of contents
• Infoboxes
• Tables within articles
• Article introduction language

I propose to establish standard templates primarily for the minor leagues, including both current and former teams as well as current and former leagues. Part of this sub-project will be to identify and catalog every minor league team and league that has existed and to create, at a minimum, stub pages for them.

I have a lot of ideas, and intend to leverage as much work as has been done in the general WikiProject Baseball as possible. I will begin to work on this, but seek to identify a couple of volunteers to provide input and help. I would like to keep the initial involvement to a few individuals as that will promote efficiency. If anyone is interested, please leave leave a comment on my talk page. --CPAScott 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

2/28/07 Update

I have compiled a listing of all major and minor leagues as well as most current and some historical independent leagues. See User:CPAScott/Template01. This can be the master list to track the creation of the league pages once the template is developed. Right now, no one has yet expressed an interest in joining this task force -- please let me know if you can help! I will work on a template for leagues and seek member opinion before updating or creating the stub pages.

A task force page has been established --CPAScott 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So your proposing a Manual of Style for baseball team and league articles? I think this is a very good idea, and I suggest using the football club manual of style as a guide.Timpcrk87 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Cap for Team infoboxes

I was wondering if someone could create a cap with the team's cap logo for each MLB team for use in the infobox instead of the current square with cap logo. I'm thinking of something like the NFL team's have with the helmet in the infobox only a baseball cap. I am not artistic or graphic skilled in any way so I can't do it. If someone else can and will, I think it would really improve the appearance of the team pages and infoboxes.Timpcrk87 06:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review Notice

If anyone's interest, I just requested a peer review for Youngstown Ohio Works. The peer review is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Youngstown Ohio Works.--Djrobgordon 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

newhan -- are spring training stats trivial?

not for guys trying to make the team in spring training, they are not. more important than minor league stats, as the major league staff is watching. imho. --Epeefleche 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to post stats for Milledge, Ben Johnson, Anderson Hernandez etc?? The thing is, minor league stats are conserved and remembered years to come...they span a greater amount of time and show development. Spring training stats, more or less, are thrown out the window...it's a time for pitchers to try new things and it's more about getting into shape. We can discuss this further but it probably be best to refer it to wiki-project baseball. SERSeanCrane 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If I followed them, yes, I would post their stats.

Spring training serves different purposes for different players. What you say as to spring training being about getting into shape is the case for players who have made the team, but that is not what it is about for Newhan. For Newhan, it is about impressing Willie and the coaching staff, so that they pick him for the team.

And as to spring training stats being thown out the window, the trend is the reverse. See, for example, http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/N/David-Newhan.shtml , in which you can see that Newhan didn't have very good springs hitting wise in 2005 and 2006.

As far as referring it to wiki-project baseball, that sounds fine to me if you are unwilling to undo your revert.

Might I prevail upon you to do it for me, as I am not sure how that is done.

Thanks. --Epeefleche 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

David Smith (baseball historian)

The founder of Retrosheet has an article, which I found while working on uncategorized articles. I placed him in the Category:Baseball Statistics, but in retrospect, didn't think it fit. If you'd like to come up with a better category, or if you think it's good enough, come up with one. DandyDan2007 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He should probably be wherever Bill James is.--Djrobgordon 02:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

World Series championship teams at CfD

--After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry Simmons

I came across the article of Harry Simmons today. It really needs to be cleaned up. I don't know anything about this guy, but if anyone can cite sources or do anything to clean it up it would be appreciated. It doesn't read very well at all right now. --Borgarde^talk 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some wikification and prose cleanup. The writing's not great now, but it's passable. Still no sources, of course.--Djrobgordon 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It looked like when they typed up the article, they hit return a lot, so I just undid that. I also eliminated one redundant sentence about staying in Montreal as well. DandyDan2007 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up this article about my Dad. I will try to add some references from the New York Times and some magazines which had published articles about Harry Simmons. I eventually plan to submit his name for nomination to the Composite Ballot for the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. Any suggestions would be welcome. My e-mail address is davezxc@yahoo.com. Davezxc 12:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Baseball statisticians category?

This is something of a followup to my previous question about David Smith. Looking at Category:Baseball statistics, you got a number of statisticians or analysts. I suppose you could say sabermetricians. A good number of them are employees of Baseball Prospectus. It seems to me that should be a separate category. If you agree, what's the best name for the category? DandyDan2007 08:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Manager templates

Most of the college football teams have a template at the bottom of their page with a link to each of the coaches' entries. Could we do that with baseball teams and managers? Tomdaddy53 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 Chicago White Sox season game log and 2007 Cleveland Indians season game log

Links to previous discussion:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/MLB team season articles format#Game Log

Please take a look at these two articles, and then look at these articles: 2007 Chicago White Sox season and 2007 Cleveland Indians season. Is this the way that everybody wants to do the game logs? And if so, do you want to leave it in this format, or do you want to change the teams so it says "Chicago" instead of "White Sox", "Los Angeles (AL)" instead of "Angels", "New York (AL)" instead of "Yankees"? Is it necessary to make a different shade to differentiate between home stands and road trips, since after the games are completed the table will be color coded to indicate wins and losses anyway, eliminating the blue color? It doesn't matter as much to me, but it would clearly be best if it is the same format for every team's article. Please leave your comments here, and we'll see what the consensus is. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs}

My opinion is that off-days should not be shown. After seeing the different between the tables with the off-days shown and ones with them not, the one with the off-days just looks like a schedule. With regard to the highlighting of colours, there is no need to highlight series like you said, as there is already a column for home and away, there does not need to be a second thing to show the same outcome, after all, they are going to be shaded either green or red for a win or loss (respectively). --Borgarde^talk 03:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the highlighting, I too agree, and will switch the ChiSox back to no shade for away game. Regarding the use of City names or Team names, I am of the opinion that team names work better due to inter-league play, and from a historical stand point since teams have and do move from city to city but retain the name. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How about adding the starting pitcher? The "Record" and "Division Standings" columns could be condensed down into a single column with entries like "5-0, 1st" or "3-7, 4th (tie)". —Mike 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the starting pitcher as important as the Winning and Losing pitchers, for historical records? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: First, let me start off by saying that I agree with not listing the off-days in the game logs. So we can eliminate those from all of those that currently have those shown as black-shaded.

Now, in these new "templates" for the game logs, we have removed the "Division Standings" column from the table, which now it seems like I don't know why I put it there in the first place. I don't think that it would be necessary to include the starting pitcher, as in most cases, the starting pitcher will either be the winning or losing pitcher, and in the table listing the pitcher as the starter and pitcher of record would be rather redundant. I think that all the information that is currently on there is sufficient and all that is necessary for the game logs.

As for the names of the teams listed in the game log, I still believe that it would be best to show them as the location as opposed to their nicknames. I don't know exactly why, but this seems to look better to me. I know that's not a good reason, but it's the only one I have right now. Okay, I think I might have one... if you look in your local newspaper, if you look at the standings they will say "Los Angeles", "Chicago", "Cleveland", not "Angels", "White Sox", or "Indians" (unless that team is the local team, in which it would be like that). On mlb.com, for the scoreboard on the mainpage, I believe it says the location, not the team name, as well. To me, it simply makes sense to list them according to their city or other geographical location as opposed to their team name. Any comments about this? Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs}

As I said above, I think it is less confusing with all of the Inter-League play for Chicago, LA, NYC. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case you need to abbreviate, the first initial of the league that the team plays in is used as the third letter in its three-letter abbreviation. Example: LAA, LAN, CHA, CHN. Read as: Los Angeles, American. Los Angeles, National, and so on.--Axion22 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, do we need the column 'OT'? In a season long game log is the notation of extra inning games needed? Perhaps that column would be better served by Games Behind (GB) or Winning Percentage (PCT)? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're right about the teams because of inter-league play, I don't really know right now. Also, we can get rid of the OT column on the game logs. I have looked at espn.com when i was doing the game log of 2006 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season and noticed that the website does not indicate extra-innings anyway. In hockey, it is a good idea to put the overtimes in because a team can still get a point for losing in overtime, but in baseball it's win or lose, all or nothing. So if you want to go ahead an eliminate the 'OT' column from all the articles, you may do so. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs}

Instead of using OT, how about, in the case of extra innings, we do the traditional thing, which is to put F-inning after the score for games with bonus baseball.--Axion22 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Although, I think we should still include the all-star game in the game log, as the outcome of the game does affect the teams as far as home-field advantage goes. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs}

How do you purpose doing that, since none of the teams will play the all star game? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Example Log:

#	Date	Visitor	Score	Home	Win/Loss	Save	Attendance	Record	GB
79	June 30	White Sox	6-2	Cubs	Garland/Marshall		40,720	52-27	2.5
80	July 1	White Sox	8-6	Cubs	Cotts/Dempster	Jenks	41,027	53-27	1.5
81	July 2	White Sox	15-11	Cubs	Zambrano/Buehrle	Howry	40,919	53-28	2.5

Is everyone good with this? Or are there more purposed changes? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that we should show the GB or the other team's pitcher, but I do agree with using the team's nicknames (White Sox, Angels) instead of "Chicago" and "Los Angeles (AL)". I had a very long explanation for this, but my computer was acting weird and couldn't send it, then it all got deleted. I don't feel like typing it up again, so if you want to know what I was gonna say, you can send me a message. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs}

When you say "the other team's pitcher" do you mean the losing pitcher? Or are we talking about starting pitcher? I think the Game Winner, Game Loser, and Save, if one, are important. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

When I said the other team's pitcher, I mean that if the White Sox won, and Neal Cotts got the win, I don't think it is absolutely necessary to list Ryan Dempster in the table. The section of the game log that you listed an example is for "[[2006 Chicago White Sox season]]". Since this is the article for the Chicago White Sox, I don't think we have to put the Cubs pitcher included. I think that if somebody wanted to know who got the decision for the Cubs, they would first go to the Cubs article rather than the White Sox article. Again, that's just speculation, and that's just what appears to me to be the case. Long story short, I just think that in the White Sox article, we should only include the White Sox pitchers, not the pitchers of their opposition. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I had not thought of it that way, but now that you have I agree. Would it be better to head the column "Pitcher of Record" rather than "Win/Loss" ? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know there is a better way of heading the column for the pitcher of record for the team who's article it is listed on, but right now I don't know what that would be. I think that there is a better way of heading that column than "pitcher of record". Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - These articles need to be moved, they violate wiki policy. Subpages do not exist in main article space. The slash should be replaced with a space, i.e. 2007 Chicago White Sox season game log.--Holderca1 03:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking over this, I have a few comments, I think the color coding should be based on home/away rather than win/loss, you can put a W or an L next to the score to denote a win or loss. Then you would just need one team column titled opponent. Keep the other teams pitcher, it's nice to be able to look through and see how a team has done against a specific pitcher, and split the win/loss into two columns. Also, I think the record of the pitchers should be included, see below for what I envision --Holderca1 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Example Log:

#	Date	Opponent	Score	Win	Loss	Save	Attendance	Record	GB
79	June 30	Cubs	W 6-2	Garland (12-3)	Marshall (6-6)		40,720	52-27	2.5
80	July 1	Cubs	W 8-6	Cotts (3-1)	Dempster (1-4)	Jenks (19)	41,027	53-27	1.5
81	July 2	Cubs	L 15-11	Zambrano (12-4)	Buehrle (10-6)	Howry (22)	40,919	53-28	2.5

• I agree with the some of the changes you made. You are correct that it is a bit silly to use two columns for Home/Visitor rather than just Opponent. The use of background shade for home or away seems correct as well. Where I do disagree with you is the placement of the record of the pitchers, which I think belongs on the individual season article, but not in the gamelog itself. Also, I do think the use of background color to denote a win is useful. I purpose a modification. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Example Log:

#	Date	Opponent	Score	Win	Loss	Save	Attendance	Record	GB
79	June 30	Cubs	6-2	Garland	Marshall		40,720	52-27	2.5
80	July 1	Cubs	8-6	Cotts	Dempster	Jenks	41,027	53-27	1.5
81	July 2	Cubs	15-11	Zambrano	Buehrle	Howry	40,919	53-28	2.5

Please see: WP:Baseball/game_log — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You would probably still want to include the "W" or "L" as people who are color blind may not be able to pick up the color differences as easily. And someone should try to print it out on a black and white printer to see if the red and green look very different. —Mike 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that the "W" or "L" should be kept in front of the score. Also, I think the pitcher's record should go on this page. It allows a quick reference to see how a pitcher progressed throughout the season, which I feel is closely related to the team and so belongs on the log page. I apologize if this is the wrong place, but I'm not familiar with the layout of Wiki quite yet. I'd be willing to do the Indians game log, which is currently empty on the page listing the teams. Should I add myself to it? Good work on the logs so far! Tytrain 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Example Log:

#	Date	Opponent	Score	Win	Loss	Save	Attendance	Record
79	June 30	Cubs	6-2	Garland	Marshall		40,720	52-27
80	July 1	Cubs	8-6	Cotts	Dempster	Jenks	41,027	53-27
81	July 2	Cubs	15-11	Zambrano	Buehrle	Howry	40,919	53-28

I still think that green and red would be best for denoting wins and losses. If we use gray and white, people might get confused as to which color is for wins and losses. It is common sense that green would be the good thing for the team (Wins) and the red would be the bad (losses).
I am really hoping that we can get this straightened out by the time the season starts, as it would be good to keep everything organized by the time we start adding stuff. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The score, I think, should still be listed with the home team's score first, even for losses - 11-15 in the example above. Tytrain 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think there needs to be something showing whether the game is home or away, perhaps @Cubs for away games and just Cubs for home games. I also think that the W/L should be included with the score, but I do not agree with Tytrain above. I like the style that makes the entire row either red or green. Lastly, I suggest that another box be added at the end with a link to a full box score for that game. Should stay consistent and use the same website for every game, preferably the teams own website.Timpcrk87 06:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Example Log:

#	Date	Opponent	Score	Win	Loss	Save	Attendance	Record
79	June 30	Cubs	6-2	Garland	Marshall		40,720	52-27
80	July 1	Cubs	8-6	Cotts	Dempster	Jenks	41,027	53-27
81	July 2	Cubs	15-11	Zambrano	Buehrle	Howry	40,919	53-28

As you can see by the edits from my last example log, I think we should put the pitcher (Win, Loss, Save) in Bold letters for easier reading. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Deadline

I would like to impose a March 28 deadline on deciding how to do these. March 28 is four days before the season starts, so I would like to get this part straightened out by then if possible. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a indication of home/away is need. And to clarify, I am in favor of the colored boxes, and in favor of always listing the article team's score first, win or lose. Tytrain 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you use coloured boxes, having the teams score first is unneccessery. --Borgarde^talk 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That's true. Thanks for pointing that out. I then personally go for colored boxes. Now, I actually think green and red are a bit too loud. What about white/dark grey instead, as shown above? And I'd like to add another plug for listing the pitchers' records. Tytrain 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/game log for the example that I have posted for April of the Minnesota Twins 2006 season. If you've noticed that it looks a lot different, that is because the previous example listed there did not show wins/losses, and red/green was how I knew how to do them from working on the 2006-07 NHL season articles. In my example, the "@" symbol is used to indicate road games, and no "@" is a home game. Second, I don't think it's necessary to have the home team's score listed first and have the boxes shaded to indicate wins and losses. It's redundant information to list it twice with two different formats. I personally like the red and green because they are very different colors, not to mention they are complimentary colors and go well together because of that.Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The example you linked me to looks fine. I would say that's what we go with with one modification: the addition of pitcher's records. Tytrain 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel that it's necessary to include the pitcher's records in these game logs? Personally, I don't feel like they are needed. I can't explain why, but it just doesn't seem like it's gonna do any use to list those there. Please state your rationale behind wanting to include the pitcher's record in the game logs. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It does show progressively shows a w-l record during the season. Kingjeff 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to show win loss records because it shows progress through the season. Starters who are on the team the entire year will accumulate large win/loss totals, and this will make them jump out from the September call-ups/bullpen pitchers. It will also make it obvious when the team encounters a team that had a great year (losing to a 15-3 pitcher, for example) or when the team beat a weaker team (winning against a 1-9 pitcher, for example). I understand that this info is not crucial, but I feel it is appropraite for a game log, whose overall ideal is to show a season at a glance. I think win/loss records will add quite a bit to that. Tytrain 14:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Proposal

Okay, it's been a while since we've really had anybody comment about how to go about doing the game logs. I think we can safely say that we have the format taken care of (Date / Opponent / Score / Win / Loss / Save / Attendance / Record) and that those are the headings that we are going to include in our game log table. That said, I think we only have two items of discussion still ongoing.

1) What colors should we use to indicate a win or loss: Green/Red or DarkGray/White?

2) Should we include the pitchers records next to their names in the game log: Yes or No?

Please state your opinion and hopefully we can get a consensus. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 16:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Green and red. 2. Show records. Tytrain 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To be consistent with season articles for other sports, I suggest using similar red/green (the lighter #ffdddd and #ddffdd) and displaying "W" or "L" before the score, especially if the team's score isn't always first. You might also want to consider using a set of templates like {{CFB Schedule Start}}, {{CFB Schedule Entry}}, and {{CFB Schedule End}}. —Mike 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice

If nobody proposes any more ideas for this or states their opinion about the game logs, then we'll just have to go with whatever we have, which right now is Red/Green and pitcher's records. During the season, we might be able to have another discussion about this and make the necessary changes, but we will only be able to take stuff out, not put stuff in. Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Deadline's Passed

Alright, our deadline has come and passed. So, here is our final proposal. Again, during the season we may remove some stuff from the game logs that we already have, but we may not add any information already included. Here is our final proposal; this is what all of our game logs are gonna be modeled off of.

#	Date	Opponent	Score	Win	Loss	Save	Attendance	Record
79	June 30	Cubs	6 - 2	Garland (12-3)	Marshall (6-6)		40,720	52-27
80	July 1	Cubs	8 - 6	Cotts (3-1)	Dempster (1-4)	Jenks (19)	41,027	53-27
81	July 2	Cubs	15 - 11	Zambrano (12-4)	Buehrle (10-6)	Howry (22)	40,919	53-28

Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Moe Berg FAR

Moe Berg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please help resolve the remaining citation tag on Moe Berg? See the comments on the FAR link (above). Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional sections for MLB team season articles format

I proposed adding some additional optional sections to the season articles format page. You can find the discussion here: /MLB team season articles format#Additional sections. Comments are welcome. —Mike 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosters

Hey everybody... be sure that your team's roster is updated prior to Opening Day. Some of the teams have not finalized their rosters; make sure that your team's roster matches the roster on the team site prior to Opening Day. I've already updated several of the rosters. All of the teams should be finalizing their rosters this weekend. Tomdaddy53 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And while you are at it, please take a second to double check that links are going to the right page. Non-baseball folks will be quite confused to click on Milton Bradley and end up on a page about games. Thanks!--Kathy A. 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

I was thinking it may be useful to create a template that can be put on a gamelog if it falls behind on being updated. Then all the gamelogs needing updated will be in one category and easy for someone to take care of before it falls 10+ games behind. ---CWY2190^TC 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe FAR

Jim Thorpe has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Miskwito 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player naming conventions

I have put up an RFC here to decide how best to disambiguate baseball players (ie. using "(baseball)" or "(baseball player)". Your input is appreciated. Caknuck 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The scope of the RFC has been expanded into a draft proposal to create a naming convention for baseball players. Please review and add your comments, feedback and suggestions. Thanks, Caknuck 04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Game Log

Why are we having redundancy? Should we not use internal links only once per series? Kingjeff 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That guideline is difficult to maintain, especially in tabular data. I initiated List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game a while back and it has gone between minimal links and all links numerous times. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about when a series is played. A team plays lets say the Minnesota Twins for 3 straight games in 3 straight days. Do we really need to link all 3 games to the Minnesota Twins? I don't think so. Kingjeff 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. In general, WP:MOSLINK recommends not linking to the same article twice within a small area. That follows your suggestion but some people ignore that guideline within tables. If you're saying we shouldn't list the opponent name more than once at all, that's also a good point. I can go along with that unless it messes up the table sorting (which I imagine it does). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to list all the games in the series. If you go back to when I started to created the table, you'll noticed that I only linked a team once a series simly because it was pointless doing it for the entire series. Kingjeff 04:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont care either way how its done. Lets just reach an agreement before changing anything. ---CWY2190^TC 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How about we link teams once per series? This way it's not redundant and there would be enough throughout the table. Kingjeff 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it really make much of a difference? Don't you think it would look bad if we have blue/black/black blue/black/black blue/black/black blue/black/black blue/black/black? It would look much better if it were all blue (all linked) no matter how redundant.

And besides, isn't repeating the team (Angels, Angels, Angels) redundant already? We can't avoid being redundant in baseball because we have 3-, 4-game series. It doesn't hurt and it looks a hell of a lot better. --Ksy92003 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look bad if the linking is consistent. And repeating the teams isn't redundant because we're talking about different games. Kingjeff 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See? You said yourself that if it's consistent it doesn't look bad. So let's leave it that way. --Ksy92003 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

<Minor League Team> players categories

I'm cross-posting the following from the WP:WPBBP discussion page to try and get as much input as possible. If you have comments, please post them over there. Thanks, Sanfranman59 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are categories for players who have played on various minor league teams (e.g., Category:Kinston Indians players). An anonymous editor added the Kinston Indians category to Cliff Lee's article, although he's only appeared in one game for them prior to this season during a rehab assignment in 2003 (he's supposed to pitch a couple of innings for them tonight). Since I don't think that players on rehab assignments are even added to the official minor league team roster, it seems to me that we shouldn't put the categories on the player pages in these situations. I'd like to get some consensus on this issue. Does anyone recall any discussion of this in the past?

Player stats on season articles

See discussion here: /2007_MLB_team_articles#Discussion_whether_to_keep_or_remove_player_stats. --Holderca1 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Baseball reference bull pen

Are we allowed to copy and paste things straight from the baseball-reference.com bullpen? They use the same license we do. Just don't know if that means copy-edit, or copy-paste, etc. Any tips?--Borgarde^talk 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest against it, as wikis shouldn't be regarded as reliable sources. If you can substantiate the information, go ahead (remembering to cite the sources as required). Also, using material licensed under the GFDL requires attribution, so it would be best not to C&P, if only to set a good precedent for editors who may not be conscientious enough to credit the Bullpen. Caknuck 04:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Updating stats in baseball player articles

Has there been any discussion or preferably a consensus reached about updating statistics in the infoboxes on player pages? I've got all of the Indians player pages on my watchlist and a couple of them have been updated with statistics from this season, but most have not. This is certainly a monumental task and seems to me to be unnecessary in an encyclopedia since there are ump-teen other more reliable sources for current statistics. The problem I have with it is that unless the statistics are updated for every player on a regular basis, the currency of the player pages will be uneven. I'm inclined to revert these in-season edits. Once the season is over, it makes perfect sense to update the infoboxes then. --Sanfranman59 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, statistics shouldn't be updated during the season. Wait until the season is over before updating. For instance, include "As of 2006", and then in the external link section include a link to current statistics. When a baseball player will play a game every day and multiply that by all the players on the team and then the league, that's a lot of statistics to be updating all the time, so at the end of the season with a link to current ones is my suggestion. --Borgarde^talk 09:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Strikeout

I saw this in the to-do list, just moving it on to the talk page.

"Strikeout - discuss the rule that applies in the rare instances when a batter is replaced by a pinch hitter after having already received 1 or 2 strikes, and then the pinch hitter (who inherits the count) receives the 3rd strike. Which batter is charged with the strikeout? Does it matter how many strikes were inherited? Also discuss the similar rare situation in which pitcher is replaced in the middle of a plate appearance."

Thanks. --Borgarde^talk 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For pinch hitters, it's pretty straight-forward. From the Official Rules posted at MLB.com:

Rule 10.15(b): "When a batter leaves the game with two strikes against him, and the substitute batter completes a strikeout, the official scorer shall charge the strikeout and the time at bat to the first batter. If the substitute batter completes the turn at bat in any other manner, including a base on balls, the official scorer shall score the action as having been that of the substitute batter."

For relief pitchers, it's much more complicated. Again, from MLB.com:

Rule 10.16(h): "A relief pitcher shall not be held accountable when the first batter to whom he pitches reaches first base on four called balls if such batter has a decided advantage in the ball and strike count when pitchers are changed.

(1) If, when pitchers are changed, the count is: 2 balls, no strike, 2 balls, 1 strike, 3 balls, no strike, 3 balls, 1 strike, 3 balls, 2 strikes, and the batter gets a base on balls, the official scorer shall charge that batter and the base on balls to the preceding pitcher, not to the relief pitcher.

(2) Any other action by such batter, such as reaching base on a hit, an error, a fielder's choice, a force-out, or being touched by a pitched ball, shall cause such a batter to be charged to the relief pitcher.

Rule 10.16(h) Comment: The provisions of Rule 10.16(h)(2) shall not be construed as affecting or conflicting with the provisions of Rule 10.16(g).

(3) If, when pitchers are changed, the count is 2 balls, 2 strikes, 1 ball, 2 strikes, 1 ball, 1 strike, 1 ball, no strike, no ball, 2 strikes, no ball, 1 strike, the official scorer shall charge that batter and the actions of that batter to the relief pitcher."

Merged teams

There is a discussion going on in the Japanese baseball task force, about merged teams. Please provide input as it concerns baseball teams all around the world. --Borgarde^talk 16:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rating yearly articles

There are a lot of baseball articles about events in a specific year that need rating, and I'm looking for some input as to recommendations for judging their importance and quality. Here are a few types:

• YEAR in Baseball (ex. 1900 in baseball)
• YEAR World Series (ex. 1903 World Series)
• YEAR Major League Baseball All-Star Game (ex. 1933 Major League Baseball All-Star Game)
• YEAR College World Series (ex. 1958 College World Series)
• YEAR AL/NL Championship Series (ex. 1969 National League Championship Series)
• YEAR AL/NL Division Series (ex. 2002 American League Division Series)

Is it appropriate to give each of these categories blanket ratings, or, for example are some World Series more important than others? My opinions for importance ratings:

• YEAR in Baseball - High
• YEAR World Series - High
• YEAR Major League Baseball All-Star Game - Mid
• YEAR College World Series - Mid
• YEAR AL/NL Championship Series - Mid
• YEAR AL/NL Division Series - Mid

Any thoughts? Thanks for your input. - Mattingly23 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got it about right imho. I might be tempted to rate the two playoff series categories a little higher than the College WS and All-Star Game, but I don't think the latter should be rated as 'low'. --Sanfranman59 03:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe instead of what I wrote above, the solution is to rank 'in Baseball' and World Series Top, Championship & Divison High, All-Star and College Mid? - Mattingly23 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "top" should be left for articles that are only important to the actual topic of baseball, like shortstop and bunt. I think you pretty much got it in your first post.--Borgarde^talk 04:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at [10] and I see that many of the 'in Baseball' articles are listed there and I think it makes sense. There's no really way to assess an article that's a list of events, so I'm going to start assessing the 'in Baseball' articles as NA. The other yearly articles are actually articles, so those will need assessment. - Mattingly23 13:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I mistook Category:Year in Baseball for Year in Baseball articles. I still think they should be rated NA, since they are more lists than anything else. I'll hold off on rating the rest until I hear a response. - Mattingly23 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the division and championship series couldn't be considered high either, they are both important events of the season.--Borgarde^talk 05:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My reason for rating the other post-season series lower than the World Series is that for the vast majority of baseball history (i.e. until 1969), the other series didn't exist. --Sanfranman59 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Baseball article

The article, Baseball, lost it's featured status a while ago. I was wondering, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive is inactive, if we start it up again and work on baseball as the first article? Thoughts? --Borgarde^talk 05:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Baseball definitely needs to be worked on, I think it's a monumental task to restart the project with. I think it would help to get the project rolling to start with an article that may be a little less time consuming. Personally, I would suggest beginning with Ty Cobb, which is already a Good Article and is full of citations. However, if more people agree to restart the improvement drive and want to start with Baseball, I would be on board for that as well. - Mattingly23 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Ty Cobb may be easier to start it with. I'm not too fussed either. --Borgarde^talk 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It'd be easier to start with Cobb (or another famous player), because we could then tap into the folks at WikiProject Biography to do assessments & peer reviews and to help improve the articles. After improving a few player bios, we can move onto more daunting tasks, like fixing up baseball. Caknuck 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we take a quick straw poll to see who would be interested in contributing to a revived AID. I, for one, would be in. If we can get a core of dedicated editors to sign on and get things started, then the drive should gain momentum as the current season progresses. Caknuck 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested as well, if we get the thing operating it should gain momentum like you said. --Borgarde^talk 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Will Ohman, Ron Gardenhire, others born in Germany

I know they may have been born in Germany, but I don't see the justification for the German flag on their listings with their teams, since they were probably the children of servicemen. The same with Bruce Bochy, who was born in France, but whose father, according to his article, was a U.S. Army serviceman. DandyDan2007 10:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If not country of birth, what do you suggest we use as the criterion? Country of birth is probably used because it is the most readily available and reliable piece of information. Other information may either be ill-defined (where they are "from" or "nationality"), of questionable relevance (family ethnic/racial background), unavailable (official citizenship) or unknown (what nationality a person identifies with). Another example I've come across is Tom Mastny who was born in Indonesia. I did a little research on this and I don't think either of his parents were in the service. They were expatriates working there when Mastny was born. Where do we draw the line? Perhaps we could include a note on each roster page that says the flag designates where the person was born and not necessarily legal citizenship.

A related discussion may be found here. --Sanfranman59 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend toward the Olympic definition, which does require some citizenship claim (or it used to, until they decided to let the entire Greek baseball team be American). In general, if you're born in a foreign country to parents who are there due to a diplomatic or military assignment, you're not able to claim citizenship there -- and, depending on exactly where you were born, you might well not have actually been born "in" that foreign country. (For example, if a mother were to deliver in the U.S. Embassy in Paris... technically, the child is born on American soil, not French. However, I confess ignorance as to the sovereign status of, say, the medical facility at Rammstein.)

Just more complications for you to think about.  ;) JFMorse 12:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As you say in your message, with Olympic athletes, we know they make some claim of citizenship or at least personal identification with the country they represent. With most baseball players (and I assume most other athletes), this information is generally not available without finding a secondary source somewhere that addresses the issue. I repeat my previous suggestion that we include a note on each roster page that says the flag represents the country where the player/coach was born. For the vast majority of players, this also accurately reflects their nationality. --Sanfranman59 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, but what I'm saying is that if Joe Smith is born in in a base hospital in the Philippines while his American parents are there on military duty, it's always perfectly acceptable to start an article with "Joe Smith (b. 3 March 1986, Manila, Philippines) was etc"... but at the same time it's probably very inappropriate to put his name up there with the Philippine flag. Attaching the flag -- regardless of our intentions of usage here in Wikipedia or of any disclaimer -- implies to the casual reader a national association (fostered, of course, by years of seeing Olympic athletes referenced in such a manner based on what nation they're competing for regardless of where they were born).

