Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Game log readability

So I was browsing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Boston_Red_Sox_season and I noticed the show text next to each season of the game log is terribly hard to read (I literally spent a solid minute trying to figure out how to see the details). It isn't just that one either, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_York_Yankees_season is unreadable too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.199.242 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the ice hockey project talk page about changing the header to have a uniform, more legible background colour, with a thick colour line beneath that would differentiate between teams. I think this is a good approach to balance legibility with team individuality. isaacl (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish there were a free, legit way to access The Sporting News' 100+ yrs of digital archives to help with article expansion.

I haven't looked for a way for about a year now, so if you have a source that legitimately provides these archives for free (or significantly cheaper!) would be most appreciated. This is less for me and more for everyone that contributes to WikiProject Baseball. I wish there were a way for us all to have free access, as references, while plentiful on google news search, don't even come close to the depth of coverage I found in one particular newspaper that used to be free online.

A few years ago, PaperOfRecord.com, the site that held over 100 years of newspapers of The Sporting News, stopped being a free service and started charging a fee. They want $13 per month or $71 per year. Since I have a fascination with 1950s and 60s baseball and also hated it when AFDs were presented on the grounds that the player had no significant coverage or that an assertion of notability from a player/manager in like the 1920s was 'fake' because they couldn't find a source when TSN archives proved otherwise, I had to get access to the archives. It was an incredibly vital source for my goal of expanding articles of baseball players from the 1950s and 1960s from being more than just small footnotes in history that simply recited how many years they played and what their triple crown stats were.

Because of my dedication to expanding articles of my interest, I joined SABR, the Society for American Baseball Research. One of their benefits is that PaperOfRecord gives every SABR member free access to The Sporting News archives. Since I'm still under 30 years old, membership is $45 per year. That saves almost 40% over just buying it straight from the website, and SABR includes a ton of other stuff to make it worth it for those serious about baseball research. Ages 30-64, unfortunately, raise the price to $65, making it just a $6 difference but still giving you all the benefits and resources at SABR's disposal. I am in no way spamming people or begging them to go out and join SABR since I know there's no way in hell most people here will blow that much cash just to have access to some old newspapers and expand articles on Wikipedia. I am only offering them a solution for that small chance that they desperately want access to the TSN archives as much as I did late last year. I have my reasons for needing this. I'm writing these articles of about 180 specific players for personal reasons mentioned on my userpage.

I still intend to remain with SABR even if there is a legitimate, free way to access The Sporting News online archives. I wish I could write articles at a faster rate than, like, one per year, but real life has been taxing lately, and it can be compounded with the fact that I always know literally nothing about the player before I write his article. I just want others to have more free resources so they can more easily expand articles on baseball players. Let's at least please try to get some Stubs up to C-Class articles, like this article I expanded of Milt Bolling a while back that I'm sure looks like a mess since I am absolutely terrible when it comes to prose, but it looks a hell of a lot better than it did before expansion.

For baseball article writers, especially of players of 50+ years ago, I have a few free sources listed that cover 1885-1920 (Baseball Magazine and Sporting Life (magazine) and 1942-2009 (Baseball Digest) at User:Vodello#Digitally Archived Magazines and Newspapers to expand baseball player articles that can help. If you have any more free reliable sources from old baseball/sports magazines and newspapers, please let me know. I only just recently found out about the LA84 Foundation's efforts to archive Baseball Magazine and Sporting Life. While they haven't been as useful to me as TSN was, I did find a writeup or two of players in the first decade of the 1900s that would've otherwise been pretty much impossible to find. Boston Beaneaters, Boston Doves, Brooklyn Superbas, or Brooklyn Bridegrooms fans might find this to be a great resource after all! Who knows?? Losing The Sporting News as a free resource for editors was a huge blow. I also wish there was free access to the New York Times archives. I think I have to purchase a newspaper subscription or some crap like that. I'm already in this for $45, so I'd rather just take my chances with whatever pops up for free on Google News, Google Books, and the TSN archives.

Anyway, I hope the resource list I have on my page helps at least one person that has a baseball article to expand or create. We's gots to gets more articles fixed up around heres. If my math doesn't suck too much today, only 6.1% of baseball articles excluding lists are rated C-Class or higher. Breaks my heart. I know it's easier to delete than it is to create (certainly leads to a lot more barnstars for some), but let's see if we can get that number up to 10% by year's end. No player deserves to be a stub for all eternity. Ah well, at least SABR has some cool stuff. Gonna suck when I turn 30 in 2014 though. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam is a huge help, free to Wikipedians that been in the project for over one year an 1000 edits. Mostly covers post 1986 so it's good for players who played after those years. I been trying to get free access to Paper of Record in Wikipedia, but they seemed uninterested, but considering the success of the HighBeam project we could give them or SABR a shot. Secret ^account 14:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Major League Baseball season‎#Milestones

I could use a little help with this cruft section and some stubborn editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Stubborn? I have doing these edits for over three years and have never had any complaints in the previous years adding things until this year... I just want to know why the interest to limit "milestones", even though they are legit... --posty (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiData

For those that haven't heard, the WikiData project aims to create a knowledge base for various data. I think it'd be useful to have WikiProject Baseball consider using it in the future. Potential uses could be to contain records of each game played, which can then be transcluded automatically into the relevant season articles for each team; or batting, pitching, and fielding data for players, which can then be transcluded into player article infoboxes (or elsewhere). This could also be used to replicate or mirror Baseball Reference and Retrosheet data. This will be a long-term project, as WikiData is still in development. Thoughts? Mindmatrix 16:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

article suggestion

Might be worth having a List of Major League Baseball hitters with six hits in one game article (the name mirrors List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game). The list is only about 5 times longer [1] so is pretty impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O18 (talk • contribs) 20:33, April 20, 2012‎