Having said all that, I don't actually have a better idea short of finding that secondary source. Your disclaimer is a good start, though. I don't particularly mind having Ron Gardenhire up there with a German flag per se, but if you're trying to sort out a guideline I just want to be sure anyone involved understands the downside clearly. JFMorse 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for help!

Hi! I would like to add to Wikipedia articles about each professional North American baseball league and team to Wikipedia, similar to the content included at the BR Bullpen (also wiki-based), but with more focus on encyclopedic content and with the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community. I've spent a fair amount of time compiling a listing of all baseball leagues from about 1877 through today in the following categories:

• Major leagues
• Minor leagues (affiliated)
• Independent leagues
• Collegiate leagues
• "Other" leagues

Right now, I have about 365 leagues in my database. They are listed, in alphabetical order, on my user page.

I've also compiled a listing of all baseball teams associated with the above leagues for the same time frame and have just under 5,000 teams. They are listed on my user page as well. This data also exists in an Excel spreadsheet so it can be sorted.

Obviously, this is a lot of data, but an interesting project for sure. Much of it does not yet exist in Wikipedia, although many articles do exist for current leagues and teams.

The first thing I need to do is devise a page template for leagues and a page template for teams. These templates would then be applied to all new articles AS WELL AS existing ones, so careful consideration of content, infoboxes, etc. is warranted. I'd like some input from the community. I only need a couple of people to help. I've created a task force page, but no content appears there yet. I can't do this alone! Leave me a message on my talk page and let's build this together!! --CPAScott 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

notability

does wikiproject baseball have notability standards for baseball players? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've only been hanging around here for a couple of months and so am by no means an authority. Based on reading quite a bit of historical and current discussions on baseball-related pages, it seems that anyone who has ever appeared in a major league game is considered notable. To my thinking, some minor leaguers and college players should also qualify if they've performed exceptionally (record-setters, minor league players of the year, etc.) or are notable for some other reason (top draft choice, particularly highly touted prospects, bonus-babies). --Sanfranman59 03:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what page links to, but the sports notability page states that any player who has appeared in a fully professional league is considered notable. So considering how hard it is to get into the majors, anyone who has played MLB baseball is considered notable. --Borgarde^talk 06:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the criterion Borgarde mentions here. If playing in a fully professional league" is the criterion, then this would also include anyone who's ever played in a minor league game. Personally, I think that's setting the bar a bit low, but I'm certainly not going to argue with a Wikipedia guideline. --Sanfranman59 07:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the relevant page has been changed since the last time I looked at it. It used to say played "at the highest professional level", which would exclude career minor league players, unless they met other requirements for notability (ie. significant articles or books written about them).

I can go either way on the guys who played in just one game (perhaps not too notable, but it does complete those rosters. *grin*), but I don't think every guy who appeared in a minor league game needs an article.--Kathy A. 22:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not for article creation--it's alumni lists and whether or not the players in question are notable. I was looking to source a baseball player, and found a whole list who had attended the school in question. [11]. Which brought me here with the question of notability which I guess has been answered, I just guess I have to figure out whether or not they meet that criteria. Anyone want to help? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks Kevin Millar and Rodney McCray made it to the Majors, so they would be notable. Three others made it to the minors. The rest would only be notable if you/we can find enough articles on them. Was there one player in particular you are looking at?--Kathy A. 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re "three others made it to the minors" ... as best as I can determine from minorleaguebaseball.com, only Katz is still playing (he's with the Ashville Tourists in the Class A South Atlantic League). IMHO, none of the three who made it to the minors merit their own WP article, but I don't see any reason they should be included on a list of notable alumni from their high school. Playing professional baseball at any level is a considerable accomplishment.

I did some digging in the archives of the Notability talk page as well as a now dormant page (Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) and there's been a ton of discussion about what constitutes notability for athletes. Suffice it to say that it's a jungle out there and no consensus beyond the current guideline has been reached. --Sanfranman59 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• So if they didn't play in the minors--they just got drafted and never actually played? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what it looks like. It can happen for several reasons (and I'm not an expert on this, so please jump in here). An injury can keep someone from playing. Perhaps they can't come to terms with the team, and so never sign a contract. Those taken in high rounds never have much of a chance to make it to the majors, so they may have decided that the rough life of a career minor leaguer was not for them.--Kathy A. 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other big reasons drafted players don't ever play in minor league ball are that the player isn't assigned to a roster after Spring Training and the player chooses not to sign with the team that drafted him. This often happens when a player is drafted out of high school, but wants to attend college. --Sanfranman59 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that some of the other players on there who have no designation played. In fact, it is one of the players without a designation whom we were trying to source. Is there anyway for me to find out if they actually played or not? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MLB.com has stats for all players to ever play Major League Baseball. Even ones who only played one game years ago. Go to Player Search and type in the last name of the player you want to find out under "Historical Player Search".--Borgarde^talk 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Miss M is trying to find out if they ever played minor league ball, Borgarde. I'm not aware of a source that has complete historical data for minor league players. The Baseball Cube is the site I've taken to using for minor league information and that's the same site that Miss M was using to look for the status of graduates of the high school in which she's interested. I think minorleaguebaseball.com only has stats for current players. Does anyone know of a more complete source than the cube? --Sanfranman59 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

High school baseball and venues

Can we add categories for high school baseball and high school baseball venues? Jerry Uht Park in Erie, PA uses its park for minor league ball, but also hosts high school and college games. There are already categories for college baseball and college baseball venues, but I couldn't find anything for high schools. I think it would be useful to track the high school activities, which I'm sure are common. Let me know if I missed them somehow or if there is something I am supposed to do besides this to request that categories be established. Pat 10:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

1986 New York Mets

I drafted a page for them on a sports wiki (ArmchairGM.com) I run. It's here. You're welcome to fork it, with attribution, if you'd like. --DNL 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox stat label "Record" disambiguation

I've been working on fixing links to disambiguation pages - so that links go where they're supposed to - in this case on links to Record. A lot of them are from the MLB player infobox on baseball player pages, e.g. Josh Beckett, where the editor has wikilinked the stat label Record, presumably so it fits in colour-wise with the other selected stats (?), but the link just goes to the disamb page, not to anywhere baseball-related. This is also the case with Infobox asian baseball player, e.g. Pan Wei-lun.

Is there any way round this - if I de-link them your colour scheme gets upset, perhaps there's an appropriate baseball-related article to which they could be linked instead? - Struway 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the colour scheme gets upset". I just removed the brackets from around 'record' on the Beckett page and it didn't affect the color scheme. In any case, I suggest that instead of using 'Record', we use the more descriptive label, Wins-Losses, as I did in the Jeremy Sowers article? --Sanfranman59 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, all I meant was that the colour of the word 'Record' obviously changed from blue to black if the brackets were removed, clearly that isn't important. If your Win-Loss label is generally acceptable then I'll use that. Thanks for your help. - Struway 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the label I used on the Sowers article is generally acceptable or not. What do you think gang? --Sanfranman59 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of Baseball Team Logos...the bad news

On the Detroit Tigers page there is an animated gif which someone had created, and it shows a tiger grabbing and chewing a baseball bat inside a circle marked "Detroit Tigers". This image (File:Tiger4.gif), if one looks at the file summary, shows who created it, and the copyright claim, which states it was released into the public domain. I had used this image on my own user page, as I am a fan of the Tigers.

However, upon checking with Ron Wade, an official with Detroit Tigers managment, this image is copyrighted by the Tigers, and it was used by the Tigers for their television broadcasting beginning in the early-1980's. I was further told by Mr. Wade that any image or logo owned by the MLB is copyrighted, and permission must be granted for use apart from what they have specified. This means unless specific permission has been granted to Wikipedia, there isn't a single baseball logo that is allowed here for any article on any team.

So, whoever are the powers that be in Wikipedia had better get to contacting MLB about getting permission, because they're not going to be happy with fair use. Carajou 22:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of logos on wikipedia (Wikipedia:Logos) is considered fair use. It doesn't matter if MLB is "happy" with it or not because we do have a right to use them if we have a legitimate claim of fair use. However, the animated GIF that you show does not seem necessary to the Detroit Tigers article and should probably be removed. - Mattingly23 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what you're stating is Wikipedia does not have to get MLB's permission for the use of their logos and images? Getting permission would not hurt at all, and it would cover a lot of legal problems. Carajou 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this issue but it is my understanding that if you can establish that you are using a copyrighted logo or image under fair use then Wikipedia does not need to get permission. You could try to get permission if you'd like, however, MLB will not release the images under any free license so I'm not really sure what it would accomplish. I don't think Wikipedia is in danger of being sued by them, if that is your concern, because 1) Wikipedia is not making any money from using the images, and 2) MLB is not losing any money from Wikipedia using the images. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself can give their opinion. - Mattingly23 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You can ask the MLB teams to release their logos under GFDL or something similar, but I'm quite sure they won't. Specific licensing to Wikipedia isn't helpful, because we reject that. Where they fall under "fair use", they can be used, otherwise no dice. WilyD 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Imo, this image doesn't meet #8 of WP:FU, as it doesn't contribute significantly to the general team article and serves only as decoration. I doubt you want to discuss something as specific as TV advertising, which is probably what you need to justify this as clear fair use. Talking to MLB about licensing would be futile, as I doubt they are interested in releasing rights to brand names/logo that they spend so much money on building up. General team logos certainly still fall under fair use, as long as their used only when necessary. As the Detroit Tigers article is now, the old-timey logos in the "Glory in '68" look like their only used for decorative purposes and probably don't meet fair use at the moment. I'm sure you could work the text so that a couple logos could be useful, but most of the team articles don't do that. Don't mean to be obnoxious or anything (and no, I don't think Wikipedia will be sued anytime soon by the MLB), but thats my reading into fair use in this situation. Wickethewok 06:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To have a valid fair use claim for that image, you'd probably need to talk about either the specific ad campaign or the process behind the image's creation, something like that. It doesn't add anything significant beyond the main logo (which is in and of itself perfectly kosher for fair use purposes). Too bad, because it's neat, but we have to be fair to the rights-holders. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Update for List of oldest living Major League Baseball players

1. 10 Milt Bocek should be removed from the list. Milt, my grandfather, passed away on 4/29/07 in a retirement home in Brookfield , IL. I would remove this myself, but I do not know enough about editing pages to do it with any confidence. Information of Milt Bocek can be confirmed by searching Google News.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottBocek (talk • contribs)

• It's been amended. Thanks for letting us know, and sorry to hear about your loss. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players

Just a pair of reminders.

1. When you write a new bio/stub for a MLB player, remember to add him to the list.
2. When adding someone to the list, make sure that he's already played in the majors. (This is sometimes an issue with prospects who were added to the 40-man without receiving a callup, etc.)

-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Colors in player infoboxes and on roster pages

I put together a page in my user space (here) that compares the team color schemes used by MLB.com to those we use. (In case you're interested, the colors they use are identified in .css files for each team. Cleveland's is here.) For about half the teams, the colors are either identical or only subtly different than what we're using. For the other half, at least one of the colors is quite different. The latter group includes BAL, CWS, CIN, CLE, COL, DET, KC, LAA, LAD, OAK, PHI, SD, STL, TB and TOR. Personally, I prefer the page header colors (i.e. the last two columns in my table) MLB.com uses for CLE, DET, KC, LAA, PHI, SD and TOR.

I propose that we change the color schemes for at least these 7 teams. What do others think? --Sanfranman59 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A WP:MOS note

Someone just added an infobox to Jim Eisenreich; I corrected the dashes on the date ranges to conform to WP:DASH. Just pointing out that ndash is used on date ranges; you can find it under your reply screen when in edit mode. Hyphen (-) is used to hyphenate words; ndash (–) is used to separate number and date ranges; mdash (—) is used as punctuation, for example, in place of a comma. This are often misused in sports articles. Thanks for improving Eisenreich! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

2005 World Series Champion Chicago White Sox box

An anonymous user has added this box to the pages of each of the players on the White Sox 2005 WS roster. I stumbled across it because I have Cliff Politte on my watchlist. Is this a new initiative? I'm guessing that it's not and am inclined to revert these edits. But I thought I ought to post the question here first so as not to step on any toes. --Sanfranman59 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's needed, a category would do the same job.--Borgarde^talk 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Cemetery, Erie, PA

I've listed several seemingly notable baseball-related individuals buried at Trinity Cemetery in Erie, Pennsylvania. I don't see a way to categorize the page to highlight the baseball information it contains. It is, after all, a cemetery article. But maybe someone from WikiProject Baseball can figure out a way to link the information? None of the individuals have a dedicated Wiki article. Greetings from Wikiproject Erie.Pat 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

Referring to the discussion above I have re-opened the article improvement drive in hope to see it start once again. If it doesn't work we'll just have to re-mark it as inactive. But for now, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive. I have also changed the votes to 2 to make it more realistic in nominations. I'll volunteer to organise this until it gets running properly. Feel free to nominate. I nominated Ty Cobb.--Borgarde^talk 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative to start it back up. I supported Ty Cobb's nomination. - Mattingly23 13:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeking opinions on baseball-related topic

Hello, I'm just seeking some opinions on Talk:Josh Hancock regarding Infobox color schemes of deceased players. Please feel free to add your opinion and help to build consensus one way or the other. Thanks! I am hoping to create a guideline for Baseball infoboxes of deceased persons based on the outcome of this debate. -- KirinX 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize rosters

I'm seeking some consensus on the format and content of the roster "articles". I searched through the archives of this page and only found a couple of posts from last year on this topic (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 1#Team_Rosters). It looks like a good deal of standardization has happened since then. With the exception Texas Rangers roster, they all look pretty much the same. But I think we can do even better. (Parenthetical question: Why are the '67 Red Sox the only historical team to merit a roster page?)

For one thing, roster pages for all three of the other major professional American sports leagues are templates that are transcluded into a list of rosters article (e.g., NFL rosters) and into each individual team's article. Only 4 baseball team rosters are set up as templates (Red Sox, Yankees, Mariners and White Sox) and there's actually also a White Sox template page that redirects to Chicago White Sox roster. I think the other sports are probably more compliant with WP guidelines and standards since the rosters really aren't articles in and of themselves.

What led me to look into this was a message I received from someone who was monitoring recent page edits. This user tagged the San Diego Padres roster page with {{context}} {{Unreferenced|date=April 2007}} {{Wikify|date=April 2007}}. If you're interested, here's a link to this user's note to me and here's a link to my response and another note from him/her. In reviewing and updating all of the roster pages to accurately reflect the current rosters (as of one or two days ago, that is), I noted the following inconsistencies:

• Almost all of the pages have the heading Active roster even though they include all players on the 40-man roster (including those on the DL, who are, by definition, not active). Most also had a column labeled Extended roster which lists the players not on the team's 25-man roster. But since this heading looks like a subheading of Active roster, I think it's a little misleading and a potential source of confusion.

• For some teams, players on the DL are listed under Extended roster with symbols to differentiate those on the 15-day vs. the 60-day DL. For other teams, there's a separate heading for Disabled list. I think we should do it one way or the other. A related issue is that players on the 60-day DL are not counted against a team's 40-man roster. We might want to list these players separately from those on the 40-man.

• For most teams, the manager and other coaches are listed under the heading Coaching staff below the list of players on the 40-man roster (e.g., Atlanta Braves roster). For some teams, there are separate headings for Manager and Coaches (e.g., Arizona Diamondbacks roster). Again, I think we should be consistent.

I've created a model here for a roster template that looks pretty much like what we've already got for most teams but also incorporates a few ideas from the NFL roster templates (a border, links to each team's depth chart and transaction list on MLB.com and view, talk and edit navigation bar links).

Thoughts, concerns, obscene gestures? --Sanfranman59 04:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind the standardization of any kind of roster section such as this. Looks good! Kntrabssi 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. Your sample format is clean and easily readable. (Just make sure to remove the "nowiki" tags arounf the category prior to implementation.) Caknuck 07:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the format but I have two questions. 1)Would the articles be kept in article or template space? and 2)Is it alright if we remove the "Active Roster (cont.)" at the top of the second column? I believe that readers would just see that the roster would continue into the next column without us actually having to say it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Greiner (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm proposing to keep the pages in template space as they are for the other three major American professional sports leagues. --Sanfranman59 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardization sounds good to me. I haven't been too aware of other team's roster pages, which is why the Rangers one looks a bit different than the rest. I don't think we need the "Active Roser (cont.)" in the second column either. Perhaps the players on the 60-day DL could be under a seperate heading in the third column, seperate from the "Extended Roster (40-man)" heading. The rest looks great.Ebryns427 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As suggested, I got rid of the header for the second column. I'm reluctant to put the 60-day DL in the third column since it may imply that these players are on the 40-man roster (they're not). I've modified the model to include separate headings in the fourth column for players on the 60-day DL and on the suspended list (who are also excluded from the 40-man roster limit). I also underscored the main headings and changed "Last updated <date>" to "Transactions through <date>". To assist people in updating the rosters, it seems more important to know "Transactions through" than the last time someone changed a uniform number, flag, fixed the spelling of a player's name or disambiguated a name. Comments? --Sanfranman59 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks awesome. On a marginally-related note, I had Fred Neerdowell on my roto team this year, so I was bummed out when he was forced to sit out the first three months of the season for his fifth whip-it offense. Caknuck 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I like my rendition of the roster template. I helped standardize roster templates for the NFL WikiProject that look similar to this one so hopefully this one sparks some interest. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 23:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I think all the rosters should be moved to the Template namespace because they're not separate articles. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I really like what you did and support any standardization effort 100% — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• That looks terrific, WL! Thanks for providing your expertise with wiki-markup. The only thing I don't particularly like is when the lines wrap. That's why I used the small font for the coach descriptions. Doing so shrunk the last column enough that there was no wrapping ... although a team with a name like Yuniesky Betancourt in each column would present a problem. Re using the template namespace, if it's not clear from my previous messages, I fully support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by sanfranman59 (talk • contribs)

Nice work both SanFranMan59 and Wlmaltby3. If given a choice I prefer Wlmaltby3's because I think it's aesthetically a bit better. - Mattingly23 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Far too many of the rosters pages lack citation. The spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability absolutely obligates us to link to the source, especially where, as here, the source is so obvious -- the permanent links to the various rosters maintained by MLB.com. --M@rēino 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. Perhaps a link to the mlb.com page for the team's 40-man roster could go in the lower right of the box? Although it's been my experience that these pages aren't always 100% up to date all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by sanfranman59 (talk • contribs)

Yea, I just did a small adjustment to the Red Sox, Yanks, and Jays. I really think the SP and Bullpen should be seperated. Makes sense. --Libd84 11:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on this issue. In most cases, pitchers are either starters or relievers, but there are still a fair number of pitchers who do both. For example, because Taylor Buchholz started today's game for the Rockies in place of the injured Rodrigo Lopez, would you move him from the bullpen to the rotation list? --Sanfranman59 03:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sanfranman. While I think it sounds like a good idea, with teams like the Marlins, who have many of their starting pitchers on the DL, are constantly moving their relievers around to put them in the rotation. Rabbethan 09:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Sanfranman59's comment above: I think that the lines may have been wrapping on your monitor due to the fact that you have a smaller screen resolution than I do. Regardless, I added the <small> tags to the coaches section on my Indians roster to make them smaller as per your request. As for there needing to be a verifiable link to a roster, I need to point out that it is indeed present on my Indians roster in the lower-left corner. I placed it under the pitching staff to keep the roster template small and neat (and so there wasn't any negative space); however, if it needs to be moved on other templates, I feel that it should be moved so as to keep the templates as small height-wise as possible. Pitchers who are a part of the bullpen and make emergency starts should only be placed in the bullpen unless they're moved to the starting rotation officially. If you follow a team, you'll know who makes up the starting rotation, so I feel it should be left up to someone who follows the team closely and can reliably and accurately place pitchers in the correct section on the template. One thing I do need to point out is that everything should be alphabetized. This isn't a depth chart, so no one should try to organize it that way. I also wanted to point out a question I was thinking about when I constructed my Indians template: should we denote who plays where? For example, a small notation 3B next to a third baseman? I wasn't sure so I didn't do that. Anyway, I'm glad I could help where I could. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 04:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, guys. A couple of things to note:

1. Ooo colors! I'd suggest using the standardized colors for the player infoboxes here.
2. I'm against noting position for the infielders and outfielders, just to avoid info overload.
3. I'm definitely in favor of linking to the mlb.com rosters. Good addition there.
4. I think we're pretty close to implementing this... any objections. Should we do a quick straw poll?

Caknuck 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm supportive of a straw poll. It'll help things get standardized faster. (On a side note, I wish the NFL WikiProject was this active with its discussions.) Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I, too, support this standardization as the proud representative of Philadelphia Phillies roster (just wait a few weeks and that sentence won't elicit chuckles). I think that the coaches' roles shouldn't be too specified so the page doesn't get too busy. And, yes, they should all be true templates, as they're not actually articles. Good call. JesseRafe 05:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely sold on WL's version. My vote is against adding more detailed positions than OF or IF. Do we need to add a more specific reference for the roster pages on mlb.com or is it sufficient to just have the link? --Sanfranman59 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to have such a specific reference. We don't use one on the NFL WikiProject. We simply have a link to the team's roster at the team's official website. That's really all that's needed. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support this initiative — I have been attempting to keep the Toronto Blue Jays roster page over the last few months, and have seen it be repeatedly changed from one format to another, according to the whims of the editors. As with the MLB Infobox template for players/teams, I believe there should be a standardization of the rosters. Got my vote. -- KirinX 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we add a new category for the template pages to replace the category for the old roster pages. There's a category for both the NFL and the NHL roster templates, but not for the NBA templates. The category is useful for quickly jumping from roster to roster.

Re moving forward with this effort, as a relative newbie, I don't know the protocol for finalizing these consensus-building exercises. I put a note soliciting comments on every user's talk page who had edited any of the rosters from opening day on. How long do we need to give it before implementing the changes? So far, there doesn't seem to be any objection to WL's model, but it's only been a couple of days. Shall we give it a week to allow sufficient time for folks to comment or shall we just plow ahead? --Sanfranman59 22:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there is no real disapproval, so once you see consensus is there go ahead and start. Which I would say you can when you want now. --Borgarde^talk 06:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to standardize MLB roster pages. Thanks for asking for my input Sanfranman59, do you or Wlmaltby3 have a template for the roster a la the new Cleveland Indians style? I'd like to update a few myself. --Mattfranko81^talk 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no template. Just replace the names of the players from the other templates. And all the other relevant things you should replace. There's really no need for a template in this situation.Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 18:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the standardization. I'll start with the Detroit Tigers roster page and move on to the rest of the central division when I have the time. It looks like SanFranman already took care of the Indian's page so I'll try and duplicate that. I'll work on other pages after that.RobDe68 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, credit where it's due goes to WL for replacing the Indians roster page. --Sanfranman59 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to include him as well. Anyway, great idea SanFran, you read my mind about the standardization of roster pages.RobDe68 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Would someone who knows the ropes post a step-by-step process for migrating the current roster pages to the new template pages? I think it's important that we do it so that we don't lose the page histories and so that any existing links to the rosters are updated. I just moved the A's roster and I think I did it properly, but I'd feel more comfortable with some instructions in case I missed something. Thanks. --Sanfranman59 07:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Read my response to you on my talk page. I followed the merge page procedure when I realized it wasn't going to let me move to the template page that I already created (I should have remembered this from the last time I painted myself into a corner). Both redirects are marked for merger with the template page already. I will keep an eye on this and have a plan B if the histories don't get merged. It may take awhile but the histories will get to the template page. I did learn my lesson by the time I got to the White Sox roster page. Sorry about that.RobDe68 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just finished with the Yankees and Blue Jays roster pages. I noticed that the Red Sox has both a roster page and a template roster page. I will make the edit to template page and mark the roster page for history merge as I did with the ones I messed up. All in all this is a fun (and much needed) project.RobDe68 21:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw what Sanfranman59 did to the Template:San Diego Padres roster and it looks great, and fixes the Wikify problem. Can I suggest though that we make the "e" for "edit" button bigger than the "v d e" style? Rosters get edited often (unlike some other templates) and "e" seems cryptic for newbees (it took me a while to figure it out on another template). Great work. --Myke Cuthbert 02:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There currently isn't any way to make the "e" bigger with the template. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 04:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I figured out what I wanted, I added "|plain=1" to the template header call and it seems to work great on Template:San Diego Padres roster. Perhaps we could change all the rosters to that style? --Myke Cuthbert 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that all or most of the templates are now done. I have noticed one problem that came up. On page Major League Baseball rosters it seems to have trouble loading all of the templates. It doesn't appear to be a problem with the templates themselves just that there may be too many to load properly so the last one that shows up is incomplete and the ones after it just don't load onto the page. If there isn't a fix for this perhaps we have to split that page up into American League and National League rosters. Thanks RobDe68 14:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done I couldn't see a workaround at Wikipedia:Template limits, so I went ahead and did the fork. See American League rosters and National League rosters. I left Major League Baseball rosters in place to explain the roster system (more work is needed here) and to serve as a dab page. Scream at me if you want... Caknuck 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were setting the team colors according to this page. Somebody keeps going through and changing the colors on the templates to whatever they feel that the team colors are.RobDe68 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That was the plan. Go ahead and revert it back, and if they keep changing back, then refer them back to this discussion. Caknuck 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm afraid that I was one of the culprits changing the color schemes. I wasn't aware of the 'microformat' page. I changed a few of the color schemes to those used on mlb.com. I will cease and desist. Just out of curiosity, how did we arrive at the color combinations on that page? Did they come from some official source? I'm no artist, but to my eye, some of them don't correspond to the team colors very well. For example, the primary color we're using for my Indians and for the Reds looks more like a maroon shade to me. All of my Indians apparel has a much brighter red. Also, I don't think that grey is one of the Angels' colors, is it? --Sanfranman59 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to question that myself. Some of the colors don't even match the colors on the players' inofboxes for certain teams. I started matching it up with those to keep it more consistant.RobDe68 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

An easy way to get around the color problem would be to eyedrop the official logos. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 05:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

1964 CWS page Copied from the Baseball-Reference.com Bullpen

The content in the 1964 College World Series was copied from the Baseball-Reference.com Bullpen without attribution. The Bullpen is a wiki site that allows copying, but only with attribution. I suspect that other CWS results pages were likewise copied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.92.112.144 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Yikes! So what do we do about this? Do we notify the editor who created these pages (User:Seancp) that this is a no-no? Do we tag the plagiarized pages for deletion? --Sanfranman59 00:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to go to WP:CP, so I'll go ahead and list it now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Players task force cats not working

Based on my experience at Talk:Chris Young (baseball pitcher) the player task force categories are not working yet. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

yyyy in baseball wikilinks in player/coach/manager articles

Are we supposed to use 'yyyy in baseball' wikilinks in articles every time a year is mentioned (or at least the first time each year is mentioned in the article)? Personally, I'm not sure that I see the point, but it seems to be done with some regularity. For example, when the sentence is "Wedge was drafted by the Boston Red Sox in the third round of the 1989 amateur draft.", should I wikilink 1989 as 1989? While I'm at it, is this the appropriate way to wikilink the first-year player draft? --Sanfranman59 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? --Sanfranman59 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is correct. By the way, Template:BY is much easier. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 22:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

xxxx Major League Baseball season

I'm going to start a major project relating to individual MLB seasons. Any help by anyone would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Soxrock 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do the same thing with the other seasons that you did with 1995 Major League Baseball season (i.e. copy everything from the 1995 in baseball article and add a few paragraphs of text summarizing the season), I think it's a waste of time and space. Why not just add your text to the 1995 in baseball article? --Sanfranman59 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Waste of time, these articles are carbon copies of the yyyy in baseball articles, also Soxrock thinks that his newly created articles will be used on all player infoboxs that will take years of work to change on all MLB players. MetsFan153 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with MetsFan and Sanfranman -- right now we really only need one yyyy in baseball page, not multiple. If we do branch out, I would expect that the first branches would be yyyy in Japanese baseball, yyyy in minor league baseball, yyyy in Negro league baseball (for earlier years) etc. -- right now almost all of the yyyy in baseball articles are already yyyy in MLB. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC) (shoot, should I have chosen PadresMan for my name?)

still looking for notability sources

I'm still looking for sources for minor league players. I posted about this before, but never really got an answer.

The baseball cube has a list of ballplayers who are alumni of University High School (LA) [12]. Unfortunately, they only have draft records and no info on whether or not they actually played. This came up because someone added Damon Farmer with info about his career, and I have a feeling that the baseball cube's records are incomplete--that many of the players on the list did play--that they weren't just drafted and that was it.

But unless these people have wiki articles (which they don't), I need a source for both their attendance at the school and their notability. the baseball cube gives me the former, but not the latter--I need sources for their actually playing in the minor leagues. Can anyone help?

Also--there seem to be some professional women's baseball players who attended Uni as well. Do you have notability standards for women ball players?

See the alumni list in question: List of notable alumni of University High School (Los Angeles, California) Miss Mondegreen talk  01:40, May 26 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Miss M ... I think there's only limited information available online for historical minor league baseball information. The Baseball Archive has AAA stats from 1995–1998. Other than that, if you know what team or teams the guys played for, you might be able to find something at the teams' web sites. Sorry I can't be of more help. I was told by someone at The Baseball Cube that they're working on making their minor league data more complete, but I don't know any more details than that. Good luck. --Sanfranman59 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for baseball players

The members of the Baseball Players Task Force have been discussing a set of naming conventions for baseball player articles. I have posted the draft copy here. Please feel free to discuss/propose changes at the talk page for the draft copy. Thanks, Caknuck 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NCAA Division I Softball Championship

This article is quite inaccurate in that it says "the top 8 teams are given National Seeds which guarantees them home field advantage (provided they continue to win) throughout the tournament until the Women's College World Series." This is completely untrue in that no team is "guaranteed" home field advantage. A number of top 8 national seeds have been sent on the road. One example is Texas A&M being sent to UMass in 2006 despite being given a national seed. I can't really think of a better way to describe how home field advantage is gained through since it has quite a bit to do with how close other tournament teams are (regionality) and facilities. If anyone else has a good knowledge of softball NCAA tournament play, and can phrase this better, I think it would be good.Gwright86 09:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the softball article to reflect the way the tournament was played in 2007. Anyone better versed in the history of the softball tournament could add a "Past Formats" section like in the NCAA Division I Baseball Championship aricle. Seancp 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

New Task Force

I'm interested in started a new task force for college baseball. I was going to create a new project at first, but I feel that is unnecessary considering there is already a baseball project. So how do I go about getting permission to start a college baseball task force? Thanks for the help. Seancp 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No one wants to help me? Seancp 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Sean, but I prefer to devote the time I have for WP to improving the articles about professional players and teams since I am much more familiar with these areas than I am with college baseball. College baseball is an awfully broad topic. I wonder if you might garner more interest if you proposed something a little more specific. What kind of priorities do you have in mind for this task force? --Sanfranman59 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My first goal would be to get all of the NCAA Division I tournaments documented. I've already done a lot of that but there is still more to be done. The 2007 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament is going on right now and we're busy keeping that updated. My next goal would be to create articles for each school that warranted an article, for example, Miami Hurricanes baseball. There are many schools with a great baseball history that hasn't been documented on wikipedia yet. To go along with that, I'd like to see articles for the stadiums and head coaches of most major universities. Really, what I'm looking for right now is a community workspace where myself and other contributors can communicate with each other and establish standards, set priorities, etc. I figured a task force under this project would be best as it would require less overhead, but I have no problem with creating a new project. I just wanted to see if anyone here was open to this idea. Seancp 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fine idea and I also think you've come to the right place to set it up. I wouldn't suggest creating a separate project. I think it makes sense for your effort to be a task force under the WP:WPBB umbrella, although I don't know the protocol for establishing a task force. One thing you might consider for recruiting other people is to check the histories of college baseball-related pages and see who's been making edits. Then you could post a note on each of their talk pages to see if they'd be interested in joining your task force. Just a thought. --Sanfranman59 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball image

I just want to call to attention that Image:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg is being deleted. I am making a replacement svg image to replace the ball.++aviper2k7++ 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How's this:

++aviper2k7++ 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. Here's a photo of an actual major league baseball, taken by an editor:

Baseball Bugs 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is a participant in
WikiProject Baseball.

I don't see a place that uses the previous image that large, but the svg can be scaled to whatever. The template has the mit and glove in it now, I think it looks pretty slick as it is not a boxed image of a baseball and has a bit of shape.++aviper2k7++ 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the one with the gloves better than our previous one.--Jerry 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Category: xxxxxxx Team Players

Can you guys here at this WikiProject please try to regulate these categories so they are only used on players that appeared in a major league game for the team, and not just spring training? I keep seeing these cats. pop up on players who just went to spring training for the team and never appeared in an official major league game. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I regularly patrol the roster lists and player categories, and remove those who have never played a game for the team. (People also like to add players who only played for the team's minor league organization). AWB is a big help in this, but it does take time to do -- anyone who wants to lend a hand is more than welcome.--Kathy A. 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I try to monitor this also, but it's almost impossible to stay completely on top of. If someone mistakenly adds a category to a player page, I leave a note on the editor's talk page (which, of course, often results in a disparaging, defensive comment on my talk page). We're doing the best we can. --Sanfranman59 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Season team pages

I have noticed a lot of pages like 1901 Baltimore Orioles season. Are these part of some WikiProject? Fbdave 19:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

They're encompassed under WikiProject Baseball. Also, some of the individual teams have WikiProjects, like the New York Yankees, so they would also be managed under the respective team's WikiProject. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:2007 Chicago Cubs Starting Rotation up for deletion

I personally do not see a need for a listing of any starting rotation, since rotations are continuously changing due to injury and other circumstance, so I put it up for speedy deletion. There could possibly be others, but I don't know if any exist, but I simply don't see the value of such a thing. DandyDan2007 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that this template is superfluous. The team roster templates identify the current starting rotation for each team. --Sanfranman59 07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Individual statistical records for 2007

What’s the point of putting stand-alone tables that lists a pitcher’s statistics from every start of the season. It not only clutters up an article but provides rather unsubstantial information (unless interpreted or analyzed), that can be found on other official websites that specialize in statistics (ex baseball-reference.com, mlb.com, or espn.com). Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports desk; it does not need second-by-second fantasy sports style updates on their favorite pitchers or players. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of what you're talking about Shadow? Are you saying that someone is adding game-by-game logs to individual player articles? If so, I think it's a terrible idea. In general, I don't even like the idea of trying to keep individual player statistics up to date here. As you say, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and there are plenty of other sites out there who are in the business of maintaining up-to-the-minute player stats. Given the relatively poor quality of the text in most player articles, I think this is where we should be focusing our efforts in editing these articles. It seems to me that the articles should be general summaries of each player's career. Josh Beckett's statistics for tonight's game against the Yankees do not belong on his WP page. --Sanfranman59 02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Ted Lilly and Sean Marshall articles for some examples, mainly the "2007 Game Log" sections. While the tables look better than the grey boxes with dotted borders (ex Bronson Arroyo), it would just be easier to provide a link to some Stat site. Also, I'm not sure of how one is supposed to edit MLB player articles (I usually work with NFL-related subjects), but are articles supposed to have excessively detailed (and some what superficial) summaries about players career for each individual seasons? -  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... That sure doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. Can you imagine what Greg Maddux's or Roger Clemens' articles would look like if they listed every single game they've appeared in (not to mention hitters)? I don't have as much of a problem with a table of a player's season-by-season stats. After all, baseball is very much a game of statistics. Although I agree that the table in Bronson Arroyo's article looks pretty tacky.

As for the amount of detail, in the articles that I've edited, I've usually included a paragraph summarizing each season for current players. I don't know if this is what others do or not. The guidelines are almost nonexistent as far as I can tell. Does the NFL project have somewhat detailed guidelines?

I'm relatively new to WP, but it's been my impression that there are quite a few people working on MLB player articles who either don't know, don't understand or (worse) don't pay much attention to WP's five pillars. Most of the articles I've looked at have no references at all and are laced with non-NPOV language. I'm beginning to understand the points of view of WP's detractors. --Sanfranman59 04:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no set organization for NFL articles. Most use a format which divides a player's career into three or four sections, which covers a specific period of time (ex "Early life" or "Collegiate career" from the Rex Grossman article). Greg Maddox's article has a nice organization format, while I'm skeptical about Carlos Zambrano's article. If you have the chance, please look into it. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

MLB.com

In the case of the Ty Cobb page, for example, MLB.com has to be cited, because certain other websites insist on posting private research figures for Cobb's career as if they were the official numbers, instead of posting the actual official figures shown on MLB.com. Baseball Bugs 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't remotely true. Private research figures should be eschewed, but SABR publications are probably more reliable sources than MLB. WilyD 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs, and am not sure where WilyD is coming from on this. Quadzilla99 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs and Quadzilla, but am open to hearing more from Wily as to why he believes that his statement is true.--Epeefleche 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wily's argument would be that the private research is more reliable because it has been revisited by multiple pairs of eyes, as opposed to MLB's stats in which they basically decided, That's it, no investigation. From the pure data standpoint, the private research might be "more reliable", but the MLB stats are still the official stats. Thus, you can't favor private research over the MLB in writing about them. It's fair to acknowledge both. Baseball Bugs 00:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As I discuss in my para entitled MLB.com up above, among other things Wiki policy specifically indicates that articles about any person "should link to the official site if any." Which I gather would be mlb.com.--Epeefleche 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If it ain't, I don't know what is. :) Baseball Bugs 01:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Team statistics per season

I've recently started working on Seattle Mariners seasons, finishing 2006 and working on 2005 at the moment, wondering if it would be worth it to add the overall team statistics underneath the player statistics, and if anybody would be willing to do this for other teams season pages? --Nightfreak 23:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're suggesting adding a "Totals" row to the tables, I wouldn't have any objection. However, the current 2006 article doesn't include stats for all of their players. Unless all players are listed, I don't think I would support including the team totals. --Sanfranman59 02:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I've only been putting the one who have been bolded on ESPN on the tables, for batters eligible for the batting title and starts eligible for the ERA title, but included all the relieving pitchers. I wasn't thinking about adding a total each box, which is a good idea though, but having a level 2 headline there and making it a new, if small, section with the two batting and pitching totals there. But now I think about it the totals at the bottom may be better...!? --Nightfreak 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're only going to include hitters who are eligible for the batting title, you should have a note to this effect somewhere in the title or in a footnote. Why are you only including eligible hitters but including every pitcher?

As for the totals, I'm not sure that I follow what you're proposing. Are you talking about adding two other tables, one with the team's hitting totals and one with the pitching totals? If so, I don't think this adds much without something to indicate how they ranked compared with other teams in the league or maybe league averages. Knowing that they scored 756 doesn't mean much without knowing that they ranked 13th out of 14 teams in the league or at least that they were below the league average of 804. --Sanfranman59 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, on the 2006 article I've added the team totals for batting and pitching along with their ranking alongside other MLB teams, but if anybody has anyway to improve on it, go for it! --Nightfreak 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MLB infobox on minor league player?

I was looking at the page we have for Luke Hochevar and I saw that he has an MLB player infobox, which is missing some data such as "debut date" since he has never debuted. It looks stupid and it is misleading so I'm deleting it. But I was wondering if I'm right in doing so? Are there any "rules" here on that topic?

I'm not sure if there are any guidelines about this, but it seems to me that the infobox doesn't belong on the pages of players who haven't played MLB. I think it's questionable whether a player with no service whatsoever in MLB is notable enough to have an article at all. --Sanfranman59 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree as to the MLB infobox, if he has never been in MLB. As to notability for those who have not payed MLB, are you suggesting the deletion, for example, of Ten Million (baseball player)?--Epeefleche 04:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Shocking that you have just randomly suggested an article which I created. I would suggest that you stop spamming sites in the EL section of pages and stop trying to pick fights with me. //Tecmobowl 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ten Million is an interesting story and given that he has been the subject of primary source articles, I think he warrants an article. Minor league baseball was a completely different animal 100 years ago when Million was playing. My comment is primarily about current or relatively recent minor leaguers. Given the relatively poor quality of so many existing articles about major leaguers (including some of the most notable players), I think that our efforts are better directed at improving these articles than on creating stubs for players who have never played at the highest level. That said, I don't have a particular objection to the Hochevar article. The fact that he was a number one overall pick is noteworthy enough. Why players like Asdrubal Cabrera—who isn't even on a 40-man roster—have an article is beyond me.

Tecmo - I'm confused by your comment. 1) I did not indicate a view as to whether such players should be deleted. I simply asked Sanfranman whether he was suggesting deletion of players such as Ten Million. 2) As you know, I have created or enhanced articles on some minor league ballplayers. 3) Including Ten Million. --Epeefleche 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As a first overall pick I think he's notable enough to have an article. Ekillian 06:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He has valid sources, all of which are articles that focus on him. He would definitely be notable.++aviper2k7++ 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, at Category talk:Minor league baseball players#Players with long and notable minor league careers, I've proposed a minor change in the rules for categorizing players in Category:Minor league baseball players. I would like to allow the category to include players like Buzz Arlett who are mostly known for their minor league careers, even though they played briefly in the majors. I'd appreciate getting your feedback on this proposal. BRMo 23:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! I will comment more there. // Tecmobowl 23:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Chandler

I recently was able to get Happy Chandler promoted to good article, but the weakest section of the article deals with his time as commissioner of baseball. Would a member (or members) of this project like to help expand this section with an eye toward making the article FA-worthy? If so, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Acdixon 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also consider getting a peer review for the page. Those help weed out minor errors and things --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes on MiLB team pages

Though I'm not a member of the project, I noticed something that, as a baseball fan, piqued my interest. Earlier today, an editor changed the infobox on Rochester Red Wings from {{Minor league team}} to {{MiLB infobox}}. I have no objections to this (IMO, the MiLB infobox, since it was apparently derived from the MLB box, looks much better than the former), but it seems redundant to have two infoboxes that perform the same task. From the looks of it, the number of transclusions to {{Minor league team}} is much higher than the number to {{MiLB infobox}}, likely because the latter is relatively new. Which should be used? I prefer the latter, but mostly, I just wanted to bring this point up and let the project decide. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 Major League Baseball draft

Someone put a lot of effort making a nice 2007 Major League Baseball Draft article. However making articles for all the picks is just spending a lot of time writing garbage that will be delted, and rightly so. Being drafted does not make someone notable enough for an article. This should be elementary. For more discussion on the topic please visit the Talk page there, but I wanted to bring this to the attention of everyone here. Ekillian 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yikes, I am currently tied up in a number of problems, so i don't have a lot of time. But i'd say be bold and just remove anything that you see fit. I'll leave a copy of this on your talk page as well, but I would say this is the best place for discussion. //Tecmobowl 17:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese teams in infoboxes?

• Hi. Question. Is it perfectly fine for me to place Nippon Professional Baseball teams along with MLB teams in the infobox? I'm sure we're only supposed to list only Major League teams in them, but quite a few players I follow have experience in Japan...and I wonder if it's okay to list it in the infobox instead of leaving gap years. Just a thought. -- transaspie 08:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this issue over at WP:WPBBP (here), but there was no real discussion of it. I don't have any objection to including Japanese professional league teams in the infoboxes on MLB player pages. I think it's useful to know at a glance that a player spent time playing in Japan. However, I think it's equally important to include text in the article about the player's Japanese league experience. --Sanfranman59 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(a little late in the discussion): I am for it -- I think that professional experience at the top level of one of the world's important leagues is something that our readers will care about. ESPN does (or did) list Ichiro's previous experience on his stats page. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions by Tecmobowl of hundreds of baseball urls w/unique information; failure to discuss; edit warring

Can someone help?

I asked Tecmobowl not to edit war after he removed a Fangraphs url -- which I pointed out has unique information -- from the Sandy Koufax external links section. See [13]; a summary glance at it will reveal a number of unique categories of stats. Instead, he continued to RV.

I asked him concurrently to move discussion of the issue to the talk page, instead of RVing and edit warring. Instead, he again deleted the link.[14]

In addition, while he completely failed to respond by talking on a talk page as I had suggested, he instead went to a number of additional pages that I had edited, in short order, deleting urls that similarly have unique information, such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library, from the external links. See diffs at John Grabow, Jason Marquis, and Brad Ausmus. And even as I have been writing this I see that he has made similar innapropriate deletions to Moe Berg, Bo Belinsky, José Bautista, Morrie Arnovich, Cal Abrams, Ben Zeskind, Josh Appell, Ryan Braun, John Grabow, Sam Fuld, Brian Horwitz, and Aaron Rifkin.

I wrote all this to him on his talk page, asking him to desist, discuss, and bring in a third party to discuss if necessary. Instead, he has ignored me, and has now deleted urls from even more baseball players. See Mike Lieberthal, Sid Gordon, Harry Feldman, Mike Epstein, Harry Danning, Lou Boudreau, and Ron Blomberg.

I believe that this behavior is highly disruptive and innapropriate. Can anyone here help? Much obliged. I've raised this all on Tecmobowl's talk page -- [15] -- so if you wish to help that may be a good place to go. Thanks.--Epeefleche 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review wiki policy on links. This is not a link farm. I am not touching your edit history, I'm using the special pages feature. // Tecmobowl 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A) There is no failure to discuss. Your messages on my talk page have been responded to. B) I don't believe I removed ESPN, however, it is possible if the information seemed redundant. C) Specifically to fangraphs.com, I am only removing it as an external link. If the information is cited in the article, it is left. The burdon is on you to explain why these sites should be linked to on the pages they are. Until you do so, they are expunged. D) I have not ignored you, I simply am continuing to remove redundant information that offers no unique perspective. E) Most importantly, wikipedia is not a link farm. If you would like to incorporate the information into wiki, please do so. //Tecmobowl 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up, my talk page is NOT the place to discuss this matter. This is certainly an acceptable venue. The issue is not about me, it is about the content. People who want to know about this will see it here. // Tecmobowl 08:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website. There is a bit of an excess of ELs at Sandy Koufax, so I have removed some unnecessary links. Also, don't edit war; please discuss on the talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That information is available on B-R, you just have to look for it. Further to the point, the information is not unique, it is simply and extension of the statistics available on all places. While you are an admin and I do appreciate your opinion, I am surprised that you suggest an open discussion, yet you simply put the information back in there. Plastering Wiki without community consensus is inappropriate. I found over 150+ links to the site and I would suspect that most were added by a small number of people. I think we should continue the discussion on the Baseball project page further before including this site on any more pages. // Tecmobowl 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I asumed good faith and, before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique. I also ask you to stop. Wikipedia's not a link farm, but it is somewhere where people go to also look for information from other sites.--Wizardman 13:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl, I removed some of the links not to engage in the edit war, but to see if the current version would act as a compromise between you and Epeefleche. Also, the links I removed were not similar to others at the article, so I removed those. I don't believe they were really necessary for the section. As I said, I only made the changes to see if there can be a consensus on the current version. You removed the ELs, and continued to do so despite attempts at discussion by Epeefleche. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the Fangraph website? To me, it appears to be unique in comparison to other statistical website. Also note that the website is a popular baseball stats website (Alexa ranking ~80,000). Nishkid64 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have abandoned the idea of keeping this conversation in at most one or two centralized locations. I will make a few points to you and then when i'm done with a response to one of the other editors, i will point you there. First, I at no point refused to engage Epeefleche in a conversation. I simply did so in one location as opposed to the several locations where he posted messages. Second, the post I am writing on another page (as we speak) will address the topic at hand quite extensively. I would suggest that this conversation is centralized on either your talk page or on Epeefleche's so as to avoid jumping around. //Tecmobowl 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I really cannot understand how you came to the conclusion you did. Between the Marquis and Ausmus article there are 28 external links. There are also a number of links available due to references. In an attempt to keep this discussion focused, I will point out a few things from the Marquis article. I am not simply going to revert your edit, but I am not inclined to leave the information there for a long time either. I'd like to focus now on the content of the debate (and not the circumstances). Although I am going to focus mainly on Marquis, his page is representative of many of these other pages and so the argument would apply there as well.

First, I randomly selected a handful of baseball player pages that i have never edited - Don Drysdale, Bob Gibson, Carney Lansford, Brad Penny, and Wee Willie Keeler. Not a single one of those comes anywhere close to having the number of links available on the pages where I removed fangraphs from. At the time of the writing, Gibson had the most with 8. If you were going to ask a group of people which of the players (including Marquis and Ausmus) are most notable, the list will probably include Drysdale, Gibson, and Keeler; furthermore, the list would probably not include Marquis or Ausmus. This again would seem to support the removal of a significant portion of the links on the Marquis, Ausmus, etc... pages.

Second, let's look at the content of the links and whether or not that content is a) truly unique and b) able to be incorporated into the body of the article. Here is the list of links in the current revision of the Marquis article (i have numbered them for the purpose of identification):

• 1. Cubs bio
• 2. {{espn mlb|id=6493|name=Jason Marquis}}
• 3.

• Career statistics and player information from Baseball Reference

• 4. BR Bullpen bio
• 5. Hardball Times stats
• 6. Baseball Cube stats
• 7. Fangraphs stats
• 8. Baseball Almanac profile
• 9. Baseball Library profile
• 10. Jews in Sports bio
• 11. MLB, "Cardinals avoid arbitration with Marquis," 1/7/06
• 12. "The boys of summer and seder: Baseball, Passover share openers," 3/12/07
• 13. Jewish Major League career leaders

Of the 13 total links there, here is how i see the break down: Links 1, 2, 3, 5,6,7, & 8 are all essentially the same: statistics sites. While many of them might say "bio", the biographical information on those pages is inferior to the information that is contained on most baseball player pages on this site. You could probably add the baseball library link, but a good number of those pages provide timelines, so if any of them is unique - that would be it. Most of the articles here cite seem to provide B-R, so it is the site i would recommend is focused on and would follow that with ESPN; Link 4 is a link to the BR wiki. At this point, it seems to fall under the guidelines of what is acceptable as defined at WP:EXTERNAL. That being said, I would actually remove it, but did not want to be overly zealous and simply leave one link on those pages. The press release for Marquis has no place in the external links. Any relevant content could be used and referenced in the content portion of the article, hence its' removal. That leaves links 10, 12, & 13. 12 requires registration - that's a definite no no. Thirteen seems acceptable, although I would think that is the type of content that is worthy of its' own article here on wiki. This leaves us with #9. It's a relatively short page with very little unique content. Anything one would find beneficial could simply be referenced in the article.

Based on those observations, I just don't see this debate as being the least bit "grey". These link sites have no place here and should be removed (systematically if possible). When you consider WP:BOLD, WP:LINKS, [{WP:AGF]], and WP:EXTERNAL, I do not see how the community as a whole supports your perspective on the debate. Again, I am watching this, so perhaps for "flow", if you want to respond, it would be easiest on me if you did so here and then pointed me to this topic OR if we moved this discussion to this page, the community would be best served. It might not be a bad idea to change that topic title or simply add a new heard on that page as the main focus on this is the content and not the people involved. // Tecmobowl 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, most people find the traffic information at Alexa very unreliable. However (and don't quote me on this), I believe ESPN is in the top 50 and B-R is in the top 13-15,000. Further to the point, there are so many sites already well documented on the various wiki pages that do provide the exact information available at Fangraphs.com. I think it is a great and have no problem with the information being referenced on a case by case basis, but i just don't see how this truly offers something unique. // Tecmobowl 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#LINK which states that "Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Wikipedia policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed. Unless you can establish a consensus that these links must be removed, they will be retained, as is. Alansohn 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My experience with User:Tecmobowl so far is that he has decided what is valid content and what is not, and will revert anything that disagrees with it. And despite his claims, he will not discuss or attempt to reach consensus. His idea of discussion is telling us "this is how it's going to be." Also, he presumes to tell us how to use his talk page, and deletes anything he doesn't want to read or answer, with an edit summary of "la dee da" and other such nonsense. Baseball Bugs 15:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

More to the point of the links, I can tell you that (1) I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from MLB.com. I'm seeing various complaints about the user from different users, so it is becoming "about the user", and an RFC is liable to develop from this unless he tempers his approach. Baseball Bugs 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Centralization of Discussion. Given that discussion has taken place on various pages, I am moving some it from User talk:Tecmobowl, User talk:Nishkid64, and User talk:Wizardman to this page, inserting it above chronologically, and formatting this page somewhat for readability.

Failure to Discuss rather than Edit War. I stand by what I said above as to Tecmobowl's failure to respond to my multiple requests to stop edit warring, and instead discuss this on a talk page. He failed to do so, his comments to the contrary above notwithstanding. He instead simply continued to delete urls, with his only comment being the unsupported one inserted in the edit summary of his changes that there is nothing unique about the Fansgraphs url. His first comment on a talk page was the one above at 08:40, 31 May 2007, in which he incorrectly stated that he had not failed to communicate.

Even worse, since I wrote my above comments to Tecmobowl and the community, even while this discussion has been going on, he has continued to delete what are now hundreds of such urls, including urls in the bios of Barney Pelty, Jake Pitler, Scott Radinsky, Jimmie Reese, Dave Roberts, Al Rosen, Goodwin Rosen, Art Shamsky, Larry Sherry, Norm Sherry, Moe Solomon, George Stone, Steve Stone, Steve Wapnick, Phil Weintraub, Steve Yeager, Eddie Zosky, Gabe Kapler, Matt Ford, Al Levine, Scott Schoeneweis, Adam Stern, Craig Breslow, Adam Greenberg, Ian Kinsler, Scott Feldman, Mike Koplove, Shawn Green, and Justin Wayne. Can anyone stop him from continuing this disruptive behavior while this discussion is going on and, if possible, have those revisions reverted? Thanks.--Epeefleche 19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone actually care to talk about the issue at hand here? Epeefleche has grossly misrepresented the information and further to the point, has gone in and added this information to articles where it never existed in the first place (including but not limited to: Stengel & Ruth). The title of this section claims that I refused to discuss this. That is not the case, I simply sat down and removed the content in one sitting that had been added in a similar fashion. It's pretty clear that I have every intention of discussing this matter as needed. It seems I'm not really the one causing problems here. Again, I have made an extensive argument stating my case and people want to discuss my behavior. Unfortunately, I am a person who will continue to be BOLD in my edits. I am sorry that seems to be a point of contention, but seeing as it's point number 5 on wiki's five pillars, it is going to be difficult to convince me otherwise. In the meantime, people have cast aspersions toward me and started edit wars. User:Epeefleche has reverted every single edit I did and then has the audacity to tell me not to get into an edit war. I will leave that information for a short time, but I am still inclined to go back and remove it as nobody has provided any significant response to my claims above.

In response to Alansohns comment on 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC), I am a bit confused. On the one hand you point out that Wiki articles are not collections of links. As far as I can tell, these links are (for the most part), unoriginal. You then go on to say that despite that fact, this information is okay. It seems inconsistent. // Tecmobowl 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Failure to Discuss rather than Edit War. To again clarify, I stand by all my above statements about my requesting that Tecmobowl stop what are now his hundreds of deletions and reverts, and instead discuss this on a talk page, and his failure to do so. Instead he continuing his disruptive activity. The vast majority of his deletions took place after my entreaties. He failed to make an appearance on a talk page until the above-indicated one. And then, he continued to delete hundreds of urls during the discussion. Interested readers, if they exist, can look at the diffs and see that I made no misrepresentations, but that Tecmobowl did and continues to do so.

And even now, at 19:55, May 31, 2007, [16] Tecmobowl deleted a fangraphs entry on this article page, writing "removed ... a site that does not seem to provide the unique information that was claimed." Despite agreement in this discussion by all other than him to the contrary.

Consensus vs. Boldness. Tecmobowl appears from his above comments to not be terribly partial to consensus. As that would not be "bold." Tecmobowl indicates that instead he has to be convinced. Is there any way that anyone can share to keep Tecmobowl from engaging in activity that he believes is bold, and therefore acceptable, but that is actually highly disruptive? Perhaps one of the admins has some thoughts here? We are already suffering from 100s of deletions, he fails to RV them, and Tecmobowl indicates that his intention unless he is convinced otherwise is to continue to engage in this behavior.

Falsehoods. Tecmobowl, with what I am bound to assume is good faith intent, asserts that I have "reverted every single edit" he performed. That is a complete falsehood. Anyone looking at a sampling of the above urls to which I cited can see that what I am saying is true, and that what Tecmobowl is saying is an untruth. Unfortunately, his actions have now risen to become one of the two issues here -- the more distateful one to deal with, but one that interferes with our making Wiki a better tool, and therefore an important issue.

As to his above comment about my having added Fangraphs today to 2 players, that is true.

URLs. As to the second and more interesting issue, I am following with interest the discussion of others as to the uniqueness of the info in the Fangraphs url, for example (the dispute that started this entire matter), and the appropriateness of including urls (in external links or elsewhere) that present information that is relevant and not redundant. I will chime in on this at some point, but wanted to consider what the experts have to say before I do.--Epeefleche 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo is a hypocrite on this link issue, as he insists on posting and re-posting this one in Shoeless Joe Jackson...

blacksoxfan.com - A collection of Shoeless Joe Jackson & other Black Sox related baseball cards

...whose primary purpose appears to be selling baseball cards. Baseball Bugs 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually read what you write? Your suggestion that the site's primary motivation is to sell baseball cards is beyond ridiculous. It is perfectly acceptable for a site to have some commercial aspect; in this case, the number of pages dedicated to education of the topic far exceeds the number of pages that list items for sale. So far, it seems the vast majority of people who have voiced opinions on this topic are focusing on the people doing the editing and not the edits at hand. The best we've gotten so far is that "fangraphs" is a unique source. As i've shown, it is not. This diatribe is just about finished in my opinion. If someone would like to discuss the actual content and leave personal attacks out of it, WONDERFUL. Until then, I will continue with my editing. //Tecmobowl

I've been following all of this throughout the day today and I think it will be a lot more productive if the discussion focuses on developing consensus going forward rather than on who did what to which articles and when. We'll be much more constructive if the personal sniping is kept to a bare minimum.

OK, so where do we draw the line between a reasonable number of links that present useful and unique information and sowing the seeds of a link farm? With regard to Tecmobowl's Jason Marquis example, I fall somewhere in between dumping the number of links he thinks are redundant and keeping them all as is. I am in the habit of including three external links in all of the articles I work on: MLB.com, TheBaseballCube and Baseball-Reference. I think each has something to offer that the others do not. I like the biographical information at mlb.com and think it belongs if for no other reason than that it's the official site of MLB. TheBaseballCube offers minor league and sometimes also college statistics that the others do not. Baseball-Reference offers a more comprehensive collection of statistics than the others and does so in what I find to be an easily navigable format. Although I personally haven't included Fangraphs in the articles on which I've worked, I think a good argument can be made that these pages present data in a useful and unique way that cannot easily be summarized in the article. I think that all four of these sites offer enough unique information to warrant including them in virtually every major league player article.

I think that this is a very good starting point, Sanfranman. I've looked at the 4 urls that you mention, strictly from the standpoint of uniqueness of their stats as they appear on the urls' player pages. Of course some of the urls also offer unique functionality, leader pages, bios, etc. But there is enough that is unique in the stats themselves, IMHO. You will find my analysis a number of paragraphs below. --Epeefleche 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The other links in the list that are potential candidates for inclusion in most player articles are ESPN, BR Bullpen, Hardball Times, Baseball Almanac and Baseball Library. In my opinion, these sites don't offer enough additional unique information to justify including them. I like ESPN's batter vs. pitcher feature better than that at B-R and I also like their splits better than MLB.com, but I don't think this is enough. Hardball Times has win shares and I think some other sabermetric statistics that the others don't, but again, I don't think this is enough unique information. The information available at BR Bullpen, Baseball Almanac and Baseball Library seems to me to be completely redundant.

That leaves the links to the "Jews in Sports bio", the MLB.com article, the JTA article and the "Jewish Major League career leaders". The JTA link is clearly in violation of WP:LINKS since it requires registration. I think the others should be summarized in the text and listed as references, but they shouldn't be external links. (This issue has become a pet peeve of mine about the player articles. The number of articles out here without any references at all is deplorable. The citing of reliable sources should be one of the top priorities for anyone posting a biography of a living person. For one thing, if people were forced to reference a source for everything they write--as is required of traditional encyclopedia editors and journalists--we might rid ourselves of a lot of the non-NPOV, fan club pap that is prevalent in the articles ... "he's the best third baseman in baseball". OK, I'll get off this particular soapbox now!) --Sanfranman59 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Developing consensus sounds good in theory. Tecmo has not shown the slightest interest in trying to discuss and reach consensus. His idea of "consensus" is "I'm right, so we're doing it my way." Meanwhile, at least one of the two he keeps deleting is a good resource, and IT DOESN'T TRY TO SELL BLACK SOX BASEBALL CARDS, unlike the site Tecmo keeps pushing. Baseball Bugs 03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from a really uninvolved editor I'm a little confused by this discussion, as at least as far as I can see, on this page, Tecmo has actually gone through his reasons for removing some of the links and no response was made to that comment. This discussion seems to focus on his behavoir and make no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc. And at the same time editors are bemoaning Tecmo's being unwilling to discuss etc. Obviously this discussion is going on in multiple places and there's a lot I'm missing, but I can't see a legitimate complaint unless someone responds to tecmo's comments. Tecmo left a line by line explanation of why he removed what in a particular instance, and no one bothered to respond. The explanation sounds sound to me and as there's been no rebuttal--only a lot of editor's whining about who did what wrong, I'd have to side with Tecmo. Can people actually discuss this--and hopefully in one place? Also it might help if everyone stopped editing external links while this is being discussed. But I don't see why only Tecmo should have to stop editing external links and none of the other editors involved in the debate--especially as I've seen no signs of discussion from the complaining editors. If you want an injunction against someone from editing or want to complain about behavoir--this isn't the place--ANI is. If you want to solve a content dispute--talk about content not behavoir. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:06, June 1 2007 (UTC)

You are half correct Miss M. One focus of the above conversation is indeed Tecmo's behavior -- his deletion of 100s of urls, first while ignoring entreaties to discuss on a talk page, and then concurrent with a talk page discussion that I started. He did this even after two admins suggested, at the very outset, that he had deleted appropriate external links -- and that he should not do so without discussion.

The second focus of the above conversation consisted of discussion by a number of editors as to why they thought the urls should not be deleted. I gather that you missed that. I'm confused as to why. You indicate above that the discussion makes "no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc." But if you look at the above you will note just such a discussion by a number of editors. I, for example, pointed out that Fangraphs "has unique information," and that the same was the case with others that he had deleted, "such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library." Admin Nishkid said: "I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website." Admin Wizardman wrote: "I ... before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique." Editor Allansohn said above: "See WP:NOT#LINK which states that 'Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article'. In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Wikipedia policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed." Baseball Bugs indicated "I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from MLB.com." Given that you indicate in the heading to your comments that you are a "really uninvolved editor," I'm not clear how you completely missed all of that -- and just got the gist of Tecmo's take on things. But of course I assume good faith, and I imagine that with all of this commentary, discussion is difficult to follow. In any event, I hope this helps, and as you know the substantive conversation is developed even further below by Sanfranman and others.--Epeefleche 10:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What you aren't seeing is that he's not trying to develop consensus, he's simply reporting why he's deleting it. That's not the same thing. And he's taking this same "my way or the highway" approach to every article he's touching. Baseball Bugs 04:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. I said that there is a lot I'm not seeing. I am only seeing the discussion on this page, here. But reporting why you're deleting something is all that's necessary when there's conflict--at least the first step. Discussion, consensus etc are all things which assume that there is a back and forth dialogue. In order for him to be taking the "my way or the highway" approach, you would have had to disagreed with his reasons for deletion, explained why, and then he would have had to refused to talk/compromise/etc. While he's explained his actions, I've seen no evidence of you and the other editors involved responding except to say what he's done wrong. It's possible that you've responded to his immunerated explanations elsewhere and that this page is simply devoid of that and functioning as ANI. But I highly doubt it, and if you are doing that, well it's stupid because uninvolved editors can't really weigh in. If you've replied elsewhere--take an extra few minutes and reply again here, explain why you disagree. Start with the innumerated instance above. I'll repeat again--you're either trying to solve a content dispute, or you're trying to report an editor's behavior and have something done about it. If it's the former, then discuss content. If it's the latter, this isn't the place. Btw, your complaints about Tecmo's behavoir seem less and less credible considering the number of lengthy comments that he has posted about content and the lack of content related postings from the other editors involved. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:53, June 1 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, Miss M. Baseball Bugs: It would be much more constructive if you would respond to either my post or Tecmo's earlier post and discuss the issue at hand rather than continuing to harp on Tecmo's behavior. With regard to the Marquis article, which external links do you think are appropriate? I agree with Tecmo that some of them are redundant and that it's excessive to have that many links in such a brief article about an (at best) marginally noteworthy player. What are your thoughts? --Sanfranman59 05:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, the best solution (as with the pettiness on the Shoeless Joe Jackson page) is for me to stop watching the baseball pages altogether, and let the bully have his way. Although he still refuses to answer fair questions I ask him on his talk page, I am starting to see a glimmer of hope in general on this one. As long as we play precisely by his rules, he might deign to talk to us (one of his rules is to not use his talk page). Also, I'm inclined to actually agree with him about Fangraphs, which looked like a spam site when I selected it yesterday. It brought up the "secure site" box, which is a big yellow-orange flag that says their purpose is to sell something. However, the site won't even come up today, so I don't know what's going on with that. Baseball Bugs 12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. In what way is Fangraphs "a spam site"? When I click on the link on the Jason Marquis page, it brings up a page with a line graph on it of his ERA over time. I don't get a "secure site box" when I click the link and it's coming up fine for me. I use Firefox as my browser, so maybe this explains our different experiences?

I agree with Sanfranman's above observation.--Epeefleche 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I again ask you to please refrain from the personal attacks on Tecmo. These comments only serve to inflame the situation and detract from what should be our goal here: to build consensus. As Miss M has said, if you have a problem with the behavior of another user, the proper forum is WP:ANI. --Sanfranman59 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sanfranman5 I do understand the idea of keeping the links section relevant. It appears that with the exception of fangraphs, we are fairly close in opinion with regard to the quality of the links. I cut the Marquis page down to five links as this is more than enough to effectively supplement the article. There can't be a set limit to the number of links, but if you look at some of the other examples that I pointed to, I think we can see that 10 or more links is almost always excessive. It would appear that the community is okay with B-R and with ESPN as they both have templates in place. Beyond that, I think the situation is murky. I don't have a problem with the Baseball Cube and MLB in and of themselves, but I am curious to see what you mean when you say "I think each has something to offer that the others do not". Like you pointed out, the Baseball cube has minor league stats and college, so I would encourage that to be included where ever possible. The MLB.com page offers a dearth of information relative to the Baseball Cube and B-R. I sort of view it as interchangable with ESPN.com. If that were the only link, then I can understand, but I don't see a reason for it to be included on any page with a B-R and Baseball Cube link.

As for fangraph, I still do not get the "unique" information. Everything that can be found there can be obtained from other sites that have been mentioned. It is a derivative of stats, inc (at least in how the data is utilized). Everyone tells me how unique the information is, but i have yet to see an example. Just because a site exists and has reliable information does not mean it needs to be found on 150+ pages on wiki. Again, this is not about using the site when citing sources, but placing it in an external links section implies (at least to me) that it is a key sight in this area of discussion. In reality, it's pretty far down the list.

With regard to BR, Hardball Times, & baseball almanac, I whole heartedly agree. I'm inclined to agree with you about Baseball Library, but a good number of those pages have extensive time lines. While I am not inclined to say this makes it useful, at least the opposing argument holds water.

I don't think anyone would argue with regards to JTA. I also agree with you regarding the summarization of the content. What is most disturbing to me (and appears to be with you as well), is that there are so many unreferenced articles. Even when the player seems a likely candidate to have a well structured and supported article, most often they don't. I would like to hear some more comments from those not directly involved in the situation. As i see it now, a page like Marquis could have the links reduced to 3-6 sites effectively. With regards to fangraphs, I'm hoping someone can show exactly how this information is unique and that those unique aspects cannot be included in the article (and thus sited as opposed to being placed in the EL section). At this rate, I'm inclined to go back in and remove the content as I did before, but we'll see how this plays out.//Tecmobowl 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Tecmobowl Re MLB.com: Neither B-R nor BaseballCube (nor ESPN, for that matter) offers the biographical text that MLB.com does. I'm talking here about the section headed "Biography and Career Highlights" at the bottom of the main player page (although I must say that Marquis' bio isn't one of their better efforts). This text generally comes directly from the team's official media guide.

Re Fangraphs: I find the graphical presentation of the data interesting and unique. At a glance, I can see how the player has performed over time and in comparison to the MLB average. None of the other sites offer this and this type of information is not easily described in text. I think it fills a gap.

Re ESPN.com: I just don't think it offers enough in addition to B-R to justify automatically including it in every player article.

Re BR-Bullpen, Hardball Times, Baseball Almanac and Baseball Library: I'm sure there are players for whom it would make sense to include a couple of these sites as external links. I don't think that's the case with Marquis.

I'm hoping that others will jump in here with their opinions. We can't very well build consensus if only two of us are actually talking about the issue. --Sanfranman59 05:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Tecmobowl's actions: going through several dozen articles and chopping out almost all links, using the edit summary of "link cleaning - no unique info / wiki is not a link farm", after being asked on multiple occasions to justify such activity is far from constructive, even under the most generous interpretation. Links arbitrarily deleted included obituaries (see here for one example of many), all of which are rather unique, even under Tecmobowl's most narrow definition. What we are finally seeing from Tecmobowl here, after being called to task by multiple editors, is some reasonably thoughtful consideration given to the merits of each of the websites, including the realization and recognition that many of the sites he had blindly chopped away are indeed worth retaining. Having gone through many of these articles for the first time myself, I agree that many need far more explicit sourcing. Yet removing the links that would be the sources for these articles hardly helps the matter. Tecmobowl, if you want sources, stop deleting the links and start adding sources. I'd be more than happy to help, and I think you'd find consensus for that. Once a link is used as a source it would be far easier to justify removing the link from the list. Alansohn 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sanfranman The biographical information available at MLB is sparse. I have yet to see an instance where it could not be incorporated into the articles here on wikipedia. I'm not inclined at this moment to agree with you on that. I'm not debating the validity of the information there, only that it is not worthy of a link in most cases and should have the information incorporated into the text. If mlb.com is the only link on an article, i'm not suggesting that it be removed, or that others be kept out. That is a situation where some links should be added. That being said, in the case of Jason Marquis, it can safely be removed from the article.

I completely disagree with this. For virtually every player, MLB.com has a biography paragraph or two plus fairly detailed summaries of each professional season (including minor league seasons). In my view, it would not be appropriate to include all of these details in a WP article, but they are exactly the type of thing that WP:LINK says may be included in an external link: "Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." (emphasis added) In the case of Marquis, it's unlikely that the WP article should allude to the fact that he "won 6 straight starts April 29-May 25" while pitching in the South Atlantic League in 1997 or that he "hurled 7.0 scoreless innings (3 H, 4 BB, 4 K) in a 1-0 win vs. Asheville June 4" that season. But these details may very well be of interest to someone who wants to dig deeper into Marquis' baseball career. --Sanfranman59 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sanfranman's above thoughtful analysis. --Epeefleche 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Fangraphs: THANK YOU FOR FINALLY MAKING A VALID ARGUMENT. I myself will mull this over and see what wiki has to say about this. For you, it is how the data is presented, not what data is being presented. Can we at least all agree that the data is not unique? The presentation is however. That being said, I'm still disappointed that people interjecting this information are doing so while this conversation is taking place.

I'm sorry that you've not thought my arguments up until now have been "valid". I encourage you to avoid these types of flip remarks as they are likely at the root of why some have taken offense at your attitude. Another example is below where you begin your response to Alansohn with "It appears you just don't get it." That type of comment is unnecessary and only serves to foster divisiveness and to put people on the defensive.

Re Fangraphs: Yes, it's the way the data are presented that makes these pages interesting and unique to me. --Sanfranman59 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As I detail below, Fangraphs also has a great deal of unique information. --Epeefleche 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:ESPN.com, I personally don't think that ESPN or MLB should be included automatically. My only point was that there is a template that has been used on many pages, so it would appear the community feels otherwise.

MLB.com has virtually all of the information available at ESPN.com plus all of the biographical history of each player that ESPN doesn't have. What ESPN has that MLB doesn't is batter vs. pitcher statistics. I also prefer ESPN's "splits" pages to those at MLB.com, but that's really just a matter of personal preference. As I said before, I don't think this additional information is sufficient to justify calling ESPN's content "unique". --Sanfranman59 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall, there is no doubt that two people can form a consensus, it would be nice to get others who articulate these issues in the same fashion that you and I have tried to. While each individual link may have some merit, i think it is important to look at the overall impact it has on the article, whether or not the article can incorporate the information, and how many links that are similar are already in place. In the case of Marquis, I believe it is appropriate to reduce the number of links to 3-6 (i'd lean toward three). // Tecmobowl 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Alansohn It appears you just don't get it. I don't care who did what to whom, when they did it, or even WHY they did it. Edit summaries are just that..SUMMARIES. That being said, I think the edit summaries did an excellent job of communicating my rational behind my edits. I removed links that provided at worst duplicate information and at best very similar information. I also tried to removed links that did not provide a true benefit to the article (case in point - some of the jewish themed websites in the links). Before someone on here calls me oppressive and racist, I am jewish and am certainly not inclined to opress myself (or anybody for that matter). Your claim that i removed unique information is not well supported by your own claims. Information was not blindly chopped, it was removed for good reason. I source information very well thank you very much (see Chief Yellow Horse). No single person is responsible for every piece of information available. This is a group, it means it's bigger than me, and bigger than you, and even bigger than the two of us. In reviewing the various pages that are setup as wiki guidelines, it is clear that what I did is perfectly reasonable. It is also perfectly reasonable for Sanfranman to express his own thoughts on the matter. He is articulate, well based, and supports his statements with information. That is something that appears to be absent from most of the comments here. This is not a case of "finally" seeing... only that I have stopped creating articles and reviewing those already in place to respond to this. //Tecmobowl 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have read and frequently re-read the relevant policies, and as stated above, WP:NOT#LINK states that "Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". It is abundantly clear that in no way, shape or form does the presence of these external links violate Wikipedia policy. While you might have had a leg to stand on by pointing out that some links duplicate in their entirety information available elsewhere, your edit summary focusing on "link farms" and your actions of deleting links for items such as obituaries bespeak a numbers-based arbitrary limit, rather than the more thoughtful pruning that these link lists might benefit from. I'm glad that you realize that this is a group, and I hope that you will continue towards building -- and accepting -- a consensus on these issues. Alansohn 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Procedure -- going forward. I've discussed above Tecmobowl's failure to discuss, edit warring, and rampant deletion of important urls -- even during this discussion. I'm open to suggestions as to how to remedy this. As well as to what actions, if any, we might take with regard to violations and threatened violations of Wiki policy.

I reiterate my request that Tecmobowl now, during the pendency of this discussion, restore the urls that he deleted from the talk pages.

Questioned URLs. I see nothing in Wiki policy that entitles Tecmobowl to, in even the worst case, do anything other than tag a url that he questions with the

template. Blanket deletion is not acceptable. The above discussion suggests that even such tags may not be appropriate with regard to some or all of the urls discussed here.

Fangraphs. Tecmobowl -- please let us know whether you agree with the above general consensus of the uniqueness of the Fansgraph urls. If you do, kindly restore all of those urls that you have deleted -- in this case, without tags.

What Should be Linked. Wiki policy provides that we "should" link sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics."

In addition, sites "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article."

Other considerations are whether the url is useful, informative, and factual.

I believe that the urls at issue here, some of which are statistical in nature, others of which are biographical in nature, and still others of which (such as Fangraphs) are hybrid in nature, all meet these criteria.

Link Farm. As to Tecmobowl's above observation that Wiki is not a link farm, I note that a link farm is "any group of web pages that all hyperlink to every other page in the group." That is not the issue here, as User:Wizardman points out above.

Good point, Epee, and thanks for bringing the definition of "link farm" to my attention as I didn't quite have it correct in my mind. By this definition, I don't think any of the articles which Tecmo has recently edited can be said to contain link farms. On the other hand, a number of the links in the Marquis article have a great deal of overlap and because of this, I think a good argument can be made that at least some of them are unnecessary. To quote WP:LINK: "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." It's the "unless its inclusion is justified" part that's most open to interpretation and that I think we should endeavor to build consensus about. What may be useful is a grid with a row for each web site and columns for each type of information presented on the web site's pages (basic statistics, advanced/sabermetric-type statistics, splits, batter vs. pitcher stats, biographical information, minor league/college stats, transaction history, graphical displays, game logs, player news, etc). If others think this would be worthwhile, I'd be willing to take a crack at developing something like this. What do you folks think of this idea? --Sanfranman59 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanframan, I think that would be a helpful, constructive exercise. Thanks for offering to undertake it.--Epeefleche 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Counting Links in other Bios. Tecmobowl suggests that we should determine the appropriate number of links by looking at the number of external links in other players' bios. To demonstrate the fallacy of Tecmobowl's approach, one might glance at the article on Willie Mays. You guessed it -- zero external links. (I'm assuming, for purposes of this discussion, that the Say Hey Kid qualifies as notable in Tecmobowl's view). The fact that no one has added links to other bios, or that deletionists such as Tecmobowl have removed the links, carries no weight in this discussion.

In addition, if someone has interest in a less-accomplished player, and adds links to that player's bio, there is no reason to decrease the helpfulness of that article by deleting such links simply because no one has demonstrated similar interest in improving the Willie Mays article, for example (or that of another notable player).

Redundancy. I for one have no problem with the deletion of a url that is wholly redundant, in content and form, of another included url. If any exist here. I'm not aware of that being the case. Tecmobowl glosses over this issue by saying above that 7 urls that he points to: "are all essentially the same: statistics sites." He fails to recognize that while they all contain statistics, many (such as Fangraphs) certainly contain different statistics, and the others contain statistics that are presentable, formattable, and/or accessable differently. --Epeefleche 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Low-Hanging Fruit: MLB, Baseball Cube, Baseball Reference, and Fangraphs

Low-Hanging Fruit. Sanfranman59 has identified 4 links that in his view offer enough information to warrant including them in virtually every major league player article. For starters, some thoughts on those urls. Once we have addressed them, we can more easily address the others, keeping our eye out for any that are completely duplicative in both content and format. Bottom line, I agree with Sanfranman, and with the other editors' comments that I have summarized below.

• MLB.com -- Sanfranman59 thinks it belongs because it's the official site of MLB. He also indicates that it offers biographical text that other urls do not offer, in the section headed "Biography and Career Highlights," at the bottom of the main player page, which generally comes directly from the team's official media guide. The biography paragraph or two, plus fairly detailed summaries of each professional season (including minor league seasons), in his view are exactly the type of thing that WP:LINK says may be included in an external link: "Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics....); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." (emphasis added). Wizardman views it as unique, and stresses that Wiki is somewhere that people go to in part to look for information from other sites. Alansohn, citing to WP:NOT#LINK which states that "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article," is of the view that in no way, shape or form does the presence of this links violate Wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs indicates that it is not a duplicate of the other urls, as it offers unique info. I would add that Wiki policy specifically states that articles about any person "should link to the official site if any." Furthermore, Wiki policy provides that we "should" link sites that contain "neutral" and "accurate" material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics," and in addition, sites "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article," and in addition other considerations are whether the url is "useful, informative, and factual." I believe this url meets these criteria.

MLB.com calls itself "the official site of major league baseball." As such, it seems like a good starting-off url for inclusion. We can look at what statistics it has, and then see if later sites have additional information.

MLB.com has MLB stats for each hitter for: G, AB, R, H, 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, TB, BB, SO, SB, CS, OBP, SLG, AVG, SF, SH, HBP, IBB, GDP, TPA, XBH, SB%, GO, AO, GO/AO, OPS.

Stats for pitchers on their player pages are: W, L, ERA, G, GS, CG, SHO, SV, SVO, IP, H, R, ER, HBP, BB, SO, WPCT, TB, BK, WP, IBB, SB, CS, PK, GO, AL, GO/AO, WHIP, SLG, OBA, AVG, PA, NP, P/IP, HLD, GF, K/BB, BB/9, and H/9.

Fielding stats include: POS, G, GS, INN, TC, PO, A, E, DP, PB, SB, CS, RF, and FPCT.

• Baseball Cube[17] -- Sanfranman59 notes that it offers minor league, and sometimes also college, statistics that the others do not. Tecmobowl writes that he does not have a problem with the Baseball Cube, recognizes that it has minor league and college stats, and encourages that it be included wherever possible. Wizardman views it as unique, and stresses that Wiki is somewhere where people go to also look for information from other sites. Alansohn, citing to WP:NOT#LINK which states that "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article," is of the view that in no way, shape or form does the presence of this links violate Wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs indicates that it is not a duplicate of the other urls, as it offers unique info. I would add that Wiki policy provides that we "should" link sites that contain "neutral" and "accurate" material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics," and in addition, sites "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article," and in addition other considerations are whether the url is "useful, informative, and factual." I believe this url meets these criteria.

Baseball Cube includes minor league stats since 1996, and Division I college data since 2002. It also has unique features such as the complete history of the amateur draft, and players organized by high school attended.

• Baseball Reference[18] -- Sanfranman59 observes that it offers a comprehensive collection of statistics in an easily navigable format. Tecmobowl indicates that it would appear that the community is ok with B-R as it has a template in place. Wizardman views it as unique, and stresses that Wiki is somewhere that people go to to in part look for information from other sites. Alansohn, citing to WP:NOT#LINK which states that "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article," is of the view that in no way, shape or form does the presence of this links violate Wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs uses Baseball-Reference frequently; and indicates that it is not a duplicate of the other urls, as it offers unique info. I would add that Wiki policy provides that we "should" link sites that contain "neutral" and "accurate" material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics," and in addition, sites "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article," and in addition other considerations are whether the url is "useful, informative, and factual." I believe the url meets these criteria.

Baseball Reference has, in addition to the above, hitters' 162-game average and career-high stats, and PA, Outs, RC, RC/27, AIR, lgBA, lgOBP, lgSLG, lgOPS, OPS+ psOPS, league-adjusted stats, debut and final game dates, splits, and home run logs.

In addition they supply the following stats for pitchers: HR, BFP, league ERA, and league ERA+.

For fielders, in addition they supply league fielding percentage, both RFg and RF9, lgRFg, and lgRF9.

• Fangraphs[19] -- Sanfranman59 noted that it presents data in a useful and unique way that cannot easily be summarized in the article. He finds the graphical presentation of the data interesting and unique, given that he at a glance can see how the player has performed over time and in comparison to the MLB average. He points out that none of the other sites offer this, and that this type of information isn't easily described in text. Nishkid64 indicates that the link provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball Reference or any other baseball statistical website, and furthermore that it is a popular baseball stats website (Alexa ranking ~80,000). Wizardman views it as unique, and stresses that Wiki is somewhere to which people turn to also look for information from other sites. Alansohn, citing to WP:NOT#LINK which states that: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article," is of the view that in no way, shape or form does the presence of this links violate Wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs indicates that it is not a duplicate of the other urls, as it offers unique info. I would add that Wiki policy provides that we "should" link sites that contain "neutral" and "accurate" material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics," and in addition, sites "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article," and in addition other considerations are whether the url is "useful, informative, and factual." I believe the url meets these criteria. For more background info, see "All hail FanGraphs" and "Q&A with David Appelman of FanGraphs.com".

Fangraphs, uniquely, has hitters' 1B, BB%, K%, BB/K, ISO, BABIP, RC, RC/27, GB/FB, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, IFH%, BUH%, GB, FB, LD, IFFB, Balls, Strikes, Pitches, IFH, BU, BUH, WPA, -WPA, +WPA, BRAA, REW, pLI, phLI, PH, WPA.LI, and Clutch.

Also uniquely, Fangraphs supplies the following for pitchers: BS, K/9, HR/9, BABIP, LOB%, FIP, GB/FB, LD%, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, IFH%, BUH%, GB, FB, LD, IFFB, Balls, Strikes, RS, IFH, BU, and BUH, WPA, -WPA, +WPA, BRAA, REW, pLI, in LI, gmLI, exLI, and Pulls. It also has sorts for starters vs. relievers.

Fangraphs also provides some spring training stats, and Bill James, CHONE, Marcel, and ZIPS projections. It has a game log, play log, compare players feature, news articles, and unique graphical presentations.

I believe that Sanfranman's proposed grid, with a row for each web site and columns for each type of information presented on the web site's pages (basic statistics, advanced/sabermetric-type statistics, splits, batter vs. pitcher stats, biographical information, minor league/college stats, transaction history, graphical displays, game logs, player news, etc), will be helpful and supportive of the view that these urls each contain unique information. --Epeefleche 09:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? I believe that the above reflects a degree of consensus (if not unanimity) about the above four urls. It also demonstrates with specificity that each url contains largely unique information. If anyone has any further comments with regard to them, please weigh in. The next step will be to take a look at some of the other urls that have been mentioned. --Epeefleche 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• What you have done is plastered your comments in several different places, broken up train of thought, and made this discussion extremely difficult to follow. Yes there is a consensus on MLB, BR, & the baseball cube. There is NOT a consensus on fangraphs. A temporary solution would be to leave it out until a consensus is established, however, you have rejected any temporary status. There are a number of people on here that have rejected the inclusion of fangraphs. Furthermore, if you agree with what you have just stated, then other links should not be re-introduced to the articles at hand. I have said my piece on fangraphs and will continue to WP:BOLD be bold until a general consensus or agreed upon action is reached. To further a point, take this into consideration. The primary keyword used by fangraphs is "baseball stats". A simple search of "baseball stats" on major search engines did not display that site within the first few pages of results. //Tecmobowl 22:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Tecmo. Thanks Tecmo. I'm glad we have consensus on MLB, Baseball Reference, and Baseball Cube.

As far as Fangraphs is concerned, I'm surprised by your reaction. Unique Statistics. Your basis for deleting Fangraphs was, to quote your edit summaries, "it is not unique information." It's been demonstrated above, however, that to the contrary the url has loads of unique information. Unique Formatting. Also, as Sanfranman pointed out, it has unique formating. You indicated above, as to that observation, "THANK YOU FOR FINALLY MAKING A VALID ARGUMENT. I myself will mull this over and see what wiki has to say about this. For you, it is how the data is presented, not what data is being presented. Can we at least all agree that the data is not unique? The presentation is however." Consensus? And there is a general consensus of support for its inclusion, if not unanimity -- certainly among editors who (from their contributions) evidenced that they had looked at the url. As well as from the admins who commented. Criteria. The test you apply above -- your google search -- is not the Wiki test for inclusion of a url. The Wiki test is the one that I quoted above, under "What Should be Linked." Under that policy we should link to Fangraphs because it contains neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics," and "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article."

I would appreciate your thoughts. Once we have addressed Fangraphs, we can move on to see which of the other urls are appropriate for inclusion, and which are redundant and therefore not appropriate. I do agree that fully redundant urls should not be included. Even before doing that, we could (separately, by email if you like, so as not to clog this up) discuss how we might limit or (ideally) avoid edit warring on this subject.--Epeefleche 23:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, my apologies for not following through on developing the grid I suggested and thanks to Epeefleche for summarizing the content of the four statistical sites on which much of our discussion has focused.

(1) Does anyone out there object to the proposition that MLB.com, Baseball-Reference.com and TheBaseballCube.com all include sufficiently unique, unbiased, relevant and accurate to warrant including them as external links in all baseball player articles? If so, please speak now or forever hold your peace (at least until the next edit war breaks out).

(2) I am not at all convinced that we have reached a consensus with respect to Fangraphs.com. As best as I can determine from all of this discussion, we've got 4 in favor of Fangraphs.com (Nishkid64, Epeefleche, Wizardman and me), 3 against (Tecmobowl, Baseball Bugs, JGHowes) and 3 with no clear position (Alansohn, Miss Mondegreen and Kathy A). If I have misrepresented anyone's position here, please correct me. As it stands, we're about as evenly split as we can be. So what's next? Shall we solicit opinions from other active baseball-related article editors? If we are unable to reach consensus, where does that leave us? --Sanfranman59 06:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As to Fangraphs, my count differs from yours. Alansohn and Baseball Bugs appear to be in support (though Baseball Bugs for a moment thought that it might be a registration site, which it is not). If I'm correct, that would make it 6-2. Of those two, the only one with any analysis is Tecmo. But the rationale given by Tecmo for his deletes has been disproven extensively above. He asserted that Fangraphs has no "unique information." I've pointed to 69 unique categories of data. Are we seriously going to continue to discuss this? I mean, I like you guys and all, but .... And even before that, Tecmo indicated that you had made a valid argument on the unique formatting of the site (which he was going to mull over), and he had asked "Can we at least all agree that ... [t]he presentation is [unique]?" (BTW, I don't think that we'll hear from Tecmo under his name for a little while, as he is sitting out 2 3RR violations for RVs of 2 baseball players' bios).--Epeefleche 07:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that about Tecmo as I think he's a valuable WP contributor, but it comes as no surprise. He seems to seek out conflict and that approach (thankfully) doesn't float in collaborative efforts like this. At any rate, it seems that there are several additional opinions in favor of Fangraphs, so I think we've got our consensus unless there are others out there lurking who we haven't heard from. Please speak up folks.

Put me down at the moment as a "no clear position". I have to look at it some more. The sites I've normally used are MLB, Baseball-Reference, and Baseball-Almanac. I think the registration thing was an anomoly. My complaint was that User talk:Tecmobowl had a hypocritical attitude in that he was promoting a site that looked like a spam site to me, and which he admitted knowing its webmaster. He has also gotten sufficiently angry, after at least two 3RR suspension threats, that he's stopped editing for now, although that shouldn't change the principles of the decision process. I'll take a look at Fangraph sometime soon. Baseball Bugs 09:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you can put me down as a tentative "yes". It looks like something I could refer to, and I haven't seen those graphs on other sites that I look at, which doesn't prove anything by itself, but it seems OK to me as a resource. Baseball Bugs 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to chime in on the Fangraphs issue. I am a huge baseball fan but was unaware of the existence of the Fangraphs website until I stumbled across the discussion here. Because some people are "visual learners" by nature I think that the uniquely presented information on Fangraphs.com is worth linking to -- No Guru 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Put me down as a firm yes for Fangraphs. Yaking a look at the career On Base Percentage analysis for Mets shortstop José Reyes shows graphically his transition into a much more effective leadoff hitter, getting on base far more often as his career progressed, that can be seen here in rather unique fashion. Sure the data is available elsewhere, bu the presentation is what absolutely convinces me that this is an essential link. Alansohn 16:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we now have a 7-2 vote in favor of keeping Fangraphs. And Tecmo's reason for not keeping it -- his suggestion that it is not unique -- has been disproven.

He has also indicated that he does not now have a problem with Baseball Cube, Baseball Reference, and MLB. I would ask Tecmo to restore all ELs of those 3 urls which he has deleted. It clearly will be too much work for the rest of us to find them, now that they have been deleted, and since he deleted them without consensus I would suggest that it is only proper that he restore them. This, in fact, is one of the reasons that I would suggest that when there is a dispute about baseball urls, the rule should be (indeed, I think it is, as with deleting articles) that we keep the url pending conclusion of the discussion. It is easier to then find the article and delete the url -- we need only do a search. To find the articles that formerly had such urls, which Tecmo has deleted, is a more difficult exercise.--Epeefleche 07:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fangraphs Consensus Update. Updating the count, considering the comments of editors who have commented within the past week elsewhere on this page, the vote now is 9-2 in favor of Fangraphs. In addition to the aforementioned comments of support of Sanfranman59, Nishkid64, Wizardman, Alansohn, Baseball Bugs, No Guru, and me (Epeefleche), we now have the supportive vote/comment below of ►ShadowJester07  and Jackaroodave (whose analysis I found to be especially incisive). And even of those 2 negative indications, only 1 (Tecmo) had any analysis. And Tecmo's stated rationale for deleting Fangraphs -- his contention that it is not unique -- has been disproven.--Epeefleche 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)--Epeefleche 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not put words in my mouth. My problems with fangraphs are extensive and have been expressed before. The poll was not presented in a fashion that allows the issue to be discussed properly. This issue is not a matter of "all the links" or "none of the links". The contiued discussion of this topic in several places leaves us exactly where we started. //Tecmobowl 19:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tecmo's Stated Rationale for Deletion at the Time he Deleted 100s of ELs. Given Tecmo's above suggestion that I misrepresented his rationale for deleting Fangraphs, I'll quote my initial exchange with Tecmo. The exchange took place at the very outset of his deletion of 100s of ELs from baseball players' bios without consensus. This matter began, as is discussed above, with Tecmo's deletions of the Fangraphs EL in the Sandy Koufax article. I undid the deletion 3 times. His first deletion was accompanied by Tecmo's following explanation: "rv enough links." I restored and responded: "this has stats other links lack." Tecmo deleted again, writing: "cleaned links section of spam & sights [sic] that don't offer unique information..." I responded: "As indicated, fangraphs does offer unique info. Read it. If you differ, don't edit war. Discuss on edit pg." Tecmo deleted a third time, however, for the third time in an 81-minute period, writing: "rv - it is not unique information - 3rv violation being reported." [emphasis added] See [20] I at that point, given his refusal to discuss this matter on a talk page, brought the matter to this talk page myself, in an attempt to bring others into the discussion, and to incent him to discuss rather than edit war. It is upon this, and similar exchanges that accompanied Tecmo's deletion of 100s of ELs, that I base my above comment.--Epeefleche 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on BR-Bullpen as a source

As far as I can see, BR-Bullpen is a wiki. Are we considering this to be a reliable source? (I lean towards no on this). If not, does it have value as an external link?--Kathy A. 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• So far it appears that most, if not all of us, agree it is not a reliable source. //Tecmobowl 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • To put it another way, it's as reliable as wikipedia is. Baseball Bugs 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I would deem it unreliable for encyclopedic purposes UNLESS the information therein was pulled from an authoritative source. Much of BR Bullpen's information comes from the Baseball Encyclopedia which would be authoritative. --CPAScott 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't it be better to track down the source and cite it directly?--Kathy A. 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I agree. I have used BR Bullpen as a "reference" in a few stub articles I've created here (defunct minor leagues such as Sophomore League, but cross-reference them with Mike McCann's page. I consider that the risk of incorrect information on these topics is fairly small and, as a stub created, many will expand on what I start -- hopefully using more authoritative sources. I can't quote Baseball Encyclopedia directly, 'cause I don't have a copy, but I trust that what information I pull from places like BR Bullpen is of low risk. Anyway, an interesting discussion for sure. --CPAScott 18:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this applies in this case, but Item 12 under "Links normally to be avoided" is "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I don't know if BR-Bullpen qualifies as an "open wiki", but if it does, this probably (in general) rules it out as an external link. --Sanfranman59 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP defines an open wiki as one open to the general public, without requiring registration. I just checked, and BR Bullpen does not require registration. Does it have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? That's obviously open to interpretation, but after reading the discussion here, I'd definitely err on the side of not including it in the external links section (and definitely not the sources section).--Kathy A. 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ron Liebman sockpuppet some of us dealt with once upon a time previously put his useless data in the bullpen. This is all the convincing I need that it's not a legitimate source. In rare occasions, it's a beneficial source...the problem is few people who write for the Bullpen cite them so I have to take them with a grain of salt, which is a problem when it's the only place I can find certain types of data. And, as it is an open wiki without a lot of editors, it probably does exclude it from being a legitimate source. It would only be useful if more of the articles were cited. -- transaspie 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BR Bullpen should not be used as a source. First, because like us, it's a wiki, so anyone can change the info there. Second, there are zero sources in any articles, including main page ones. If it hadsources, we could use the ones used there to fix up the articles though.--Wizardman 14:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wizardman's right. BR Bullpen is a wiki, and is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. The stuff there is never sourced. However, you could use it as a reference for information, but you need to find a different source when you actually reference it in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What Wizardman, Nishikid, CPA Scott, and Kathy say makes sense to me. It appears to be a wiki. Many of its pages do, btw, reference sources -- while others do not. As pointed out, many people do not have access to Baseball Encyclopedia directly, but do to BR Bullpen -- and access is one thing that wikipedia does focus on. I also wonder whether it has a "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" -- how do we check this (contact them?); and this would seem to be a relative judgment in any event. I would guess that its number of editors will increase if it is mentioned as a link on more Wikipedia articles. Thoughts on applying the history/number of editors test?--Epeefleche 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Miss Mondegreen

"let the bully have his way"

"I see nothing in Wiki policy that entitles Tecmobowl to, in even the worst case, do anything other than tag a url that he questions with the {{linkfarm}} template. Blanket deletion is not acceptable. The above discussion suggests that even such tags may not be appropriate in some or all of the urls discussed here."

Apparantly no one can undersand why Tecmo won't respond to comments on his talk page. I can't imagine that the article talk pages, oh or here might be a better place. Why don't we take a straw poll and find out who watched Tecmo's talk page. Let me tell you now that unless you canvass watchers of Tecmo's talk page to come and vote here, watchers of this page will still win, if only by the margin of my vote. Theoretically the interested editors would watch baseball pages, and not be obsessed with Tecmo. Why would the discussion take place there? Not to mention, that certain editors can't seem to discuss issues politely, and are taking that beyond this conversation--in fact, interjecting themselves into other conversations Tecmo is having. [21]

And let's not forget Epeefleche's canvassing for help in his side of the revert war--asking other editors to come and revert Tecmo's edits, because yes, you only opened discussion here after you'd used all of your reverts, and in fact, already been reported (incorrectly) for a 3RR.
Do I see evidence of abysmal behavoir? Yes. Blockable behavoir? Yes. On Tecmo's part? Not by a longshot.

Now about the content. First, I think everyone needs to really READ Wikipedia:External links. It's a great page. It has lists of what to include, what not to include and what to do if y'all can't get along. That whole linkfarm thing that you're slicing and dicing and saying "oh, but articles aren't linkfarms"...oh, I'll just quote:

Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the {{linkfarm}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.

He was not "entitled" to tag or delete? What? First, we don't recieve entitlement to edit from policies and guidelines. We don't sit, waiting patiently for the policies and guidelines to give us permission for what to edit next. It's an open wiki! We have policies and guidelines to GUIDE us. To tell us what things to strive for, what things to avoid. Not to provide us with the entitlement to edit.

This guideline advises editors to tag these lists--at the least. Or, you can be bold and be helpful and do the cleanup yourself, especially if your an editor who knows the article. Tags help editors who see a problem and don't know how to deal with it alert people to the problem. Most of Tecmo's edits were clean-cut, removing things that were specifically not ok, or were duplicates and he's discussing the ones that people have problems with.

UNIQUE
Now let's clear up something else. Everyone's going on about this or that is UNIQUE. What does the word unique come from? It comes from this line in WP:EL:

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

Unique information. Not compared to the other links. Not compared to the current status of the article. Information that is unique and that would never be included in a featured article. External links aren't sources--Tecmo's right, you guys are treating articles like link farms, using the external links to tell people what you haven't bothered to write. Most of the stuff he's removing: they're prefectly adequate sources--you just have to write the stuff and add them as footnotes and references. You have to write the additional articles and add see alsos. External links are--you liked this article? See the complete stats here and the official website here, and an interview here. Stuff that can't be included or shouldn't be included. External links are not--we couldn't tell the basic story of this person's life so here's the obituary and here's what these websites say. That's a cop-out and that's why the guidelines are so strict.

Obituaries

Speaking of obituaries--not all are ok external links. Here are the guidelines that would apply:

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
• Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Is there something particular about the obituary that makes it special that can't be included? Interviews or anecdotes? In this case, both copyright, length, inappropriate--whatever, all of these things would keep this information from the article, but it would still be inportant information. However, if there's nothing in the obituary that wouldn't be in the article if it became a featured article--then it's not an appropriate link. I have a feeling that it's that criteria that exclude a lot of these external links. It's not that they aren't great sources--it's that the material should be in the article, and that they should be listed as notes or references instead.

Choosing a statistics site
WP:EL says that masses of detail that can't be incorperated (in this case, that's statistics) are good--duplicate links are not. This wikiproject should choose a site, taking into consideration access, longevity and the quality of the site. Also, some players might have more or better statistics elsewhere, so use a different site for them. Keep the WP:EL guidelines in mind when choosing a site--you have a choice here. Something where access is limited is not ok, and if the site is often reconfigured etc, or it's not a stable link, that's a bad choice too.

#12: Open wikis

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

That's up to the wikiproject to decide. But look carefully at the other requirements. I have a feeling that even if it's decided to be a reliable source, it's not a good external link. The two are entirely seperate.

Now, about that shoeless joe link. If this ([22]) is in fact the link that Tecmo has been adding--that's problematic. I see no text other than Lorem Ipsum, which is highly suspect. Tecmo is right--sites that sell stuff are allowed, but the content would have to be, well, unique, something I couldn't judge as I didn't see anything other than cards and stats. WP:EL says that there's generally something that's not pushing a product and it's usually right.

There is a very clear, highly specific guideline on exactly what to do with external links. I'd like to see all future conversation just going over that and how to move forward. Does the project think x is stable... what articles need expanding--maybe it would help the articles if when ELs were removed from the article, they were listed on the talk page so that editors of the article had a starting list of sources to expand the article with. But if editors are going to continue making personal attacks and continuing their bad behavoir, I'll take those editors to ANI myself just to get them to shutup. I really don't care who started it or if Tecmo was behaving badly days ago (though I have still to see no evidence of that--I don't want to either, move on!) He's not the one behaving badly now and his explanations of removal of links seem in compliance with WP:EL. I disagree with him on certain things--like his explanation of numbers of external links in articles by importance, and if that blacksoxfan link is being added, that link is a problem, but I find the rest of his editing to be good clean-up work.

Remember, external links are not sources. Take a look at your FA articles. They have appropriate external links, both in number and content. They aren't using them as a replacment for sources and neither should the smallest stub. Though the Sandy Koufax EL section needs work. Some of those links look like they probably duplicate information, and most of them are missing explanations of what they are. Look at the Ted Radcliff article for an example of what an external link section should look like. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:12, June 2 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The thing is, while they all look the same, that ends up not being the case. Baseball-Reference is pretty much the main stats and everything. However, Baseball Library contains extra facts which can be used to help expand the article, while Baseball-Almanac contains world series and all-star game information, which neither of the other two do. I'll just go by whatever the consensus ends up being here.--Wizardman 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fangraphs. Largely redundant, has blogs, and the EL sections are way too bloated as it is. JGHowes ^talk - 19:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fangraphs. I share the feelings of User:JGHows. Additionally, although the presentation style of the information there is somewhat unique, I do not see it as enough to supplant any of the already used sites. //Tecmobowl 05:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If the only additional info Baseball Library contains is info that would be in the article were it a featured article, it isn't appropriate. I'm assuming world series and all star info would be in the article, but if not... Does Baseball-Almanac include the main stats or only special ones?

In re Fangraphs -- are you voicing opinions about it as an EL or a reference or both? Miss Mondegreen talk  07:44, June 4 2007 (UTC)

B-R contains world series and All-star information, so the Baseball-almanac argument is weak at best. Per Fangraphs - As previously mentioned, I have no problem with it being used as a reference point as long as it isn't excessive. What i mean by that is, a players "pitches-per-plate-appearance" is a statistic that should not appear as many times as a players hits, home runs, etc...etc... //Tecmobowl 11:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball-Almanac contains box scores of many regular season games (though not for all years) and I have often found it a valuable resource for that kind of info. Baseball Bugs 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Miss Mondegreen, for a well thought, well written comment. It helped clarify a few issues for me. --Kathy A. 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RE Baseball-Almanac' : baseball-reference and thebaseballcube also include that information. Again, the argument for baseball-almanac as a link to be used in the external links section seems weak at best. //Tecmobowl 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC

Consensus ignored; More Fangraphs urls deleted by Tecmo

Tecmo today, having returned after being blocked for 48 hours for 2 violations of the 3RR while deleting Fansgraphs urls,[23] continues to delete Fangraphs urls. [24] This, despite the above discussion and 7-2 vote in favor of not deleting Fangraphs. And despite the 69 unique categories of data. Can someone suggest how we stop this behavior? --Epeefleche 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See note immediately below. There are at least two issues. One is the specific question of whether to allow Fangraphs or not. If the deleter refuses to go along with the 7-2 vote favoring it (or whatever the current total is), find an admin and ask how to do an arbitration request. One possibility could be User:Nishkid64, who seems to be somewhat engaged in the discussion already. I think other admins have also been watching this situation, but no one has asked them to do anything yet. On the more general question of disruptive behavior, ask the admin how to do a Request for Comment on the editor. Baseball Bugs 18:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As Mondegreen has pointed out to me, the way to deal with a continually disruptive user is to file an administrative complaint (a Request For Comment), rather than trying to continue a futile debate and to wage a constant revert war. That way an administrator can look at the situation and make recommendations. Baseball Bugs 16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to seek admins who are not involved in this discussion, in the interest of neutrality. A good place to start could be the admins who imposed the 48-hour blocks. Ask them for help with arbitration and RFC. Baseball Bugs 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche--let's look at a recent revert war between you and Tecmo, shall we?

He removed:

• http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Hank_Greenberg
  • 12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
  • 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

He also removed four of the five statistics ELs:

• http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=greenha01
• http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/greenha01.shtml
• http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1004996&position=1B
• http://jewishmajorleaguers.org/crrldrs/crrldrs.html

Here are the EL guidelines to consider:

• (What should be linked) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts...) or other reasons.
• Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the {{linkfarm}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.
• Links normally to be avoided:
  • 1. 5 Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
    2. 13 Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
• 13 rules out the jewishmajorleaguers site. It's about Jewish major leaguers, not about Hank Greenburg. Are you going to link to a page of statistics of major leaguers who put their left shoes on first too?
• 5 rules out the baseball almanac. My browser blocked three pop-ups and that's a lot. It also has multiple ads and asks for money in the middle of the page.

For the record, Tecmo left in thebaseballcube for a stat site. The baseballcube and baseball reference both have advertising btw, fangraphs doesn't seem to. Maybe all of the statistics sites frame the same information slightly differently or provide slightly different information. But choose one.

Tecmo isn't violating consensus btw. WP:EL has overriding community consensus, and he's provided good edit summaries and has explained his edits every time I've seen him asked (though it sometimes takes him a day). If you don't like the guideline, go and participate and try to get it changed. Don't edit war with Tecmo and start this blame game again. Especially, when you came here to ask people to help you undo Tecmo's edits. Are you kidding? Fgure out how to actually discuss content and that you can't WP:OWN all of wiki baseball. You don't need four statistics ELs. Miss Mondegreen talk  19:16, June 10 2007 (UTC)

Miss M--as the heading here suggests, the focus under the above heading is limited to how we enforce violations of consensus regarding Fangraphs. If you have comments in that regard, please share them. If you have comments about other matters discussed in an earlier headings, as seems to be the case, for them to be read by interested parties you might do well to insert them there. Whereupon I will be pleased to respond to any that call for a response. To discuss them here, instead, would be to scatter the discussion and needlessly make it difficult to follow. As far as discussing Baseball Almanac, etc., as you know from the above we are first seeking to determine some urls that we agree are appropriate for inclusion. We started with mlb.com, baseball reference, baseball cube, and fangraphs. The discussion is under an above header. We will move on to other urls once a consensus has been reached with regard to those. I imagine (and I would support) that any urls wholly redundant in data and format be deleted. We have not seen that to be the case yet, however, and it indubitably is not the case with Fangraphs.

You might clarify your points above as to Baseball Cube and Baseball Reference, under the appropriate header. Are you suggesting, in opposition to Tecmo, that they should be deleted? As to your further comment about Baseball Cube, Tecmo has indeed at times deleted it.

Tecmo had now been blocked for the 3rd time in 3 days for violating Wiki's 3RR, this time with regard to Kevin Youkilis.

He is also blatantly violating consensus as well, as is demonstrated above.

One last point. You say, "Maybe all of the statistics sites frame the same information slightly differently or provide slightly different information." I'm not sure whether you understand how dramatically that understates the situation. There is nothing "slightly different" about dozens of categories of Fangraphs data. I'm frankly astounded that you, someone commenting on this page and therefore one would think at least rudimentarily aware of the nature of the statistics that we are discussing, would make such a wrong-headed comment. --Epeefleche 07:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't fangraphs, and btw, if that's the only issue with his EL deletions, stop reverting him wholesale and do partials. The issue is that per WP:EL you shouldn't have four or five statistics sites per article. Now either the wikiproject can decide to use one site (fangraphs or something else) as THE statistics EL. Or the wikiproject can decide that the statistics EL should be decided on an article by article basis.

If the wikiproject is going to choose, choose. Baseball almanac shouldn't be it because of the amount of advertising anyway, so that makes your choice simpler. But choose. Just because you want to keep x doesn't make the problem go away. Or, if there's a real need for two different sites and it's a case that you can make to someone who knows little about baseball (i.e., not a fanatical need, but a real case), then choose two. If the wikiproject is actually going to discuss this issue, (the issue of the statistics, not just fangraphs) and needs time to come to consensus, let Tecmo know that that issue will actually be discussed and ask him to cease removing those statistics related ELs while discussion is ongoing. He should be able to continue doing deletions of the other problematic ELs though, no? Miss Mondegreen talk  07:38, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Miss M--The focus under the above heading (.4) is limited to how we enforce violations of consensus regarding Fangraphs. You are the only one discussing anything else in this section. When you discuss other urls where they are discussed above, I shall be happy to respond to any comments that call for responses. Scattering discussion in the manner that you are doing only serves to confuse other readers. I'm not sure what your view is on Fangraphs, but I gather from your commments that baseball statistics are not your area of expertise.--Epeefleche 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's bull Epeefleche--you changed the heading. And, while you may have or get wikiproject consensus that fangraphs is a good EL, excessive ELs is not ok, and that's what Tecmo is removing--he's paring it down to one statistics site. You're not dealing with the problem. The fangraphs links and other links are being removed because the articles are ignored WP:EL--and if you refuse to discuss that and figure out what to do as a project, then there's nothing anyone can do to help you. Tecmo is attempting to follow the consensus that supports WP:EL, so really, he's not violating consensus. The fact that however many people raised there hands and said that they thought the site was a good EL isn't the issue. You can talk about this one site all day long and it won't solve the problem. And, if you only have a problem with Tecmo removing fangraphs ELs--because that's all I've heard you complain about, then you shouldn't be reverting his edits wholesale. Partial reverts are possible and you've reverted the removal of sites with excess advertising, sites that aren't on-topic, sites that are open-wikis....sites that violate WP:EL in a number of ways. Either explain the reason that you are reverting his edits (other than your fangraph issue) or stop doing it. If you don't have a reason, stop hitting the undo button. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:07, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I clarified the heading given that it was not clear enough for you. The content here has always been limited, other than by you, to the content in the heading. No need to use words like bull. It would be appreciated if you would elevate your conversation. Should you choose to discuss this where others will read it, along with other comments on the same topic, I will be happy to engage you in discussion of your curious view that we should pare these down to one one statistics site, and your other views. I'll spare others the need, however, to follow this discussion all around in disorganized scattered fashion as they would have to if I opened up substantive discussion here. --Epeefleche 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't commented yet on this as I thought it would have been resolved by now and my interest isn't that great in this particular topic. It has now gotten to the point of being a disruption and it needs resolved ASAP. I don't see any innocent parties to this, all editing of external links sections needs to stop until this is resolved. Everyone needs to decide which websites that are to be included across the board, put that into a template and add the template to every player article and that would be the end of it. Let us also remember that WP:EL is a guideline, it is not a hard and fast rule. It doesn't give a maximum allowed external links, it just says to keep it to a minimum. Since it doesn't give specifics in the guideline, it falls to this project to come to a consensus on which to include and which to exclude. The constant bickering back and forth needs to stop, it is hardly productive. --Holderca1 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Holderca1. I agree that we need to decide which websites are to be included across the board. Putting it into a template sounds like a great idea, if beyond my own abiities. And adding it to every player bio sounds like much work for someone, but also sounds like a positive approach. As you will see above in the section "low hanging fruit," some of us have been trying to effect just that sort of forward movement, starting first with the 4 urls Baseball Reference, Baseball Cube, MLB, and Fangraphs. If you would like to add your voice to that consensus building effort, please do. Once that has been done, we will be in a position to address some of the other urls that have been mentioned, and seek consensus on them as well. I agree as well with your comments on WP:EL.--Epeefleche 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fangraphs

While I appreciate the attempts of certain editors to include this site unilaterally, the discussion here did not reach a consensus. At this time, the link has been removed from a portion of the articles it has been included upon. If anyone would like to discuss the merits of this link, please feel free to do so. DO NOT DISCUSS who said what and why and when and all that...this is about the content, and nothing more. Please familiarize yourself with WP:EL and at least one users response on this discussion. The community is larger than those that edit baseball pages. Also, bare in mind that if the information is largely equivalent to other sites already accepted by the community, that impacts the said links usefulness. //Tecmobowl 16:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That would make no sense. There is an ongoing discussion of the subject, since May 31st, with 7 other editors, at [25]. Opening up discussion elsewhere, such as your attempts to do it today here and on my talk page, could only confuse and dilute it. I would suggest that if you have any comments you bring them to the ABOVE existing discussion, "Low-Hanging Fruit: MLB, Baseball Cube, Baseball Reference, and Fangraphs,: which already contains I might point out quite a number of entries by you on the subject. It clearly describes the Fangraphs consensus, the dozens of unique categories of data that it contains -- contrary to your assertion while deleting the urls that they contained no unique data, as well as your prior comments regarding the uniqueness of the Fangraphs formatting.--Epeefleche 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Epee, I have a question. I know that Fangraphs has unique stats...how many of them would be of interest to the casual reader? -- transaspie 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For me, it's not so much that Fangraphs has unique stats. It's more in the presentation. Their graphs make it easy to see trends across time and how the player stacks up against MLB averages. --Sanfranman59 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks good and useful to me. Baseball Bugs 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I was mainly asking that question to criticize the site but now I feel torn because I've only just noticed that Stats, llc is behind Fangraphs; they happen to be the official scorers for Major League Baseball. I'm still not sure if I want to use them as an external link though. That does give them credibility, but then again it may still be excessive to include yet another stat link. I'm not sure where I lean now. -- transaspie 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For the "figger filberts", there can never be too many stats. d:) Baseball Bugs 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK with you if I move all this to [26] above to keep all of this in one place? That is where it has been discussed, and it will be an aid to readers if we keep it centralized. I'll then respond substantively. Tx.--Epeefleche 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• That is not a focussed discussion. Until the other active editors on this topic have said their peace, I will refrain from making comments. //Tecmobowl 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I completely disagree. I protest your revert of my merge of this into the above discussion of Fangraphs. Fragmenting discussion does little to assist us in having considered discussion of the subject. It is counterproductive. The discussion above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Low-Hanging_Fruit:__MLB.2C_Baseball_Cube.2C_Baseball_Reference.2C_and_Fangraphs is the proper place to have discussion of Fangraphs. Your behavior in reverting my merger of these two discussions of the same topic is disruptive, and interferes with our effort to address the substance here.--Epeefleche 11:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Curiously, you yourself just protested against fragmentation of the discussion in your above comment under [27]. You just wrote: "The contiued [sic] discussion of this topic in several places leaves us exactly where we started. //Tecmobowl 19:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)" Tecmo, you are attempting to fragment the conversation, over my strong objections, and then you are charging that the conversation is flawed because it is fragmented.--Epeefleche 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if drive-by comments are appropriate or not, but I greatly appreciate the work you all are doing on the Baseball Project, and if mine are appropriate and useful, please consider them; if not, I apologize for further roiling already turbulent waters. As a user of Fangraphs already, I'm not affected by your decision, but I am certain that including the link would substantially increase the value of your pages.

As a student and teacher of statistics, I assure you that the organization and presentation of data are not mere embellishments but essential to understanding the data. They provide information--for example, about the data's probability distribution--that just isn't available otherwise. That's why the typical introductory stats course begins with those topics and building a statistical model begins with them. Both the organization of data and its visual presentation on Fangraphs are unique and top-quality sources of information and insight. The list of categories cited by Epeefleche are extremely important in evaluating player performance and hence in understanding how baseball games are won and lost. They are an epitome--in both senses of the word--of advances in baseball scholarship that have with no exaggeration revolutionized approaches to management in progressive MLB front offices. Why not help your readers find out what Theo Stevenson already knows?

Suppose duplication of data were a sufficient criterion for link deletion: You could just toss out most of the other stat links and send readers to retrosheet, because all the data are there in the box scores. You'd just have to compile and organize them; given world enough and time, you could duplicate the entire baseball-reference site on your own, or create a more accurate version of the MLB stats. While an initial perusal of Fangraphs may not impress everyone, it is difficult for me to imagine anyone who knows the site through use arguing for its exclusion.Jackaroodave 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Baseball

I'm in the process of putting it back into order, but I would appreciate it if some people would help me with the upkeep. Leave a message on Portal talk:Baseball if you're interested. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you speak French?

We really need people who can speak French to edit the fr:Projet:Baseball on the French Wikipedia. Most of the hall-of-famers and current stars like Justin Morneau and Torii Hunter do not have articles on there. If anyone is interest contact User talk:Mglovesfun. Mglovesfun 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Box(baseball)

Can someone at WikiProject Baseball please check on the term, to be it seems to be a work of fiction, but someone in the know might be able to shed a little light on the matter. If it is fiction, then it's a quite likely nomination for a speedy delete I think.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NigelJ (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 March 2007.

This Date

Hi, I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but I was wondering if there has been any discussion of creating a "This Date in Baseball" box on the front page of the portal. Does anyone know about this, and would people like to do this? There are certainly plenty of places to find information like this.Msmays 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

This is beyond out of control and bordering insanity. No more discussion, you all had your chance numerous times, but it seems that is too much to ask. Seriously folks, I don't get it, for example, in one breath Tecmo complains that the conversation is split up over multiple locations, then he procedes to make a new section and starts discussing there. That is just one example of the insanity that has occurred. Okay, this is it. Here is the straw poll, put either support or oppose, no discussion with the votes. --Holderca1 12:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

External links to be included on player pages:

• Major League Baseball - http://www.mlb.com/
• Baseball Cube - http://www.thebaseballcube.com/
• Baseball Reference - http://www.baseball-reference.com/
• Fangraphs - http://www.fangraphs.com/

Support

1. -- No Guru 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
2. -- Sanfranman59 04:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
3. -- Epeefleche 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
4. -- Baseball Bugs 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
5. -- ►ShadowJester07  14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
6. -- Support for mlb.com, thebaseballcube.com and baseball-reference.com, Conditional Support for fangraphs.com (see below) Caknuck 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
7. -- These four links should be included on all player articles, with other links added as appropriate. Alansohn 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -- JGHowes ^talk - 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is not an almanac or a link farm, after all. The key stats should be integrated into the player's bio, period. I think Fangraphs is objectionable because it is essentially a blog, and Wikipedia's policies are pretty clear on links to blogs, MySpace, etc.

Neutral

1. --Holderca1 12:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

• Support or oppose all four only? First, straw polls are NOT votes, they are opinion gathering polls, and second, vote on all four? are you kidding? Did you notice btw the mediation request at the top? Also, I have questions and just haven't posted them because everything keeps getting moved (and my earlier ones weren't answered). You're talking about a decision that's going to affect hundreds of articles, and there have been limited opinions from a small group of people and now you want to VOTE on all or nothing? How hard is it to just have a normal discussion with no moving or refactoring that goes in chronological order and where comments aren't moved so you can actually reply to people? Is that possible? Miss Mondegreen talk  14:23, June 15 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. I am mediating. I don't see a resolution coming out of this. Something that should have lasted a couple of days is still ongoing weeks later. This has been on this talk page for weeks, I am sure nearly every member of this project has seen it. If they haven't given their opinion, likely they have more important things that need their attention. The only reason I am even getting involved is because it is needlessly clutter up the talk page and has violated WP:Civil and WP:Consensus numerous times and has no resolution in sight. "How hard is it to just have a normal discussion with no moving or refactoring that goes in chronological order and where comments aren't moved so you can actually reply to people? Is that possible?" I have been wondering that for a couple weeks now. --Holderca1 14:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have seen votes determine the outcome of a disagreement that affected several thousand pages. --Holderca1 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's taken weeks to get real discussion. There was some mixed in at the beginning and some has always been ongoing, but most of this was focuses on behavior, and then it was focused on fangraphs--there's been little real discussion about the sites. And voting all or nothing makes no sense. The problem is that unless there is a serious need that can be demonstrated, four sites for statistics alone is excessive. Each site is not unique--much of the content overlaps. A discussion needs to be had about what WP:EL guidelines apply to statistics sites (there are several) and how they apply to each of these sites. That discussion hasn't been had.

Sure, go ahead and have a vote. But since the discussion never dealt with the verious WP:EL issues, and either decision would contradict WP:EL (unless there's another good statistics site that hasn't been listed for discussion here--then in the case of a no, that could be used) and WP:EL has community consensus. Granted, it's only a guideline, so if users discuss and find that exceptions need to made, that's ok, but that hasn't happened here and won't if appropriate discussion never happens. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:48, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say all or nothing. Nowhere on WP:EL does it say four sites is excessive. I believe your divested invested interest has clouded your judgement, but this is very much a minor issue that has been blown out of proportion. --Holderca1 16:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reiterating the point, which others have made, that WP:EL does not say how many sites are excessive. This is one key point where Miss M/Tecmo and the rest of us who have expressed an opinion disagree.--Epeefleche 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have a poll asking people to vote "support" or "oppose" to four links. You have the links grouped. That's all or nothing. Users are voting either support on four or oppose on four. You haven't separated this by link.

Four sites for one piece of unique data is excessive. My divested interest? What do you mean by that? Miss Mondegreen talk  17:15, June 15 2007 (UTC)

We are speaking (just for starters) about four sites. But not as Miss M indicates "for one piece of unique data." Rather, for many pieces of uniqe data. BUHs and SFs are not one and the same piece of data, for instance. --Epeefleche 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my brain was working backwards apparently, should of been your invested interest. Okay, I will try to explain this, there are four links listed up there, you either (a) support those being the four links to be listed or (b) oppose those being the four listed (which doesn't mean they would be delisted as a result, one such example would be you support three of the four links, your vote would go under oppose). --Holderca1 17:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My vote is on the subject posed in the title above the vote: "External links to be included on player pages." I think all 4 indicated urls should be included on player pages, for the reasons stated above. I am not saying (nor does the vote, by its title suggest that it is calling for me to vote on) that only those 4 urls should be included. I am addressing, as Sanfranman did and as the title of this vote does, those 4 urls as a starting point, to try to focus this unfocused conversation, achieve consensus first on these 4 urls, and then move on to discuss the others.--Epeefleche 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• What is my invested interest?
• That explanation for the straw poll btw should go up at the top along with it, because that's not what I got out of the poll. The problem is is that the poll is really irrelevant to the issue at hand--the issue at hand is how WP:EL should be applied. What we should do is take the questions raised by WP:EL and ask people "do you think this is unique?" do you think this is excessive?"---WP:EL isn't clear here because applying it means having to make choices sometimes, not just removing the site that doesn't apply. There are multiple points within the guidelines that apply to the various sites, which is why I suggested discussion on how the guidelines apply to see if certain questions are considered no brainers and if we're left with a few key things that need to be settled--which would be considerably easier than straw polling people on multiple issues some of which are dependant on one another. This may be a quick way to end discussion and move on, but it doesn't deal with why the links were being removed in the first place, so I don't see the point. Also, I'm very interested in what you think my invested interest is. Actually--anyone who wants to answer this question, please do--I'd love to know what's behind the various insinuations etc. Miss Mondegreen talk  01:11, June 17 2007 (UTC)

You have an invested interest because most of the posts on this page regarding this topic have your signature attached. Even more so than the two parties it started with. You have spent so much time on this, you no longer see it as a minor issue and can't see any possible way that in can end soon. --Holderca1 13:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're a mind reader? I have no invested interest in baseball or the articles in particular. The issues not having really been discussed--I have a reading of how the WP:EL guidelines apply--but it is the reading of an outside editor who doesn't know certain particulars. Which is why I'm all for discussion and having this worked out. My only invested interest is in Wikipedia. So, you got me--an editor who has an investment in the project. It's a darn shame. Wikipedia--wikis in general only work as well as the community. We go by concensus. I don't have a particular investment in the particular way things go here--though the parties that started it still do and I think you seriously underestimate their investments--they have performed hundreds of edits, possibly thousands on this matter. I don't see this as a minor issue--it is a relatively minor one content wise, but there's been edit warring over hundreds of articles instead of discussion and that's not minor. I also don't understand the rush to have people vote. I have an investment in the policies and guidelines of wikipedia--railroading them or avoiding discussion because this issue has been going on for weeks seems like a bad idea to me. People edit warred instead of discussing, and then discussed behavior instead of content and somehow never managed to how the guidelines apply when they did discuss content and so yes, this has taken weeks, but I don't see a point in hurrying things up if it doesn't deal with the issue that started this in the first place. I do think that this could end soon, but it would require discussion of the sites and how WP:EL applies to them, not discussion about discussing. No a single person had commented saying--"this is the guidelines I think apply, and how I think they apply, what do you think". We're having discussion, sure, but it's not on topic, so what's the point? Miss Mondegreen talk  05:32, June 21 2007 (UTC)

I think that Miss M is misstating some things here. I'm not sure why. I'll focus here on just one of them. Many people have, contrary to her assertion, indicated what they think are the applicable guidelines. And discussed the issues (ad nauseum). I, for example, under a section entitled What Should be Linked, indicated that "Wiki policy provides that we "should" link sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics." In addition, sites "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article." Other considerations are whether the url is useful, informative, and factual. I believe that the urls at issue here, some of which are statistical in nature, others of which are biographical in nature, and still others of which (such as Fangraphs) are hybrid in nature, all meet these criteria."--Epeefleche 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, please don't parse those guidelines, they're specifc for a reason. 3 or 4 of the guidelines generally apply to each EL. The question here isn't whether or not they fit under those guidelines--because I think they do, though a few do have a lot of advertising, I don't quite think that it's "objectionable". The issue specifically here, is whether or not these sites provide the same content as another site. They don't have to be exactly the same, just the same in why they are being added. So if you have two statistics sites that have the same information, and one has a great biography, you can only choose one site to add. Even if the biography itself is UNIQUE, as in it has significant information that wouldn't make it into the article were it a featured one once that site is included, there's no need to include the other one. Don't make an argument about biographical information unless you're prepared to argue that there's significant information in the biography that would NEVER be in the article were it to become a featured article. That's a hard case to make with biographies. Unless you have a player who played both the minor leagues and the major leagues, but those statistics can't be found in the same place. Go ahead. Whoop it up. I'm discussing the fangraphs issue later down the page. Unique formatting isn't unique, and caknuck has just now been the first person to explain why it makes a good EL. Join in if you want. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:00, June 21 2007 (UTC)

You stated that nobody has discussed the guidelines. To the contrary, as I point out, I have. And others have. As to your view of my reading of the guidelines, I differ. I discussed substantively and in great detail above the uniqueness of the fangraphs data. Data about BUHs, for example, exists on fangraphs. And not on the other sites. As to your query as to why it is added, I'm not sure what your point is. It is added so that we can know how many bunt hits the batter had. And I listed dozens of these categories of information. As has been stated above ad nauseum. Miss M -- don't you want to know how many BUHs Ichiro had last season? And this season? As to your suggestion that "unique formatting isn't unique," I have no idea what your point is.--Epeefleche 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no mind reading is required to count the number of edits you have on this page which is amplified now knowing you have no interest in baseball. I am finished with this topic, some people need to come down off their horse and learn what compromise is. Some articles have upwards of 10 ELs; well most have agreed to bring that down to just four. But for some reason, a few want to continue to argue because they want three. Seriously? Nothing in WP:EL says four is too many and that three is just right. I have failed to understand why it has to be three and not four. I also don't understand the "I haven't discussed this or that," what are you waiting for? Seriously folks, well thats all I really have to say. This is my last comment regarding this topic, you all have fun. --Holderca1 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah but I was honest in my answer earlier. That is my only interest here. I came to this page as uninvolved as an editor could be--I didn't know the editors, the pages being edited, and I wasn't involved in WP:EL or editing ELs either. Talk about not coming in with a bias toward anything. Oh wait, I've seen Field of Dreams. Does that count? I have no problem with compromise, in fact, that's what I've been urging the others to do (if he agrees not to do this, can you agree not to do this until?). I do have a problem with no real discussion. Caknuck just now gave a reasoning for one of the most contentious URLs. I knew by this time who liked it and who didn't, and Tecmo outlined why he removed it, but no one said where and when they thought it would make a good EL and why. Unique formatting has nothing to do with the guidelines--neither do most of the things people have been screaming about.

I can only assume from your ooos and ahs that you must be multi-tasking after a sort. Perhaps that explains why you wrote: "no one said where and when they thought it [fangraphs] would make a good EL and why." That is not true. See the above discussion, in which I discuss the dozens of categories of unique data that it provides. As to your statement that unique formatting has nothing to do with it, I can only say that that is your unsubstantiated view. Others here who use the statistics have disagreed. It is not clear to me that you even understand the nature and importance of these categories of statistics. That may be part of the problem, if that is the case.--Epeefleche 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing--I still don't get your straw poll. Your language makes it sound like a mandate--ELs to be put on baseball pages. Not ELs acceptable for baseball pages when applicable. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:00, June 21 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to your response--"I'm not kidding, I'm mediating". This isn't mediating--first you've posted your poll in two places, including on a mediation request. That's not only clearly not mediating, it shows a severe lack of understanding of the mediation process. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:52, June 15 2007 (UTC)

I support Holderca1's attempt to clarify the consensus of the four sites listed in this straw poll. There is a thorough discussion of these sites on this page and it's time to move on with this issue. Also Holderca1 did not place this poll on the mediaiton request page - another editor did that. -- No Guru 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is discussion, but not in terms of their appropriateness in re WP:EL. This discussion occured because the sites were being removed because while the content was unique, the content times four wasn't, and that are other ELs that apply depending on the site. The discussion above doesn't even mention most of the applicable ELs, and this will just cycle through. If the supporters win, the links can still be removed via WP:EL because a discussion on that will have never taken place and if the opposers win, unless another link is substituted, unique content that should be there per WP:EL is missing. There's been discussion on the links, but not in terms of what matters, not in terms of why this was brought up in the first place. Miss Mondegreen talk  17:15, June 15 2007 (UTC)

What? I have not posted my poll in two places. I have only posted it here. Please view edit histories before making accusations please. Not only are they a continuation of the above behavior, they are not appreciated, nor are they helpful. --Holderca1 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I foolishly assumed that I could guess who'd made a comment by looking at the signatures. I didn't realize that your comment plus straw poll was just copied over. Miss Mondegreen talk  17:15, June 15 2007 (UTC)

When I write that the following is a quote, as I did there, I mean what I say. To make it clearer for those who do not read carefully, we have between us put strikethrough marks in that text and added a further lead-in explaining the reason for the strike-throughs.--Epeefleche 19:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I am mediating, mediate - to settle (disputes, strikes, etc.) as an intermediary between parties; reconcile. I am not on either side of this dispute, I don't care which links are kept or deleted. I am on the side of getting this resolved as soon as possible. I am moving my vote above to neutral since some people think I support the links if I put my name under support. --Holderca1 17:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are you saying that you are taking over the Cabal case? If so, then this straw poll has not addressed the problem. I am not going to participate in it because it is poorly setup.
• There are two issues that are being addressed - a) What links are reasonable to include on a given page and b) how should the sites be used if others are already relied on? B-R has never been disputed (at least to my recollection). TBC seems to pass EL with "relative" ease. The biggest problem is that often times, the unique information (Minor League and Non-MLB professional stats) cannot be extracted without the other content. That being said, the {{baseballcube}} template has been set up to clearly explain what information is unique. When used properly (see:Kevin Youkilis), the baseball-reference template and the baseballcube template work well together. //Tecmobowl 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My rationale

All four of the sites serve important and separate purposes.

• mlb.com - Site contains official biographies and statistics, most reliable to-date season stats.
• thebaseballcube.com - The best site for minor league statistics. (Admittedly, my familiarity with this site is morelimited than the other three.)
• baseball-reference.com - Most comprehensive and easily-accessible historical statistics.
• fangraphs.com - I'm in favor of using this site in certain situations. Please see my explanation here.

Thanks, Caknuck 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Biographies are not appropriate WP:EL material unless they contain information unique--i.e. that would not be contained in an article were it to become a featured article. Most biographies do not fit this criteria.

Biographies were only mentioned by Caknuck above with regard to mlb.com. Without even addressing your analysis, do you mean to suggest for a moment that we not include mlb.com? The official site of mlb? I pointed out weeks ago that Wiki policy specifically states that articles about any person "should link to the official site if any." If you are not suggesting that mlb.com not be included, what is the purpose of your comment? Miss M, this has been addressed, there is consensus for its inclusion, Wiki policy mandates it. I fail to see the need for any more discussion about mlb.com. --Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you're saying that mlb.com has current stats but not good minor league stats or historical stats, and that thebaseballcube has good minor, but not good current or historical and reference has good historical but not good minor or current, then yes, those all make sense. I'm not sure why all three would need to be linked to as ELs on one article--I could see using all three as a combination of references and ELs, but can you explain the need for all three as ELs?

Your first sentence makes sense. As to the answer to your second sentence, it goes to Wiki policy, which provides that we "should" link sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics." In addition, sites "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article." Other considerations are whether the url is useful, informative, and factual. I believe that the urls at issue here all meet these criteria.--Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your fangraphs explanation explains why it makes a good reference. It does not explain why it makes a good EL. An external link means just linking to the player's profile at the bottom of the page and letting people peruse. The issue of unique formatting was raised at WP:EL and the answer was that unique referred to CONTENT not formatting. Unique formatting is not a good reason for a duplicate EL. If you think that the formatting is unique, you may want to have it replace a different site, or use it for references where it's appropriate, as you suggested.

See my above comment, which explains why it makes a good EL. The formatting that we are referring to in baseball statistics is not how pretty the material looks, or choice of cute words, but accessabilty of data and ability to manipulate it. If that has been rejected as a reason to include an EL, please point us to the citation. It fits within the aforementioned Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, while it's good to set rules--these can be used if needed, editors shouldn't be going around and randomly templating articles. Maybe a different site will be better for some article. You (the wikiproject) are attempting to bulk write wikipedia--saying that you'll come to an agreement and whatever you decide will have consensus so those will be the links that will be put on article. Yes, as a wikiproject you need to figure out the current issue facing the ELs on lots of your articles because they go against the consensus of WP:EL, but you shouldn't hand something down from the mountain and keep editors from deciding (within the bounds of policies and guidelines) what ELs fit each article best at individual article talk pages. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:58, June 21 2007 (UTC)

Your language in the above paragraphs, as in many of your contributions, is replete with your personal opinion of what editors "shouldn't" be going around doing, and "you need to," and "you shouldn't." Ignoring for a moment the fact that one might mistake it for bossiness, which by itself would of course only be an irritant, I do believe that you are making up rules as you go along and speaking as an authority to try to sell your point of view. If those statements are true, please quote the relevant wiki guidelines. They will be of interest, and your point will be more easily appreciated. If you are just expressing your opinion, please clarify that.--Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • As far as the mlb.com bios go, they do contain a great deal of information that would not fit into an encyclopedia article, most importantly a season-by-season breakdown of accomplishments/roster moves that goes a level or two of detail beyond the scope of a WP article. Neither mlb.com nor baseball-reference provide full minor league stats (baseball-reference provides none, mlb.com mentions some statistics selectively within the player profiles). As for, fangraphs.com I agree that it would work better as a resource for in-line citations rather than an EL for bio articles. It may, however, be useful as an EL in select circumstances, such as to illustrate a team's stats within a certain year. Example: this is more useful than this (the EL currently provided) to show the team stats for the 2005 New York Yankees. This is why I mentioned my conditional support... I don't think I explained myself as well as I could have the first time around. Caknuck 13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Caknuck's analysis of mlb, baseball reference, and baseball cube. As for fangraphs, I contributed my thoughts on his thinking at the url that he directed us to above (yet another location at which Tecmo opened up the discussion we are seeking to address on this page).--Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • That makes sense. In that specific case you think that fangraphs should replace another source? Miss Mondegreen talk  22:00, June 21 2007 (UTC)
      • The article I linked to above currently uses baseball-reference.com to show the team batting and pitching stats. Fangraphs has the same stats, but has the extra feature of letting the user re-sort the tables for each individual statistic. Granted, it's a minor difference, but we should strive to supply readers with the most useful references possible, so I would support a Fangraphs link there instead of the baseball-reference link. Caknuck 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help? Deletions by Tecmo of baseball bio ELs during pendency of discussion, and in contravention of consensus

• Tecmo is back deleting the ELs that are the very subject of this discussion. See [28] This is highly disruptive. I have requested that he stop. He has refused. Instead, he writes that "WP:EL supersedes that discussion. That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) - absolutely refuse to focus on the content of the discussion in a simple and focused matter." It would be helpful if an admin were to address this, or if someone were to make a suggestion as to how to address it. While he has already been blocked 3 times this month and found to be a sockpuppet, I would hope that there is a way to address this issue now.--Epeefleche 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• We conducted a poll to determine what policy should be on the link issue. Consensus could not be any clearer that these links are acceptable. This consensus defines what links are appropriate for baseball player articles per WP:EL. Tecmobowl is simply evading a consensus that couldn't be any clearer. Alansohn 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tecmobowl has now been proven by the Checkuser facility to have indeed used User:El redactor as a block-evading sockpuppet. My guess is he's venting his frustrations, as he's been deleting stuff like crazy. It looks like it's time for an RFC against Tecmobowl. Baseball Bugs 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any possible way to make a compromise in the medcab case. I recommend community sanction or arbcom. FunPika 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• El redactor was labeled as a sockpuppet even though the checkuser was a negative result. It wasn't proven by checkuser. Just the opposite. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:29, June 30 2007 (UTC)

You know this isn't true as you were told two days before you posted this that checkuser came out "likely". Why do you continue to ignore that? IrishGuy ^talk 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A second, more thorough checkuser was done, and El redactor was proven to have been Tecmobowl's sockpuppet. (Or possibly a revisit to the first one, I'm not sure. The admins are necessarily vague about how checkuser is applied and used. However, at least three admins, presumably well-versed in sockpuppet behavior, reached the same inference even before the "smoking gun" was confirmed.) Baseball Bugs 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate, but there is a way. the conversation needs to be focused and straw polls that are improperly used shouldn ot be considered. The conversation should be centralized and the topic of content should be the only focus. While you guys are busy complaining, i have created a template for the baseball cube and been adding it where appropriate. I have also created a template for japanbaseball.com so that there is a stats link for players like Ichiro. Fangraphs is the major point of contention with regard to relevancy. After that, a discussion needs to take place on how to balance the use of the appropriate sites as a link to more than a few stats sites is totally unecessary. //Tecmobowl 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• OR, you could resign from wikipedia before you get an RFC against you and get permanently blocked... which, given your behavior, is inevitable. Baseball Bugs 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by the mediator above, I have filed at [29], the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, under User:Tecmobowl, a request for an indefinite block.--Epeefleche 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block on Tecmobowl has been imposed at the above community sanction noticeboard. The decision, which can be found in full at the above url, read in main part as follows: "Per the discussion, and especially the mediator's closing comments, User:Tecmobowl is indefinitely blocked. I've read his points, and I do agree with some of them, but there is no excuse at all for sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR."--Epeefleche 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit to 25/40-man roster section in Major League Baseball transactions

Just a heads-up that I've proposed modifying the "25/40-man roster" section of Major League Baseball transactions here. Thanks in advance for any and all feedback. --Sanfranman59 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate Pages

You guys/gals should seperate all your team pages (like you've done with Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals). It cuts down on 'bloated' historic information about teams. It's how we do it at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey. Just my opinon. GoodDay 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a continuity in baseball that transcends cities. The one exception, splitting the Expos with the Nats, was done with a fair amount of debate, as it broke the pattern. It was pushed, as I recall, by fans of the Nats who wanted to separate themselves from the Expos. There could be an argument for when teams change their identities by changing their names, but with teams like the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, A's, etc., there is an implied continuity. And what do you do about the Seattle Pilots? Baseball Bugs 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pilots would be an exception (since they relocated after 1 season). However, I won't push things further. After all, each WikiProject has it's own critera (which I respect). GoodDay 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

PS- It's too bad that 1 of the MLB teams goes against the grain (in terms of merging), it's inconsistant. All your 30 teams should follow the WikiProject's consensus (no seperation). GoodDay 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That was done right after the Expos moved, and maybe emotions were running high. It might be time to revisit that. I was also thinking that in terms of the NHL, a lot of teams changed names when they switched cities, as if to deliberately separate themselves from their past; Colorado Rockies (NHL) and New Jersey Devils, for example. For a comparison, though, check out Minneapolis Lakers, which redirects to Los Angeles Lakers. They're kind of like the Dodgers, in that, apart from L.A. "stealing" a team, they also continued a winning tradition. The St. Louis Browns and the Washington Senators abandoned losing traditions, but also the nicknames didn't make sense in the new cities, and Orioles and Twins did make sense. Not that Los Angeles has to dodge trolleys or has 10,000 lakes, but maybe you see what I'm getting at. :) Baseball Bugs 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, someday (for consistancy sake) the Expos and Nats will be re-merged (though again as a primary Hockey editor, I'd recommend 'seperation' for 'all' MLB team pages). Anyways, goodluck on the Expos/Nationals situation. GoodDay 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that consistency should be the goal. Rather, the decision of whether or not to have separate pages should be guided by the reality on the ground. The Nats have explicitly repudiated their Montreal past, not even preserving the Expos' retired numbers. For the Dodgers, to give an example on the other hand, the Brooklyn years are an integral part of team lore. I think different solutions are appropriate for these different situations. There is also the fact that the Expos-Nats move is the only one to have occurred less than 35 years ago, which is a legitimate reason that there is little demand for defunct teams other than the Expos to have pages. --BlueMoonlet 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That puts wikipedia in the position of being a marketing arm for the team in question. It's a fact that the Expos and Nats are the same franchise, whether they like it or not. The Expos-Nats situation is a bit like the Baltimore Ravens, who "surrendered" their history to the expansion Cleveland Browns. That has a parallel to 1961, when the Twins were officially regarded as the "expansion" team, for P.R. reasons, and the new Senators (temporarily) absorbed the history of the old Senators. That situation was corrected in a few years, and the Twins now fully embrace their D.C. roots. They even gave out a Walter Johnson bobblehead doll once. Baseball Bugs 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the Browns-Ravens situation currently has the same solution as the Expos-Nats. Rightly so, I think. Organizational continuity does not necessarily imply entwined history, unless the successor franchise chooses to make it so. --BlueMoonlet 16:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's crystal clear in the artcles that the two teams are the same franchise. One dilemma, if you separate the Dodgers, for example, is the "established" item in the infobox. Does it mean the "Atlanta Braves" were established in 1871, or is it that the "Braves" were established in 1871. (Never mind that Braves wasn't their nickname until 1912). Baseball Bugs 16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but I think the current Nats, Expos, and Braves pages are quite clear on these points. Don't you? --BlueMoonlet 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like. Meanwhile, for wikipedia to blindly parrot the NFL company line dating the current (expansion) Cleveland Browns from 1946 is a blatant falsehood. Baseball Bugs 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On further review, I see that teams like the Braves and the Orioles give their original establishment date and then say "based in ____ since ____". That's how the Expos-Nats article should be done also... especially as the Expos have 35 years of history and the Nats have only 3, so far. The Nats should say "established 1969... based in Washington since 2005." In fact, it does. It features the Expos prominently and points to another article for details. Arguably, the same kind of spinoff could be done for other multi-city teams... or even one-city teams, which the Bears basically are (forgetting the Decatur cup of coffee) as they have a spinoff history article. Baseball Bugs 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may throw in my two cents, I have to agree with GoodDay. While it might be true that the LA Dodgers have embraced the history of the Brooklyn Dodgers, its also true that people in Brooklyn have not embraced the history of the LA Dodgers. People in Brooklyn who remember the Dodgers probably do not want to look up Brooklyn Dodgers and find it under the Los Angeles Dodgers. I think one other consideration to be made is that if articles were separated, it would prevent them from being so large that they would eventually have to be separated. Even when it comes to the Seattle Pilots, they should have their own article. Don't forget, there are articles on the Louisville Colonels and the original Baltimore Orioles and no one alive remembers those teams. DandyDan2007 20:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to both Bugs and Dandy, I'd prefer some healthy editing to spinning off history sections when possible, because more people are likely to read the material if it stays in one piece. It seems to me that articles get so long primarily because people get insanely detailed about modern history, not the old stuff (also, one-third of the Dodgers' page is taken up by the season-by-season record, which seems like it ought to be greatly condensed or moved to a side page). The difference between the Colonels or the original Orioles and (say) the Dodgers is that the former have no successor today. The Dodgers article is not about baseball in Brooklyn or baseball in LA, but about the Dodgers organization, which has had a lot of continuity between the two places (O'Malley, Scully, Alston, Lasorda, Koufax, Snider, etc). --BlueMoonlet 23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat-similar discussion has been going on at the New York Yankees talk page. I asked the editor to bring it here, as it's related, i.e. it's about the articles being too long. Baseball Bugs 05:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested on Talk:Los Angeles Dodgers and Talk:Montreal Expos that historic incarnations' pages can be subtitled with an infobox reading
Team X1 / Franchise: Team X2
In the end, I don't think long pages are good, so spinning info off onto separate pages is user-friendly. It also encourages the expansion of said articles. There is a related discussion going on at Talk:Dallas_Stars where many good points are made for retaining separate articles on franchise incarnations. --Exshpos 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Article length

This discussion kind-of started up a couple of sections, but it seems a good idea to give it a new start here. Many MLB team articles are much longer than Wikipedia's recommended length of 40kb (it was recently pointed out that the Yankees article is 108kb!). In my opinion, this is not so much of a problem as it might be. If we were talking about 108kb of solid text, then that is most definitely too long. But these team pages have accumulated quite a number of tables and infoboxes and endnotes and other assorted information, which add to the length in kb but not to the average reader's burden. Personally, I think most of this information should stay on the main team pages, where it is most accessible. The main exception is the "season-by-season record", which gets exceedingly long for the century-old teams and throws up a barrier against the casual reader getting to whatever comes after it. Can't the record be put on a side page? As for team histories, the pages I've seen are mostly all right, though some vigorous editing is needed to keep a concise historical perspective on recent events, rather than giving a detailed blow-by-blow account of each season. That's my take on the topic. Bugs? Yankees fans? --BlueMoonlet 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, the team history on the Yankees page does get a bit long and could use some editing. Must we always archive this info on a "History of the Yankees" page that no one will look at, just because it's too painful to slim it down? As a counter-example, I submit the Dodgers page, a team with hardly less tradition. But there we hit the highlights and don't get bogged down in too many details (except in the section on the move, which I haven't gotten around to taking a hatchet to). This is an encyclopedia, not a library. --BlueMoonlet 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unofficial Nicknames

I would like to attempt to get some community consensus on the unofficial nicknames that have been cropping up on MLB team pages. As User:Seidenstud pointed out here, the lead section "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points..." Furthermore, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Alternate names such as "The Boys in Blue" for the Royals or "The Bless You Boys" for the Tigers are not essential information belonging in a concise overview. Most of these names are contractions or journalistic flourishes and, though some may be used by the team for marketing, they are quite simply not the team's proper name. If editors think it is encyclopedic to note that the Rockies are sometimeis called "The Rocks," then further down in the page might be a fine place to do it. For some unofficial nicknames, such as A's and D-backs, I don't mind having them in the lead paragraph, as they are commonly used to properly refer to the team, rather than as playful flourishes. But the infobox should be reserved for proper information.

To give a brief history, I informed User:Silent Wind of Doom (who, as far as I can tell, originated all of the edits I am opposing) of my opinion and invited him to discuss the issue before I took any action. After several days with no response, I went ahead and made the edits. Some have been reverted, and most of those by User:Silent Wind of Doom or his ally User:Baseball Bugs, but there does not seem to have been a general outcry over what I did, and there also seems to be some support. I have no reason to doubt everyone's good faith, so I think the best thing to do is discuss the matter here and then take a vote. --BlueMoonlet 15:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Silent Wind of Doom here. Just going to add all the discussion from talk pages, as has taken place up to now:

---

BlueMoonlet's original post:
Hi SWoD. I am sorry to say it, but I think the "nicknames" that you have added to the pages of all 30 teams in Major League Baseball have got to go. They are unsourced and unofficial, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Names like "Redbirds", "Blue Crew", and "BoSox" are journalistic flourishes; it is always clear from the context what is meant, and a reader who had not heard of such names does not need to be told to use them by an encyclopedia. Names like "the Rocks" and "the Bravos" practically seem like you made them up just to have something for each team. There are a few names, such as "Bronx Bombers", that have enough usage to perhaps merit mention somewhere in the article. But even these do not belong next to the actual team name, in the introductory paragraph or the infobox.

In conclusion, "Dodgers" and "Yankees" are official team nicknames. Any other nickname is unnecessary to identify the team. You are likely to disagree with me here; as far as I can tell, you are the one who added all these nicknames to the pages. If that is so, then I would like for you to choose the forum in which we can discuss the matter. --BlueMoonlet 00:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SWoD's response:
Forgive me. It's been a rough week or so, and your comments on my discussion page have slipped my mind. As you've mentioned I would, I greatly disagree with you. The "official nicknames" as you call them, are known as that harkening back to the time when the teams were officially known as Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Chicago AL and names like Orioles, Reds, and Cubs were "nicknames" used by fans and the media. Nowadays, these aren't nicknames, they're just the names of the teams. The nicknames are names which are used by the fans, the media, and, in most cases, the team and it's broadcasters. You've already noted the circulation of "Bronx Bombers". "A's" is more frequently used than Athletics. "Blue Crew" is what the dodgers are referred to in the name of the team's organization-owned fan club. "Cubbies" is used not only by fans, but by the organization during the singing of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game".

These nicknames are information about the team, and should not be excluded. First of all, they are other names for the subject, and those go in the lead, more often than not in bold like the subject's standard or full name. The nicknames usually take up a small block of text in the lead, and are sometimes taken care of in one sentence or in a few words in a set of parenthesis. I think that, when you say "They are also known as" or something to that effect before mentioning the names, they're in enough context for people to figure out what they mean. The article isn't telling people to use them, but it does explain that they are other names for the team, and in many instances explains the meaning behind them. As for the infobox, that is one nickname, the most widely used one, that we put there. The only instances where the most widely used one is not the one displayed is when it comes to the Red Sox and the White Sox, where they share the nickname "The Sox". I have not added all the nicknames for these teams, and, in fact, I've been joined by other wikipedians who want these names to stay on their pages. The White Sox and Cubs pages have repeatedly tried to add more nicknames to the infobox, but more than one makes it too crowded. The Mets page's people have already reverted your changes, with no prompting by me. I've not added all the nicknames, and didn't even know of most of them until the good people of each page's own little community revealed them. In fact, I didn't even add them all to the infoboxes.

The nicknames have never been fought against (the only exception being the Braves), and have, in fact, been added to. The people have embraced them, changing them, if need be. They are not unsourced and unencyclopedic. No name has been added by me unless I had firsthand knowledge, or have researched the name and seen that it is used by the media or the fans. Most, if not all, are used by the organization at the stadium, on merchandize, by broadcasters, or in websites. I believe that's enough to be considered "official". These things are information about the team, and as such, should be included. --Silent Wind of Doom 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A few comments by Baseball Bugs which have shown up this past day on SWoD's talk page:

Where does it say anything in the infobox about "official" or "unofficial" nicknames? For that matter, why doesn't the separate line for "nickname" seem to work in the template? Baseball Bugs 06:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have put a number of them back. BlueMoonlet needs to study this subject a little more closely. A few of them are recent media (read: ESPN) inventions, but the teams themselves use many of them, sometimes in their own logos and publications, and in some cases for years or even generations. A good example is "Redbirds", which not only is a synonym for the Cardinal bird, but is also the inspiration for their own mascot, "Fredbird"... as well as being the pet name of the team frequently used by Harry Caray during his quarter-century doing their games, and also other broadcasters, all of whom were or are subject to approval by the Cardinals organization. In another example, one of the Oakland A's logo says "A's", which gives it official status, stemming from the days when Finley owned the team and encouraged the nickname "A's" as well as displaying it as the logo still used today. As yet another example, the Baltimore Orioles have used "O's" in their official publications. Some of us old-time Cubs fans don't like "Cubbies" very well, but they sing it that way every day at Wrigley Field, with the full knowledge and approval of Cubs management. Baseball Bugs 10:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that many of today's "official" nicknames originated in the media. The teams themselves later embraced them for marketing reasons, just as they have in turn embraced many of these "alternate" nicknames. Of the pre-expansion teams... "Dodgers", "Yankees", "Cubs", "Giants", and "Pirates" ... at least ... all originated in the media rather than being "chosen" by the teams up front. Baseball Bugs 11:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet's final comments on SWoD's page:

I invite both of you to discuss the matter here. --BlueMoonlet 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

---

That is the discussion up to now. As I do not have time at the moment, I will adress BlueMoonlet's new comments at a later time today. --Silent Wind of Doom 16:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I am no one's "ally" as such. I endorse both BlueMoonlet's request for discussion of the matter and Silent Wind of Doom's posting of my comments here. The infobox is not quite working right, as my earlier comments noted. Maybe it needs to be fixed, and there needs to be a place for well-known alternate nicknames. The Toronto "Jays" and the Oakland "A's" obviously endorse the use of those nicknames, as they appear that way in their own official logos. That's just a couple of examples. Team nicknames and other team symbols and colors have always been about marketing and name recognition. Should they be notable and verifiable? Certainly. I can think of any number of derisive nicknames for my Cubs over the years, but they don't belong in the infobox. "Cubbies" qualifies due to its frequent use. Baseball Bugs 17:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There can be a place for alternate nicknames, further down in the page if necessary. If the nicknames are very commonly used, they can be in the lead paragraph. Names so common that you can use them along with the geographic name (like "Oakland A's" and "Arizona D-backs") should definitely be somewhere prominent. Among other examples, I never removed "Cubbies" from the lead paragraph, only the infobox, though that is a marginal case IMO. "Bucs" for the Pirates is in a similar class, but "Buccos" really should go further down if it remains at all. The infobox, on the other hand, is intended to give an at-a-glance summary of the article's subject, and should contain the proper name only. --BlueMoonlet 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First, and foremost, as he said previously, I am not "allied" with Baseball Bugs. In fact, noticing his name on a few edits was the only relationship I had with him up until his support on this matter.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, on to the task at hand. The lead section of the article does concisely sum things up, give a little overview of the subject, but it is also a place to give such information as alternative names. The nicknames are alternate names. It's just a short little aside that mentions these names. Now, given, there are instances, such as the Yankees page (where it has been accepted), where it's going to be longer, but most lead sections for nicknames are going to be smaller than the one in the Cubs page, which you seem to have accepted. As for the infobox, I definitely think that "A's" has to be there, because it is used more than "Athletics". Nicknames such a "Bronx Bombers", "Cubbies", "Blue Crew", "D-Backs", "Jays", and "The Tribe" are all engrained in the organization, merchandizing, even the uniforms. "Bless You Boys", "Nats", and "Blake Street Bombers" are all engrained in the history and traditions. The nicknames are not arbitrary labels. They are a part of the organization, a tool of the media, and a part of the hearts of fans. These mean something, and should be given space in the infobox. They are an important part of the team's culture. As they are a name, I think they should be tagged on with the name, and I think that, in most instances, this is simple and non-intrusive. The infobox is just one little line, an also known as, and it's being kept to one name there so as not to cause clutter. The only thing that I regret is the fact that I always finish and then never have a good way to end. Maybe I should just do what Frank Caliendo suggested Bush do, and say "The end." --Silent Wind of Doom 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Or GWB could say 'bye with his Texas twang: "Bah!" The question really comes down to (1) should alternate nicknames be in the infobox; and (2) what is the inherent purpose of the infobox? There is this disdain for "trivia", yet the infobox essentially is a formalized "trivia" section that intends to standardize certain facts about a team. In theory, everything in the infobox (except the illustrations) gets referenced in further detail in the article. So I don't see any harm in an extra line that contains the one or two most common alternate nicknames for a team that are endorsed or accepted by the team. In other words, "Drubs" or "Scrubs" for my Cubs is not allowed. That gets us back to Bush, oddly enough. I haven't actually checked to see if there's a place for nicknames in the Presidential infoboxes. But if so, you could have "The Father of his Country" for GW, "Honest Abe" for Lincoln, "FDR" for FDR... but would you have "Dubya" for the incumbent? :) Baseball Bugs 06:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to hear Silent's excuse for deleting my last comment. Secondly, I am sorry if it was offensive to describe Bugs as Silent's "ally". I only meant to say that you two were actively working to a common purpose in this debate, not that you have some sinister cabal.

Bugs, your last example is exactly the one that I was going to bring up. As a matter of fact, none of the infoboxes for Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, etc. mention their nicknames. The infobox is reserved for the proper name only. Some nicknames, like FDR and LBJ, are so commonly used as practically proper names for the man that they are mentioned in the lead paragraph. This is analogous to names like A's, D-backs, perhaps even Cubbies, Bucs, Nats, and the Tribe. Other presidential nicknames like Honest Abe and Dubya, which are journalistic flourishes and not proper names, are mentioned much farther down in the article, if they are mentioned at all. Baseball names like Blue Crew, Brew Crew, Amazins, and the like belong in this category. Bless You Boys and Blake Street Bombers, by the way, refer to specific periods in the team's history, and are properly mentioned in the team history section for that period. To close my argument, I would like you to imagine the infobox for George Washington with "The Father of His Country" written right below his name. I think most people would be appalled by the thought. --BlueMoonlet 13:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, forgive me. I had written next to your ocmment so that I may see what you said and not miss responding to anything. As I responded to things, I deleted them, but unfortunately, it seems I did not copy, paste, then delete the copy as I thought I did. Sorry. Bit of absent-mindedness on my part.

As for the presidents, they are a completely different subject. These are respected people, not organizations who try to provide entertainment, fun, and make a few bucks off some merchandizing at the same time. We're talking about sports teams. If you want a precident in terms of sports team, look at the football team pages. In their infobox, they list, sometimes taking up up to four or five lines, every nickname of the team, and I'm not even asking for that. All I'm saying is one line, in quotes, under the team name. And might I mention that the Yankees page, with the nickname in the infobox and an entire seven line paragraph devoted almost exclusively to nicknames has been declared a good article? Obviously, this does not detract from the quality of the article if it was given such hallowed status, a status that no sports team has previously reached. --Silent Wind of Doom 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I disagree with the insinuation that sports teams are not respectable. 2) What's in the football team infoboxes is a lot less objectionable than what you are proposing, because it is less prominent, and clearly identifies the "other nicknames" so that they are not confused with the proper name. It's still not my preference, but I would be more willing to consider it. 3) "Good article" is hardly "hallowed status"; it is defined as "a satisfactory article that has not met (or is unable to meet) the criteria for featured articles." --BlueMoonlet 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response. Heh, I just realize that I think I've started off every post in here with an apology. Anyway, first of all, I wasn't saying that sports teams aren't respectable. I mean, I'm a Yankees fan, the team that's all about honor, tradition, and respectability. Second of all, I cannot believe that you'd prefer a large list in the middle of the template. I think it should be right under the name, just as it is in all the pages for the stadiums. What if we made the nickname text smaller than the actual name? If I recall correctly, I'd originally planned that but couldn't figure the formatting quite right. Thirdly, the Yankees page is the only team page period to make it to "Good Article" status. Only one in 750 articles is a good article. Basically, it's considered a step up from the other pages. --Silent Wind of Doom 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Silent. Yes, I would prefer that. The proper name alone should have top billing, and "other nicknames" should be clearly marked as such (that's what I like about the NFL template). If sports teams are respectable, then the respectable way of referring to them should be given its proper place; more playful nicknames have their place as well, but they are not the same. As I've acknowledged, some nicknames are more common and less juvenile than others, and might be given an accordingly more prominent place, such as in the lead paragraph. Now that you've drawn my attention to the stadium pages, I think the same principle should apply there. --BlueMoonlet 14:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents. Other than one or two exceptions where they are official and sourced they such as "The A's" where it was the official team name for 15 years, I don't see why any of these nicknames should be the second line in the infobox. If you must have them in there, move them down. Also be sure they are sourced. The nickname on the San Francisco Giants page was pure BS. It's never used in common speach or the press so I removed it. Gateman1997 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really care one way or the other about this issue, although I don't think I'd want to see more than a couple of alternate nicknames in infoboxes. But the Giants have a rich history of reaching out to the Latin community. For example, this year on Cinco de Mayo, they gave out Gigantes t-shirts, they have radio/TV campaigns that use that name and they sell Gigantes items on their web site. It's not uncommon to see people wearing Gigantes garb around the city and at the ballpark. They've also always had a fair number of Latin players on the team. --Sanfranman59 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Gigantes, of course, is the Spanish equivalent to Giants, from the same root word that gives us "gigantic" and "gigabyte". I wonder whether anyone still calls them the "Jints" (pronounced with long-I)? And I wonder what the Spanish word for "Dodgers" would be? Baseball Bugs 16:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • They say Los Dodgers, with a long "o". The only time I've ever heard the name "Jints" was a derogatory reference in a Dodgers' team song from the 1960s. Is it not always pejorative? --BlueMoonlet 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • By the way, it should go without saying that the Spanish version of a team's name, used for marketing to Latin fans, is not a notable alternate nickname for English Wikipedia. Right? --BlueMoonlet 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • The Cardinals were once known by the mangled-Spanish name "El Birdos". I don't know that the team ever embraced that. "Los Gigantes" is a tough call. The "Jints" reference you're probably referring to is from the Danny Kaye song about the Dodgers. That name goes back to New York, and seems mostly to be used in a vaguely derisive way, making fun of pronunciation more than of the team. On that same Baseball's Greatest Hits CD, you can hear the singers of the song about Willie Mays saying what sounds like, "That Jint kid is great". There was a book about the World Series, published about 1950, that made reference to "Jints", putting it in parentheses as it was clearly a nickname of a nickname. I think of "Jints" as being like "Cards" or "Cubbies"... or "Twinkies", for that matter... names the team wouldn't necessarily have embraced, although it seems like "Cards" and "Cubbies" are accepted by the respective teams. "Twinkies" certainly isn't, and I don't think "Jints" is either, although the ESPN guys used to use it now and then (either ignorantly or purposely rhyming it with "mints" instead of "pints"). Baseball Bugs 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, I was thinking of the Danny Kaye song. Thanks for the info.  :) --BlueMoonlet 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, are we any closer to a solution? I'd be willing to accept an NFL-like solution for the infobox, in exchange for removing alternate nicknames from the top of the infobox, and removing the more playful nicknames (exceptions include A's, D-backs, others to be discussed) from the lead paragraphs. Is that acceptable to others? Shall we do the same for stadiums? All we need is someone who knows enough about writing templates to do the job. --BlueMoonlet 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about having an "other nicknames" line in the infobox, as with Chicago Bears, for example. "Da Bears" and "Monsters of the Midway" are probably not sanctioned by the team. But "A's" clearly is. So you could make a distinction between "official-unofficial" nicknames near the top, and "unofficial-unofficial" nicknames farther down, as with the NFL. And then you've got another dilemma, because it puts wikipedia in the position of judging "how official" an unofficial nickname is. Unless you consider "A's" to still be official, which solves that problem. But is "D-backs" an official alternative to "Diamondbacks", as "Rays" is (or was) for "Devil Rays"? I don't know. Baseball Bugs 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My idea was that the "other nicknames" line is the only place in the infobox for unofficial nicknames, including "A's". The lead paragraph can be a place to mention commonly used alternate names like A's, D-backs, Rays, Cards and Redbirds. If you want to put "Cubbies" there, that's all right with me. Make sense? --BlueMoonlet 18:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"A's" is a potential problem, because the team has logos that read "A's", making it de facto "official", right? Baseball Bugs 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"A's" is not the official name of the team, as you've pointed out yourself. It is a very commonly used alternate name, in fact used by the club itself, so it definitely merits mention at the top of the lead paragraph. --BlueMoonlet 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I am implementing a change in the template, to see how it looks if we were to put the list in the infobox. I do, however, strongly support putting one nickname under the official name, even if it's a smaller size. I also think that we should keep them in the lead. As mentioned previously infobox information is reiterated in the article. The nicknames are alternate names, and should belong in the lead, just like other alternate names. All we need is an "also referred to as" and a few names, like in most of the articles now. In most cases, it's not even one line long. There are very few occasions where prose is used, the most extreme case being the Yankees page, but, as mentioned earlier, the Yankees page must be doing something right, because it's the only sport team to make GA status. --Silent Wind of Doom 03:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Yankees page is troublesome in one sense, i.e. that there seems to be the lack of an authoritative source that the nickname "Yankees", which is verifiably as old as 1904, somehow magically became "official" in 1913. Baseball Bugs 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. What do you mean? --Silent Wind of Doom 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see some definitive proof that "Yankees" became official in exactly 1913. I'm not convinced. It was first used by the press as early as 1904, and was the primary by 1913 when "Highlanders" no longer made sense. But "Highlanders" was never an official nickname. "Yankees" obviously is now, and presumably was by 1927 when they put it on their uniforms. But I'm skeptical of the 1913 date which the article proclaims to be "official". Baseball Bugs 03:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source: [30]. Personally, I think it's anachronistic to assign one and only one official nickname to every single franchise in every single year, but there are people who do it. --BlueMoonlet 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference also gives the impression that "Highlanders" was both official and exclusive prior to 1913, which is not the case by any means. That's the problem with the tendency to retrofit the modern use of nicknames. And let's not forget the Washington A.L. team, whose owners settled upon "Nationals" in the early 1900s, but the press kept calling them "Senators" anyway. "Senators" and "Nationals" (usually shortened to "Nats") were used as effectively dual "official" nicknames for decades, and the word "Senators" didn't appear on their shirts until the late 1950s, though "Nats" persisted as an alternate nickname clear up until the second team (which was never the "Nationals") departed for Texas. Baseball Bugs 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I always figured "Nats" could be short for Senators just as easily as Nationals. --BlueMoonlet 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any evidence, beyond modern speculation, that "Nats" was connected with anything except a nickname for "Nationals", and which can be verified in old baseball guides where the subject was brought up. Baseball Bugs 05:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that trying to pin down a club's "singular" nickname for any year prior to it becoming "official" is a dubious proposition. It's trying to retrofit modern standards. Not enough research has been done in this area. Much of it is anecdotal or limited in scope. For example, there was long a conventional story that the Detroit Tigers got their nickname from their orange stripes on their socks. It should have been obvious it was the other way around, and it was, but not generally known until a book was written about the Tigers that fully explained where the nickname came from, and which I cited in the article. Unlike some other nicknames from that time, it has been their "official" nickname from the get-go. Same with the Cleveland Indians, whose name origin was conventionally thought to tie back to Louis Sockalexis, but it didn't, at least not directly. Likewise with the phantom "Boston Pilgrims", which was never a commonly-used early nickname for the Boston Red Sox. Of course, now they're being tagged the "Americans", which is true but misleading. That wasn't really an official nickname, just a media way of distinguishing them from the National Leaguers... although they did have "B A" on their jerseys for at least one year. But you also get certain anomolies, like the Phillies "officially" renaming themselves the Blue Jays ca. 1940, despite continuing to wear "Phillies" uniforms (uniforms cost money, don'cha know). The "Highlanders" were called the "Yankees" simultaneously for several years prior to 1913, at least in the press. The "Dodgers" were simultaneously called the "Robins" for many years, until Wilbert Robinson retired, but they didn't put any kind of nickname on their jerseys until the 1930s. Then there's the Athletics, whose name started out as their official team name (not a nickname) and through usage (and different franchises) devolved into merely an official nickname. And there's the Cubs, who never had an officially-sanctioned nickname, at least not on their jerseys, until they put a Cub logo on their breast pocket in 1908, officially acknowledging the name the media tagged them with at least 6 years earlier, and which had quickly become their de facto nickname. Baseball Bugs 05:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. But nowadays people want to know "What was the team called in 19xx?", even though the question itself is anachronistic. Do you have a suggestion? It seems reasonable enough to go with baseball-reference's scheme, which is at least sourced and not original research. --BlueMoonlet 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference is "a" source, but the use of "Yankees" as far back is 1904 is also sourced and verifiable. Meanwhile, you've got someone reverting the use of "Cards" as an "other nickname" on the grounds that it's officially sanctioned by the team. Now we've got a problem. Maybe we need at least three sections: (1) official nickname; (2) alternate official nickname(s); (3) alternate unofficial but verifiable and frequently-used nicknames. Baseball Bugs 05:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. "Cards" is not the team's official proper name. Yes, it is a legitimate alternate name used by the team, which is why it is prominently mentioned in the lead paragraph as well as in the infobox. But it is in fact an "other nickname". There is no need for further multiplication of categories. Hopefully Agne27 will add to this conversation if she continues to disagree. --BlueMoonlet 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cards" was once considered vaguely insulting, as I recall, but so was "Cubbies", and they're both considered OK now. Harry Caray liked "Redbirds" as an alternate, but I don't know if they use it so much now. I'm just saying there could be a distinction made between "official" alternate nicknames and "unofficial" alternate nicknames. For example, the Yankees have been called the "Bronx Bombers" for many decades. But do they use that in their official publications at all? I don't know. But I do know the Orioles use "O's". Baseball Bugs 23:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether a nickname is used by the team or not. Every team has one and only one official proper name, and anything else is an "other nickname". If you want to make team use a criterion for putting a nickname in the lead paragraph, fine, but there's no need for more complexity in the infobox. --BlueMoonlet 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you do with "A's"? Doesn't it have "official" status also? It appears on their shirts and/or caps, right? "Cards" doesn't appear on anyone's uniform, but "A's" does, right? Baseball Bugs 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the page? It follows the same principles I've been advocating. "A's" is in the infobox under "other nicknames", and more importantly it is at the top of the lead paragraph. --BlueMoonlet 02:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know how it is on the wikipedia page. What I'm asking is whether it has equal status to "Athletics" within the Oakland organization. If so, it's not just an "other nickname". Baseball Bugs 02:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. According to the page, the official team name was "A's" from 1973 to 1980 (Charlie Finley hated the name "Athletics"), but before and since the official team name has been "Athletics". There is only one official team name. --BlueMoonlet 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting to be hair-splitting, but since the team wears "A's" on their uniforms, that makes it more than just any old nickname. Baseball Bugs 03:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? If you count the team logo and cap insignia (both of which are quite large), "A's" appears three times in the infobox and twice in the lead paragraph, and is arguably more prominent than "Athletics". What more do you want? We don't currently distinguish between "official" (whatever that means) and "unofficial" alternate names, only that nicknames are "other" than the official team name. Adding more categories won't solve any problems, as there will always be borderline cases. --BlueMoonlet 04:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody's fooling around with your recent changes, and not always getting it right, either. Baseball Bugs 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The NFL template has an "if" statement so that the "other nicknames" field only appears if there are nicknames to fill it. We need something like that in the MLB template. Also, you've got to let go of things like "Washington Nationals </br> "The Nats"", because it appears lower down in the "Name" field as well. --BlueMoonlet 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The unofficial nicknames certainly only need to be in one place within the infobox. Baseball Bugs 05:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The infobox changes were a quick change to try out the aesthetics of it, and let everyone here see. Unfortunately, there were a few bugs. For instance, I deleted the nickname field (which was used down where the names are listed, and put in "Name" thinking it was redundant. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that the reason they were different was so that one would appear with the nickname, and one wouldn't. Also, there is the "if" factor, which is a good idea. Of course, there was also the guy out there that decided a field which just said {{{nickname}}} looked better. Anyway, what does everyone think of the nickname field? --Silent Wind of Doom 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thus "nickname" for the official nickname and "nicknames" for the others? And the "if" condition would be good, since the Atlanta Braves page says "none" which seems silly, as in then-why-mention-it? Although ESPN has been known to call them the "Bravos", if that counts. Baseball Bugs 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine, Silent. Thanks. But we do need that conditional statement, if anyone knows how to manage it. --BlueMoonlet 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Conditional statement? --Silent Wind of Doom 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a programming term for the "if" thing. --BlueMoonlet 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Joining wikiproject baseball.

Do I just add my name to the list, or are there other things I have to do. --HPJoker 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the usual proceedure on most other Wikiprojects. - BillCJ 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dates on division standings

I have restarted a discussion on including dates in the MLB division standings templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles#Standings dates (again). Please chime in, whatever your views on this issue. - BillCJ 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Amateur Baseball

I created an article for Town Team Baseball (Minnesota), and because I know that town team baseball exists in other states, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have a parent article. I also would like to tie this in with the baseball project, but don't know how to proceed. Somebody want to advise me? Spottacus 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Cyclopedia

Thanks to a tip by User:Miss Mondegreen, I learned of a reprint of Ernest Lanigan's pioneering 1922 book, the Baseball Cyclopedia, which I ordered from McFarland Publishers [31] and which arrived today. Lanigan was the original "Figger Filbert", and the record books and encyclopedias that came afterward built on his work. Baseball Bugs 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of Babe Ruth article

The Babe Ruth article was completely replaced by a much older version on June 30, with the cryptic edit summary "rv to last good version" by User:Mr Monty Marbles. This older version has a dozen dead image links and not one single in-line citation. To compare with last pre-replacement version, click here. I for one find this objectionable and have proposed reversion by consensus on the article's talk page. Because of the importance of Babe Ruth to baseball, I thought it would be a good idea to bring this to the attention of the Baseball Project members, as well. JGHowes ^talk - 05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the editor in question didn't bother to give the version number or date of where it came from, I have to take that as a malicious edit that should be re-reverted. Then the changes over the last 5 days should be reviewed, to see if any of them still work. The sad part is that this blatant act slipped by everyone who was watching the page. Baseball Bugs 12:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it goes back to a version from about a year ago. I recognized some of my own long-since-replaced verbiage. It should be reverted as I noted above, especially if the editor in question doesn't answer my question as to which version he reverted from. It's worth mentioning that I had stopped watching that page as part of trying to minimize contact with the now-blocked user Tecmobowl... the gift that keeps on giving... otherwise I would have caught it when it happened. Baseball Bugs 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to just before Mr Monty Marbles made his malicious reversion, and made what changes I could. I asked one editor to review his changes, and it looks like he's working on it. I'm watching the page again, so like Barney Fife, I can "nip it in the bud" if it happens again. I also contacted an admin about the situation. Baseball Bugs 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• appreciate the quick reply. I'm on the road vacationing and have limited internet access this week or I would have done it myself JGHowes ^talk - 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame template...

...does not work. Its intent is to look up the player's page on the Hall of Fame website. However, they are listed by an ID rather than by player name. For example, the posted link to Sparky Anderson WikiProject Baseball/Archive 3 at the Baseball Hall of Fame takes you to a default "I can't find it" page. The actual page for Sparky is playerId=110238. Baseball Bugs 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:BrOnXbOmBr21 notes the same thing over at WP:WPBBP (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players#Fixing the use of Template:Bbhof here) and proposes a solution. To date, no one has commented. --Sanfranman59 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The last I looked, someone is going through and correcting them one by one. Baseball Bugs 05:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommended / Suggested Length of Succession Boxes

I would like to see some of the succession boxes condensed. On pages like Sandy Koufax, Frank Robinson, and Bob Gibson (amongst MANY others), the lists are ridiculously long. The inundate the reader with information and clutter the articles. I would think that we should try and stick to 5-6 (or there abouts). For players with multiple titles in a particular category (think Babe Ruth and Home Runs), i would suggest we use the first available "succession" and not multiple examples. Thoughts? // Tecmobowl 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the succession boxes are set off from the rest of the article, I don't feel inundated by them nor do I think they clutter the articles. I don't think it's a good idea to limit the number of succession boxes to some arbitrary number either. Why should a player who leads the league 5 or 6 times have the same number of succession boxes as a player who does so 20 times?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "first available succession" approach. Do you mean in Ruth's case that we would only have an AL Home Run Champion succession box on his page for 1918 since that was the first year he led the league? If so, I don't think that's a good idea. For example, when I looked at the Ruth article, I was surprised to see only two succession boxes for RBI. It implies that he only led the league in RBI twice, when in fact he did so six times. I think if we're going to have succession boxes for RBI champions, they should include all the years that the player led the league in RBI. If he led the league in consecutive years (as Ruth did from 1921-1923), those years could certainly be lumped together into one succession box as is done for his home run titles from 1926-1931.

Thanks for soliciting comments. --Sanfranman59 06:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sanfranman59.--Epeefleche 07:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanfranman makes sense, there would be no limit to stop it at.++aviper2k7++ 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has succession boxes. One of the salient properties of these boxes is that you can click along the succession to follow how the sucession from person to person. For example, you can follow the U.S. Senators from each of the two seats from New York from the present back to start of the union by clicking along the boxes. It makes no sense at all to randomly delete a few succession boxes here and there, just because one person has a long list. One improvement that we should make is to define a "Multi-Succession" template that clumps all of the instances of a given title in one box with the years down the center and all of the predecessors and successors along the sides. Another tack is to question some of the lower significance boxes globally. A given type of box should either be fully present or not present at all, not deleted at random and thus half-present. Brholden 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would vote to remove them entirely as most of the information is available in an article (for example: List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins) and that allows for the person to glean the same information in a much simpler manner. These pieces of information are already in the articles (or should be if they are important enough) and in certain cases, these article can be linked to via the see also section. I have spent some time discussing this with wikipedians elsewhere, and although I have not gotten a "great" response (sometimes only one response from one person), creating an indiscriminate list seems counter productive to the goals of wiki. If there are enough "awards" and accolades, than you can create an article as it has been done here for Michael Jordan. I have also perused a number of politician articles, and the vast majority only use succession boxes in small numbers. George Washington has none, Abraham Lincoln has 4, and Bill Clinton has less than 10. Having upwards of twenty (as is the case with Roger Clemens) is excessive. The information is repetative and can be delivered to the reader in a much better fashion. In attempt to find a compromise between "getting ride of them all" and "placing as many as possible", I have reduced the content on articles like Frank Robinson to include his playing awards. //Tecmobowl 22:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep Despite the long lists on a few pages like Frank Robinson's, I really like them. They open up the content in an interesting and useful way.Brholden 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree (gasp!) with Tecmobowl on this one. I find succession boxes to be mostly clutter. Provided that the article links to an appropriate list of whatever it is that the succession box is covering, I don't see where they're needed. Either that, or they need to structured differently, to subdue them and not take so much room. Their purpose is to enable the user to do a "previous" and "next" kind of thing. I've seen cases where the "previous" or "next" led to a page which didn't have the succession box. Whoever wants to take the time to do this tedious task should make sure they are "all or none" for a given category. Baseball Bugs 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, despite the obvious concensus above not to delete the succession boxes, User:Tecmobowl has begun to delete succession boxes. Brholden 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeh... that's normal behavior. Get used to it. Baseball Bugs 22:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not make them collapsible? Have them collapsed when the page is opened and if someone wants to view them, the click "Show." --Holderca1 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. You might also have them default as open on most pages, but leave them closed on crowded pages like Frank Robinson's. Brholden 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• What is it with you people and your misuse of WP:CON. According to WP:NOT, wikipedia is NOT a democracy. There are others outside of this community who interpret the information on wikipedia in the same fashion i do here. The information is already delivered in the article and succession boxes have limited effect when presented in the manner they currently are at Roger Clemens. //Tecmobowl 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• And please see WP:TPG#Editing_comments on when it is acceptable to break up comments. //Tecmobowl 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See Roger Clemens for collapsed succession boxes. I think this should be agreeable to everyone. --Holderca1 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Holderca1's solution, enhanced by Brholden's suggestion that they default as open on most pages.--Epeefleche 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's got some promise. I wouldn't label it "Accomplishments", though, that's a bit vague; although I'm not sure quite what the right title would be. My right brain is failing. Baseball Bugs 01:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful start. Perhaps there could be one collapsible box entitled something like "Titles succession boxes" and other entitled something like "Awards succession boxes". Frank Robinson might also have a "Manager succession boxes". Also, I've been doing some reading about templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization and the template folks are trying to move succession box use to Template:S-start. There are lots of nice things that you can do with the new templates as illustrated by the example at: Template:S-start#Complete example. For example, we can use this to clump Clemens' ERA titles in one group with a color coded header. Brholden 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If the words "succession box" were in there, allowing for a preceding, descriptive parameter, it could be used for anything, e.g. U.S. Presidents. As a reader, I think I would prefer they default to collapsed, as I still think of them as clutter, especially when there are lots of them. Baseball Bugs 02:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I tried three collapsible boxes on Frank Robinson's page - comments? Brholden 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better this way. Nice and neat, and also makes wikipedia a bit more "interactive". Baseball Bugs 03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of minor questions on their formatting. 1) Is it possible to have the title "x succession box" centered? It seems to lean left on that page. 2) Is it possible to have the lines be longer? That would make the columns less long, and easier to skim. Just my thoughts.--Epeefleche 11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things - As you suggested, I widened the boxes on Frank Robinson's page (to 65%) and it looks better. The template does the centering by itself, removing the space for the word "show" from its calculation, but it looks more centered with the wider boxes. The other thing is that I found a way to combine repeated wins in the same box. All you do is just put a "br" with angle brackets after the first one for each of the entries. Click the "Awards succession box" on Frank Robinson's page and look for his repeated win of the "MLB Player of the Month" towards the bottom. Brholden 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, we may have to create a new task force to tackle this and implement to all the articles. I like the combining of the same award to one box, would crunch down players like Barry Bonds who have won the same award many times. --Holderca1 15:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's a definite improvement! I'd be happy to work on a task force. I think cleaning up the entire EL section is something that should be focused on, once the issue with ELs is hashed out. //Tecmobowl 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Glad you like it! The multi-succession box change works pretty well on its own for the intermediate cases, those with many fewer boxes than Frank Robinson has. Take a look at the Grover Cleveland Alexander page. It went from a sprawling set of succession boxes down to just three. Brholden 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent. The 65% helped a great deal. Minor suggestion. If we move that number up to 69%, we get all awards (other than the odd "Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year") on one line each, making them easier I think to read. At 65%, "American League Home Run Champion," "National League Most Valuable Player, "American League Most Valuable Player," "Major League Baseball All-Star Game," and "American League Manager of the Year" are all on 2 lines. Do you think we could make that modest change? Tx. Looks great.--Epeefleche 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you are referring to, all of the awards including "Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year" show up on one line for me. --Holderca1 23:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a percent of the width of your browser window and is affected by your browser text size - so "it depends". Wider boxes are fine with me. Brholden 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I missed the discussion, but I like the separated boxes like Barry Bonds and Frank Robinson as well as the collapsed Roger Clemens boxes. I think both techniques should be combined. I may get around to doing both to Sandy Koufax. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is great, but please don't title the collapsed tables that wrap the succession boxes as "succession boxes", or anything like that. The "succession box" is a Wikipedia artifact - the name of a generic template, and to actually use that term on the rendered article is amateur and self-referential. Call them awards, titles, positions, achievements, whatever! Are there any plans to make a template for this, or just use table code? Either way I could see this taking off all over Wikipedia, it would be a huge improvement... please refer to my little essay. heqs ·:. 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball pitches

I've created a template {{Baseball pitches}} and started cleaning up some of these articles. I was hoping to get some input on how to organize these articles. Right now, I have "history", "throwing mechanics", "uses", and "professional practitioners" as the standard headings as seen in slider. I don't like the wording of "professional practitioners" but I do not know what to change it to. I'm also planning on giving the different fastballs there own articles since the other specific types of pitches have their own articles. Basar 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's going to take a lot of work, because almost all of those articles have little sources and contain high amounts of original research. Nice template though. I did a quick scan and removed some blatant obvious things that needed to be removed. Maybe I'll chose a pitch and clean it up if I find sources.++aviper2k7++ 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Check that, I'm cleaning up slurve, so nobody work on it in the next half hour please.++aviper2k7++ 02:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there isn't much available online about slurve, but I turned the POV and OR article into a nice stub.++aviper2k7++ 03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work cleaning up those articles. They sure are some of the worst articles I've seen as far as OR and unsourced statements go. Hopefully, the ball is now rolling, and this article set will look good. Basar 06:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to clean-up the slider next. Man, I really could use a book on this because there isn't much available. But having a stub is much better than a piss poor article with a lot of original research.++aviper2k7++ 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I found almost no reliable sources when trying to help sinker (baseball). It would be nice if we could find somethings. What do you think about the "professional practitioners" section? Do you think we should have one, and if so, what kinds of things do you think would be helpful to say? I think these kinds of sections are always a little difficult. Basar 07:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever decent stuff you can find, add. I'm not sure if I would add major throwers, because then editors would just add their favorite pitchers and the list would become endless (which was happening). But if you can write about players who rely on the pitch and have great success with it and have a source for it, that could be included. I'm thinking of Ben Sheets' 88mph curve ball. I cleaned up slider. It's a pretty stub now. And I think I'm going to take a picture of my hand with the ball and trace it in inkscape so we have some images.++aviper2k7++ 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright I made an image of a slider. Please tell me this is accurate?++aviper2k7++ 05:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, sorry, but apparently Wikipedia has two non-pitchers writing about pitching. It looks great though, good work. Basar 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be a good thing so I can keep original research out. I updated the picture a little bit. I can remove the arrows if they're too much.++aviper2k7++ 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Colors

Whoever decided to put team colors in the player infoboxes created a minefield of POV-pushing. There is the ongoing battle over Reggie Jackson, for example. There is some debate over Nolan Ryan. There is also the idiotic attempts to attach Casey Stengel to the Mets colors, despite the fact that Casey's greatest achievements were with the Yankees, as well as the fact that he's wearing a Yankees cap on his Hall of Fame plaque (like Reggie). The bottom line is that posting team colors puts wikipedia in the position of "deciding" which team a multi-team player is most-associated with. It's easy for one-team or mostly-one-team players. But many prominent players have played on multiple teams. The team colors are cute and pretty but they are merely decorative and are inherently problematic. Baseball Bugs 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that we get rid of colors altogether from baseball perssonnel pages, it seems like overkill to me. Since they're only problematic for retired personnel, why not just eliminate them from these pages? There's nothing wrong with making WP pages more aesthetically pleasing. --Sanfranman59 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer there be a way (if there isn't already) to have multiple color sets. Then Stengel could have his Yankee navy blue and his Mets bright blue and orange, and everyone would be happy. Maybe. Baseball Bugs 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is which colors to use? They've got Nolan Ryan in the Angels current bright red. During Ryan's years with the Angels, the red was a bit less bright and was also offset by a fairly dark blue. It's only in recent years that the Angels have gone to nearly all-red. I see your point, though. Presumably the colors are to identify the current team of a current player. Obviously, there would be little or no debate about that. Once they retire, if they were associated with more than one team (which is often the case), trying to decide which one to use adds up to POV-pushing. Ryan, for example, arguably might have had his "best" years with the Angels, but he had more years with the 'Stros, he won his only World Series ring while with the Mets, and he's wearing the Texas Rangers' "T" on his Hall of Fame plaque. Baseball Bugs 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only got something to say about Nolan Ryan. I noticed that the color of the infobox was a bright-red because of the current Angels colors. I left a notice about this at Talk:Nolan Ryan on June 26, but nobody responded to my comment. Below is the comment I left there:

“ I take the assumption that the current colors for Ryan's infobox reflect him playing for the California Angels. But to me, the colors look too much more like the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim's colors. California's team colors were a bit darker. See Image:CalAngels93.GIF for an image of their logo, which shows that the team's colors are a bit darker shade of red. I think the infobox colors should reflect this. ”

If the colors do remain in the infoboxes, then Nolan Ryan's should reflect the colors of the team from when he played with that team, which in this case would be a much darker shade of red than is currently used in the Angels' current logo. ––Ksy92003(talk) 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example is Hippo Vaughn, whose infobox is in modern Cubbie bright blue and red. During Vaughn's years with the Cubs (1913-1921) the colors were either dark blue alone, or dark blue with a dash of a darker red than they use now. Someone had suggested that the colors should only be used with current players. I'm inclined to agree with that. Baseball Bugs 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Draft Articles

I've noticed we have articles going back to the 2004 Major League Baseball Draft. Perhaps we should work on doing, slowly, articles on the older drafts as well? It could be helpful for comparing the careers of players, etc. matt91486 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's something that we should definitely do. I've always had to leave draft pages as redlinks in articles I'm working on. Draft pages can be easily created, so it shouldn't be that big of a hassle. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You can look at 2006 NFL Draft and so-forth because about five of them are featured.++aviper2k7++ 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for lists

I am hoping we can create some guidelines on baseball lists. Yesterday, I spent some time creating List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases after I thought I exhaustively searched for any potentially redundant articles and found none. Today, I found List of Major League Baseball players with 500 stolen bases. It wasn't listed in the lists category, it wasn't linked in the logical places like stolen base, and I must have missed it in a search. If you look in Category:Baseball lists, you'll find the naming conventions are varied. I am proposing we use a naming convention of "List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stat", "List of Major League Baseball stat champions", "List of Major League Baseball leaders in single-season stat", and other logical permutations. I also propose we strike all of the articles that list the players over a certain amount of stat like the 600 home run club. Not only is it redundant with the 500 home run club, but it is also redundant with the career leaders list. I think we should also specify the table formating standards and whether we use bold or some other designation for active players. Basar 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense to me. The table you've built for career SB leaders looks fine. I suggest adding a "Years played" column. I don't particularly care for the career leaders tables with the list of teams for each player. Otoh, I think it's a good idea to include "Team" in the single-season leader tables. What's the difference between "List of Major League Baseball stat champions" and "List of Major League Baseball leaders in single-season stat"? --Sanfranman59 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

When I looked over the list category, I observed several of the champion type. They are lists of the champion for every year whereas the single-season would list the best seasons, regardless of when they occurred. Basar 00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some of this to the main project page. I don't know about the years played column, it seems like a record is a record. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Basar 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR

I want to submit both Ted Radcliffe and Steve Dalkowski to WP:FAR. Do people agree that these articles are so substandard with respect to FA-class citation standards that they reflect poorly on WP:MLB for claiming them as WP:FA articles? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think New York Yankees should be sent to WP:GA/R. It has a lot of citations but huge major sections have no citations. Without comment I will proceed with these actions. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think those are reasonable steps to take. Ted Radcliffe seems to have acceptable citation using a hidden system though. Both haven't been touched in the two years since FAC do not use infoboxes. They are both a little on the short side, but Radcliffe seems to be fairly comprehensive to me, although I only skimmed it. Interestingly, it appears that Radcliffe has never made it to the main page. Basar 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted Radcliffe has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dalkowski has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

celebrity fan section?

Can anyone shed light on why we have celebrity fan sections on MLB team pages? This seems more like it would belong in People or Us than on an encyclopedic entry. I have found this on a couple, such as for the San Francisco Giants and the New York Yankees. Entirelybs 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it on the Cubs and White Sox from time to time, and it probably turns up elsewhere. It's really questionable stuff. First, you're right, it's Us or People magazine kinds of stuff. It's also hard to source and it also compels wikipedia editors to decide how much of a celebrity someone has to be to qualify. In short, lose it. :) Baseball Bugs 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the first one because it was an unsourced and trivial list. I'll wait for another opinion on the second one because it has some sources in it.++aviper2k7++ 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What value does that kind of information add to a team's article? Baseball Bugs 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't personally put this type of thing in team articles, I don't see any harm in it as long as it's sourced (which, in my experience, is a pretty rare event in baseball-related articles in general). Finding sources for this type of info could be challenging, but even a relatively uninformed person about pop culture such as yours truly knows the team allegiances of celebs like Jack Nicholson, Billy Crystal, Ben Affleck, Bill Murray, Jim Belushi and Tom Selleck. --Sanfranman59 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the New York Mets page has a page linked from their 'See Also' section to a list of celebrity fans. I wonder if this is an acceptable alternative? Entirelybs 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That approach seems reasonable to me except for the fact that it's almost completely unsourced (surprise, surprise). --Sanfranman59 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, certain ones are easily verifiable. Jack Nicholson is frequently shown at his high-priced-but-he-can-afford-it courtside seat at Lakers games. Bill Murray is well-known for being a Cubs fan and for his interest in sports in general. Those other names are also easily verifiable. The trouble gets to be when someone "adopts" a team for P.R. reasons and is not really a fan but could get a mention here anyway. It's potentially a POV mine field. But it's also mostly harmless, it just adds nothing much, or at all, to an article. Nicholson's presence at Lakers games is notable because he's so visible, at all the games (although his summer vacations have been longer in recent years). He's not there just to be "seen", although the publicity doesn't hurt, either. Baseball Bugs 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual season articles

Sorry I may seem a little scared about the event that it happens, but can you assure me that, in the event that articles like 1921 New York Yankees season are put up for deletion that you will vote keep simply because they are notable and that it's hard work? Thanks Soxrock 11:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspended lists on roster templates

Currently, even when there are no suspended players in an organization, the Suspended list category remains under which says "Currently vacant." Too me, this feels a little negative. Why would you just have a Suspended list on the roster page if it doesn't need to be used right now? Could you imagine an official MLB or NFL website having a blank Suspended list "just in case"? I just think it's kind of negative to ALWAYS have one on every roster whether it's being used or not. What does everyone else think?►Chris Nelson 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other. But I think it may be useful to keep the heading so editors know where to enter suspended players when the need arises. It happens often enough that I think it's warranted (as opposed to having a permanent "Bereavement list" heading, for example, that isn't used all that often). --Sanfranman59 20:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the usages of the bereavement lists and bereavement lists are entirely different. I can think of a handful of players off the top of my head that have been on the bereavement list this year. Fick, Floyd, Chulk, etc.►Chris Nelson 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just using today as a random sample, there are 5 players on suspension and only one on bereavement. I think that's pretty typical, although I think it's probably common that there's no one on bereavement. --Sanfranman59 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I think your argument about the frequency of it works against you. You're saying keep the Suspended list so people know where to put them. But since it happens more often, people are more likely to know where to put them. Whereas with the bereavement list, it is less frequent and therefore more people won't know what to do with them when it happens.►Chris Nelson 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that logic, but as I said, I don't care one way or the other. If you want to remove the heading, it's ok by me. --Sanfranman59 21:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Something I was thinking about, since I saw the heading used on the Mets roster earlier this season when Mota was suspended, is using the heading "Restricted list". This way, players suspended under the drug policy and players on the bereavement list can be put together. Players for a short time, such as after an ejection, should not be put on the "suspended list" because they are still part of the 25-man roster, and therefore cannot be replaced by another player. In those cases, maybe the player could remain on the 25-man roster section while also being on the other "list", as an acceptable option. bmitchelf•T•F 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Career statistics guidelines

We should probably create standards for showing career statistics. I think the following code formatting should be chosen:

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
! [[Year]] !! [[Age]] !! Team !! Lg !! [[Win (baseball)|W]] !!
 [[Loss (baseball)|L]] !! [[Games played|G]] !! [[Games started|GS]]
 !! [[Complete game|CG]] !! [[Shutout|SHO]] !! [[Games finished|GF]]
 !! [[Save (baseball)|SV]] !! [[Innings pitched|IP]] !! [[Hits allowed|H]]
 !! [[Runs|R]] !! [[Earned run|ER]] !! [[Home runs allowed|HR]] !! 
[[Base on balls|BB]] !! [[Shutout|SO]] !! [[Hit by pitch|HBP]] !! 
[[Wild pitch|WP]] !! [[Batters faced by pitcher|BFP]] !! 
[[Intentional base on balls|IBB]] !! [[Balk|BK]] !! 
[[Earned run average|ERA]] !! *lgERA !! [[Walks plus hits per inning pitched|WHIP]]
|-
|2004 ||25 ||[[Texas Rangers (baseball)|TEX]] ||[[American League|AL]]
 ||3 ||2 ||7 ||7 ||0 ||0 ||0 ||0 ||36.3 ||36 ||21 ||19 ||7 ||10 ||27 
||2 ||1 ||158 ||0 ||0 ||4.71 ||5.05 ||1.266
|-
etc . . .
|}

which shows:

Year	Age	Team	Lg	W	L	G	GS	CG	SHO	GF	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	SO	HBP	WP	BFP	IBB	BK	ERA	*lgERA	WHIP
2004	25	TEX	AL	3	2	7	7	0	0	0	0	36.3	36	21	19	7	10	27	2	1	158	0	0	4.71	5.05	1.266
2005	26	TEX	AL	12	7	31	31	0	0	0	0	164.7	162	84	78	19	45	137	7	3	700	2	0	4.26	4.49	1.257
2006	27	SD	NL	11	5	31	31	0	0	0	0	179.3	134	72	69	28	69	164	6	6	735	4	1	3.46	4.22	1.132
2007	28	SD	NL	8	3	17	17	0	0	0	0	103.7	74	29	23	3	36	99	4	3	421	0	3	2.00	4.03	1.061
Career			.667	34	17	86	86	0	0	0	0	484.0	406	206	189	57	160	427	19	13	2014	6	4	3.51	4.34	1.169

Statistics accurate through July 9, 2007

I don't have much of an opinion on which stats should be shown or which ones should be used for hitters, although I'm not too fond of lgERA, I don't think it is all that common, but I know it's useful. I think we should use the standard baseball convention of 8.2 innings meaning 8 and 2/3. I think this is the formatting I've seen on all baseball sites. Although I know many will disagree, but I think we should simply say "in progress" for current year statistics. I don't think it is Wikipedia's nature to provide readers with continually updated statistics as they change daily. I simply do not think it is what Wikipedia is meant for, and I think stat sites are there for that. Not to mention that it would be a huge amount of work to keep all baseball players pages updates on a regular basis. Not even baseballcube updates stats in mid season. Reporting for whole years would make the articles more stable. I don't think we need to link year and age. We should also define when age takes place and make it a note at the bottom of the page; is the beginning of the season standard? Should we link the years to "200X baseball season"? Basar 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant to ask about the significant digits on WHIP too. Basar 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a "figger filbert", so it's not really my place... but why let that stop me? :) I'm just wondering why some (though not nearly all) player pages try to painstakingly repeat player year-by-year stats, when that info is readily available elsewhere, for example the official stats at MLB.com and also the privately researched stats at Baseball-Reference. I can see having a career line, but year-by-year is not only redundant, it runs the risk of errors cropping up... unless it's lifted directly from one of the other stats pages, in which case it's possibly a copyright violation. Baseball Bugs 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. I never trust any table of numbers I find on Wikipedia, because it is too easy for vandalism to go undetected. Leave that business to the external links. --BlueMoonlet 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The vandalism argument is even stronger than the mistake argument. Let's say you're watching a page and see that an IP address has changed a number. Now, unless you've got all of the guy's stats for 20 years committed to memory, you'll have to trudge over to one of the other sites and see if the change was a legitimate correction (possibly) or just messing around (more likely). And if he's changed a bunch of numbers, you've just lost an hour or two of your precious bodily fluids, er, your valuable time. Baseball Bugs 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So we should cut stats sections down to career stats only? I would be OK with that. Basar 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objection to making the guideline career stats only. In the articles I've worked on, I've never added year-by-year stats, although I've been known to include college, minor league and major league totals. --Sanfranman59 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I must confess to being a "figger filbert". In fact, I'm a statistician by trade. But given how statistically oriented baseball is, I don't see how we can completely exclude statistics tables from the articles. In my mind, a table of numbers is much more effective at telling a statistical story than a paragraph of text. OTOH, the points Bugs and BlueMoonlet make about errors and vandalism are good ones. However, I don't think identifying and reverting vandalism is as onerous a task as Bugs makes it seem. It's really just a few mouse clicks and if it's clear that a vandal has screwed up a bunch of numbers, all you need to do is click the undo link to fix the problem. That said, if I want accurate player stats, I would never rely on WP articles. --Sanfranman59 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to simply display a page from another source within a wikipedia page without (1) causing programming headaches and (2) grossly violating copyright? Baseball Bugs 01:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Basar 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So are we deciding to only include career statistics and do so in the format suggested? Have enough people OK'd this to put it in the guidelines? -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on these types of things at WP, but it doesn't seem to me that comments from just four people is enough to approve a change to the guidelines. Unfortunately, people who are active baseball article editors don't always pay much attention to this talk page (or at least they don't post comments). When I initiated the process to standardize the MLB team roster pages, I posted a message on the talk page of every user who had recently edited one of the old roster pages asking them to come here and comment on my proposal. It worked out well. Perhaps you should do the same in this case (you could use the project's participant list)? I know it's kind of a pain, but I think it's important to get buy-in for something like this from more than just the four of us who have commented here. I'd be happy to help you with posting the message on the users' talk pages if you wish. --Sanfranman59 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Player nationalities

The categorization of players such as Edwin Jackson and Glenn Hubbard (who were born at overseas US military installations) as foreign is incorrect. I suggest that all Americans born overseas as dependents to US military member parents be correctly listed as Americans before anything else. --John 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation(s)? --Epeefleche 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The broader question needs to be, what is the purpose of putting the little flags next to everyone's name? The answer to that question should drive the rest of the discussion. Baseball Bugs 02:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should use that template for baseball. The flag template is useful for the Olympics and other international competitions, but I don't think it relays essential information in this context because MLB teams are not divided by nationality. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think they are helpful and not at all confusing when used in roster or list-type format. Just my $.02. - Masonpatriot 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What is its specific purpose? How do you resolve the original question in this section? Baseball Bugs 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing review

I attempted to clarify the difference between opponents batting average and hits per nine innings. Editorial review would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD on "arbitary" career landmarks.

You might be interested in [32]. If this succeeds, as it may, Category:500 home run club, Category:30-30 club, Category:600 home run club, Category:700 home run club etc are very likely to be nominated for deletion next. Johnbod 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

500 HR and 30-30 are both oft-cited and used milestones. 500 HR used to be an automatic HOF milestone and many many sources have said so. I'd agree with deleting 600 and 700 HR. When do you ever hear of a 700 HR club? I never have - it's only three people. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well this is the big one for soccer, so the equivalent of 500 or 30-30 I suppose,and there aren't any comparable 50 or 200 cats. Johnbod 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for that. The references on the List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps article don't make too big a deal about the 100 cap milestone. If I'm not mistaken, entire books have been written about the 500-home run club. 30-30 is less revered, esp. since the advent of the 40-40 club, but still gets pretty good coverage. Cap is apparently equivalent to games played? If so, I can see why 100 caps is not a particularly well known milestone. I'd have no idea about the baseball equivalent off the top of my head. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, it's TOTALLY well-known outside North America! I had never heard of 500 home-runs as a landmark until I went looking for similar cats, and still have no comprehension of what a 30-30 might consist of. Have you looked at the CfD? The same "arbitary number" arguments will be used against 500. Johnbod 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can win a reliable source battle, I'll withdraw my delete vote. A home run is at least an accoplishment more equivalent to a goal. Cap is apparently just someone who shows up. There's no 2,500 games played club in baseball and I'd vote to delete such a category if it were created. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This just happens to be the major landmark statistic in an international soccer career. It is 100 international matches played so obviously has no equivalent in baseball or US football. If this is deleted I will be voting for all baseball (and other sports) round-number categories to go for consistency. Johnbod 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

...and for the ones I want to keep, I'll be mentioning the above edit in rebuttal. You should be mentioning references and precedents for the 100 cap milestone instead of thinly-veiled threats of retribution votes. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not retribution but consistency. I am voting against this proposal, but if it goes, so should all similar ones. Johnbod 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Johns, you're looking at this bass-ackwards: If this proposal is deleted, keep voting keep on all the others, and try to garner support for them as a whole. Then later, if the others are kept, you can try to get your's restored for consistency. These deletionists are like a virus, and the more deletions they get, the more they keep trying to other things deleted just because the first type was deleted. Don't feed their their fire, or they'll be after something else you like next. Then you'll come back here seeking help again, but no one will go to bat for you because they'll remember what you did. In principle, every article or template is to be judged on its own merits. But in practice, I've had several articles Nominated for deletion just because others of a similar type had been nominated, and the nominators admitted it! These people are the scum of Wikipeduia, because they routinely flout basic courtesies such as WP:AGF. Please, don't stoop to their level. - BillCJ 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not me feeding their fire, but Wknight94, who has !voted to delete. We shall see. Johnbod 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• He's not saying he's going to go on a delete spree. He's trying to judge the template on its merits, which is the way all votes on AfDs should be done. - BillCJ 16:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The debate seems to about whether a category is needed in addition to a list. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I would point out that while major statistical achievements such as 500 home runs have both categories and lists, I'm not seeing a category for baseball games played, nor even for other obvious baseball milestones such as 3,000 hits. Baseball Bugs 11:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Young

I am the page creator and main editor of Chris Young (pitcher). I think by fluke related to the fact that three active professional athletes named Chris Young exist may have caused some confusion enabled me to be the page creator in his 3rd major league season. I have been happily editing the page essentially by my lonesome until he became an All-Star. Now, everyone is joining in with varied citation standards and image inclusion interests. In the last 24 hours there has been a lot of debate about this article. In fact, yesterday one editor said he prefered a 20KB version to the 61 KB version I was editing. Another editor has proposed a 49 KB version. I have contested some removals and the page is now at 54KB.

As a reader, when a game is notable enough to be specifically mentioned in an article, I prefer that the citations include a link to a box score and/or a recap of the game. It is more convenient for me as a reader to have fingertip access to such notable games. During several WP:FAC debates I have made this point. In the current article, the last two sentences at Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Double_A are examples of where this debate is relevant. I personally feel that for internet era athletes adding internet box score or game recaps to the article via citation is the proper standard of excellence. This standard would affect all other baseball articles and it was suggested that the debate be brought here. Please respond with opinions on the matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to ask for opinions on the numerous images removed in the last 24 hours. Please advise on that as well. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments on the problems that I (and other editors) see with this article

1. There were numerous images included in the article. All were very similar (likely from the same day at the park), and added no value to the article. They contained captions like "Chris Young prepares for devliery", "Chris Young in his windup", etc.
2. This article is over referenced. Young hasn't even pitched 4 major league seasons, and the article contained 115+ references. At least 40 of them are links to various boxscores & game recaps on ESPN or USA Today. These seem largely unecessary, especially when you can simply link to a players ESPN profile, which in itself contains a game log for all of that players apperances.
3. The article also suffers from too much detail on recent events. I think there's some sort of Wikipedia guideline about watching out for that, but I can't find it off the top of my head. In any case, there's way too much information about the current season, and probably the other sesons too. For instance, "On June 24, 2007 Jake Peavy surrendered 3 earned runs in 5 innings which caused his ERA to rise from 1.98 to 2.14. This gave Young who had a 2.08 ERA the National League leading average for the first time in his career for one day. The next day, Brad Penny allowed only 1 earned run over 8 innings to take the lead with a 2.04 ERA." This is not really that notable, or necessary for an encyclopedic article.
4. I think this article is actually bordering on a WP:OWN issue. From the discussion i've seen, and participated in, several (3 or 4) editors feel the article had the same problem (too much minutia, too many unecessary links, too many useless pictures). However, TTT feels that he is the main editor of the article (which I understand, because he has done the majority of the editing on the article). Because of this, he's been reverting a good portion of the edits that myself, User:Ksy92003, and others have made.

In any case, I suggested that we bring the discussion here, becaue Chris Young is after all a baseball player. And, since the standards (especially the box score referencing) should be pretty standard across similar people (i.e. baseball players), it should be discussed here. Just my thoughts, and i'm interested to see what other people think about the discussion. Bjewiki 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the over-referencing, I think we can easily remove some of the duplicate references provided for a statement in the article. It's always good to sometimes have multiple references, but it detracts from the overall readability when you have 4-5 references for an individual item. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that some pictures could be removed (so that we could expand the size of some of the other images), but removing all images is a bad idea. Some of the images illustrate Young's pitching mechanics and his stance on the pitcher's mound, which definitely add value to the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROSELINE is the topic Bjewiki metions. I appreciate the assistance wiinnowing down some of the 2007 text. Many games have been removed. I appreciate this. He had a great month of May, which seemed important until he went undefeated in June. Now the 9 game undefeated streak is the story. Other editors have helped me realize things like this. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think collectively you are on the right track, and will work it out. I tried to make a minor improvement, but got caught in an edit conflict when I tried to save it, so TtT -- you might consider making it in your next revision. Many of the numbers are written out -- e.g., "thirty fourth game." If you were to change those, at least those "11" and over, into numerals, that would aid readability. You can also change the lower numbers, if they are part of a series, and part of the series is in numerals.--Epeefleche 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was mainly concerned about the little details including the day by day ERA stats, if like Young is the top in the league etc. Almost every game is referenced which I don't think needs to be. Agree with Eppefleche. I do think that some (free) images need to be added in. Some person removed them. I'll specify later about the exact ones. Thank you. Hornberry 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I think User:Ksy92003 made some changes against MOS with respect to whole word number representation. I left a note on his talk page to take a look at his edits with this in mind or I would get around to it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have left a message with Ksy92003 to revisit edits like [this one with respect to the numbers issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I spent only a moment glancing at the edits, but ... sixteen should be 16 -- isn't that the sort of edit he made in your example? Tx.--Epeefleche 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

16 vs sixteen is a context case, but 3 should be three see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Numbers_in_words.

Hey, TTT, you said that people agreed that I shouldn't have done the numbers the way I did... but I don't see anybody here who has agreed that I was wrong. You said "other editors are complaining about how the numbers are written now in the baseball talk page discussion." I don't see anybody complaining about that. ––Ksy92003(talk) 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

KSY, See Epeefleche above. and then see your edits.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This gets at one of the pet peeves I've developed since becoming actively involved with WP. IMHO, this article includes way too much detail for an encyclopedic article. Per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events". The fact that Young gave up seven earned runs over 7 1/3 innings over his first two starts of 2005 and that he had a stretch of 13 2/3 scoreless innings in May comes nowhere near meeting this criterion. (BTW, another pet peeve ... numbers of innings should not be presented as 7.1 or 13.2 ... to the vast majority of the English-speaking world, these numbers are read as "seven and one-tenth" and "thirteen and two-tenths", not one-third/two-thirds). For most regular players, it should be possible to summarize a season in one or, at most, two paragraphs of three to five sentences each. For some journeyman-type players, a paragraph or two should be sufficient to summarize their entire career. If a player had an extraordinary year (e.g., record-breaker, award-winner, All-Star, on a World Series team), maybe you need three paragraphs. With the exception of particularly extraordinary feats (e.g., no-hitters, three- or four-HR games, hitting for the cycle, record-breaking event, a walk-off to clinch a pennant), I don't think it's ever warranted to reference an individual game box score. --Sanfranman59 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. Basar 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not necessarily an expert on WP:FC, but every article that I have nominated for WP:FAC or WP:FLC has been promoted. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what the proper level of detail is to get something promoted. I am fairly certain the general consensus here is taking the article in the wrong direction. In fact, I am getting a pretty good understanding of why WP:MLB has so few WP:FA and WP:GA bio articles. Look at the FA bios and you will note that many of them should be WP:FARed such as Ted Radcliffe and Steve Dalkowski as they would both fail at WP:GAC in their current state. This leaves only Moe Berg, Sandy Koufax, Jim Thorpe and Michael Jordan. None of them has played a major league baseball game since the end of the Vietnam War so I am not sure how to compare them to an internet era athlete. I think in general the people here have little clue on what is necessary to take an article to FA status. If you want to take every interesting piece of trivia out of the article and claim to be improving the encyclopedia by stripping articles to the bare essentials you will be able to shorten most articles, but you will end up with a project without highly reviewed articles. You can keep ganging up on me to take stuff out, but you will end up with another run of the mill WP:MLB article. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone pointed out already, a very good example of an athlete Featured Article is Dominik Hasek. Look at the level of detail there. Bjewiki 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hockey and Baseball articles are different animals because of the amount of press they get respectively. For every hockey article written in the press probably 3 or 4 baseball articles are written. Thus, looking at Hasek might suggest we should have 200 citations for Young. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel put upon, Tony, but I can assure you that I'm not part of any conspiracy to "gang up" on you. Until you brought the Young article to my attention here, I don't think I had ever even looked at it. You posted a message asking for people to express their opinions and that's what I did.

As for your comment about hockey vs. baseball articles, I think you're off base on a couple of counts. First, hockey is a major professional and amateur sport with rabid fans all over the world. There is no shortage of coverage in the popular press. Second, comparing a sure fire hall-of-fame hockey player who is one of the best in history at the most important position on the ice to a promising young starting pitcher with relatively little track-record (certainly in comparison to Hasek) is silly. I can assure you that the amount of ink Hasek has received throughout his long career dwarfs that of Young. --Sanfranman59 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I got a message on my talk page that at least one of the parties hotly contesting Chris Young is no longer interested in fighting with me. I intend to revert many of the changes made during these battles. Then I hope to extend my perfect record with article space WP:FC nominations after letting the article sit for long enough to prove it is stable and no longer the focus of reversion warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 July 2007

O.K. I am going to start now. Before I proceed, I should note that in general I will be adding links to other players that make the article more interesting. Much like succession boxes are interesting because of the association with other players many of the types of things I will be readding are references to other players. I should also note that although young is a phenom as a stand alone individual it is possible for an article to become much more interesting by association. A personal favorite in this regard is Rob Pelinka. Of course, sports agents actually establish notability based on who they represent, but in this case association is doubly important because of his impressive list of teammates. I really hope the warring is over, but I am posting notice here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let all of you know

Major League Baseball on the radio was a DYK a few hours ago. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How can I make it better? ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

English problems

I've tried to edit the punctuation in the notability section so it's rendered in proper English, but I'm stymied by the fact that one sentence is poorly written.

“ Outside the US, e.g. Japan, any player playing in Nippon Professional Baseball is considered notable as it is the top professional league of that country. ”

This could lead someone with moderate English skills to think that only players for teams located in the US and Japan (and nowhere else) are notable. I don't mind changing bad or confusing punctuation, but substantive changes should be discussed, so: If your intent is to allow articles on professional baseball players from other countries, I suggest you rewrite that part of the section to say:

“ Any player that plays in the top professional league in his country is notable. This includes Major League Baseball in North America and Nippon Professional Baseball in Japan, among others. Minor league players in North America are not considered notable. ”

That way you avoid mistaken accusations of bias and your guideline is clearer. --Charlene 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be worded that a minor league player can be notable if there are enough reliable sources on him. It's what Wikipedia Notability says.++aviper2k7++ 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/aviper as to minor leaguers. Would also suggest that a ballplayer is a "who," not a "that." Tx for addressing.--Epeefleche 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I implemented this. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking better! Another English point ... I believe that the phrase "their" should properly be replaced by either "his," or, if this is not deemed politically correct enough, the more cumbersome "his or her." You can also delete the second mention of "players" in the third line, as it adds nothing to the sentence that remains if it is taken out. Also, in the last sentence, rather than "are" ... don't you mean "may also be," or "may also be in accordance with the above guidelines?" Then again, you could always fold them into the first sentence ...--Epeefleche 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)