Since there is an MLB.com page for it, it might be worthy of its own article. We'd need to find more sources to back it up, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In the article, List of Major League Baseball hit records, there is a section listing players with 7 hits in one game.Orsoni (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no clear reason why it uses 7. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

7 is the magic number for hits in a game. It's only happened twice in a nine-inning game - once by Wilbert Robinson, 120 years ago; and once by Rennie Stennett, of all people, in a 1975 game I remember all too well... possibly the most humiliating defeat ever suffered by the Cubs.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

But I don't see how that makes seven the number. 700 home runs has only happened three times, yet we still care about the 500 home run club. The MLB.com source giving weight to six hits in a game is more convincing to me than the fact that seven has happened twice. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Only create an article if multiple sources have discussed the grouping per WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured list reviewers needed

Hi, all. I have two pages nominated at WP:FLC right now relating to baseball, and they are languishing while waiting for reviewers. Can somebody please check out List of New York Yankees owners and executives and/or List of Major League Baseball player–managers and make any comments? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion

Talk:Heinie Meine#Requested move could use some input. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Outline Page

I can't find any references to it within the project (maybe I'm not looking in the right spot), but there is a draft of an Outline of Baseball here. I'd like to see this page on the main Wikipedia section, but right now it has "Draft" status. Can fixing it be added to the "Tasks" on the front page of the Project? Listmeister (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never understood the fascination with these outlines. Frankly, it is simply a far less useful and much harder to maintain article version of Category:Baseball. Resolute 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Visiting Category:Baseball may be a good way for some readers or editors to begin "work". For many of us and some kinds of work, a better point of entry must be the

entire (baseball) Category hierarchy.

Do we have a tool that displays the hierarchy below any given category? ...

Here it is: Category tree Baseball (JavaScript required)

--P64 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Standardize Won/Loss Colors

Please see Template_talk:Table_cell_templates#Standardize_Won.2FLoss_Colors. --ben_b (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes?

Is there a way to track recent changes for only baseball articles? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball#External_links—Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up!

That works for other WikiProjects too, and gets copied to my user space. --P64 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied to your user space, what does that mean? Sorry, I'm still new to all of this. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, That was a rare edit conflict for me, nothing but two people saying Thanks! User:Bagumba should feel good.

Visit User:P64 and you'll see that I have copied that URL near the top of my wikipedia homepage, along with a few others that are useful for my own quick reference. My user space is poorly organized with material such as this scattered across the tops of too many subpages (which may also be poorly organized in other ways :-(

Therefore visit the three extraordinary compilations that I recommend.

AutomaticStrikeout, you are not new this month :-) but WP:USER may yet be useful. --P64 (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I get easily confused by some of this technical stuff, but I think I get the general idea of how to check recent edits for specific categories. Thanks for the help! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert Pender article

Not sure if he merits an article. Thought I'd get your input. He played for 20 seasons in the minor leagues, from 1886 to 1907 and managed at that level for nine years. He led the Baton Rouge Red Sticks to a league championship in 1903 and the Norfolk Tars to a league championship in 1907. Following his playing career, he umpired throughout the minors. Here are some articles that might constitute solid coverage: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. There are more too, if you look up "Captain Pender" and "Dad Pender," two monikers he went by. This article says he was the best third baseman in the Interstate League ever. He has some coverage in this book [8]. What say you? Alex (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

While most of the coverage was from a single source of the Youngstown Vindicator newspaper, making me wary of the requirement for multiple sources of significant coverage in WP:GNG, his frequent mention in the book makes him notable enough for me. And this is only based on the sources you listed here with no further searches. Thanks for posting this.—Bagumba (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I agree with Bagumba. I certainly appreciate that in the case of an individual who may or may not be notable, you brought it here for discussion before creating it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

numerical milestone categories

I have nominated Category:300 saves club and Category:500 home run club for deletion here. Note that I am not at all proposing the deletion of the lists 300 saves club and 500 home run club. Those are much better vehicles for providing the numerical accomplishments, as they provide context and numerical precision. Your feedback is welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(500 home run club is a regular article, not a List.)

One big difference between the articles home run#See also and Save (baseball)#See also is that the former includes a list of links to homerun-related lists (See also, linked here). Whatever FROBBY-related lists do exist ist probably should be linked to the main article FROBBY at See also; same for -related articles such as "500 home run club". Cross-references would be overkill but one back-reference would be appropriate: eg, one link back to Home run#See also (or a subsection of See also) in See also for each homerun-related list. --P64 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no "see also" to 300 save club, but there is a navbox {{300 save club}} in Save (baseball).—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"300 save club" does include section 300 save club#See also, which links two saves-related lists. My suggestion is that the every saves-related page (all saves lists and some other pages) should See also [[Save (baseball)#See also |Save-related articles]], which section of the main article should maintain links to all saves-related lists.

Save (baseball)#See also currently links only one saves-related list article, one of the two that "300 save club" Sees also.

In contrast, Home run#See also currently links 13 homerun-related lists and articles (no categories, i think). But no longer in contrast to saves, 500 home run club#See also links only three particular homerun-related pages and does not link back to "Home run#See also". --P64 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We should all be embarrassed

In April 2012, Portal:Baseball was viewed 1,663 times. In the same time period, Portal:Justin Bieber was viewed 4,417 times. I've noticed that a lot of our high profile pages (3,000 hit club, Hank Aaron, Bryce Harper, Cliff Lee, etc.) don't link to the portal. I linked a bunch of them to the portal, but could use your help in adding {{Portal|Baseball}} to more of our pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So far this is working. The Baseball portal has almost as many views through half of May as it got for all of April. Suck it, Bieber! Still have to do more to catch his portal, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Advice about this article?

Hi,

I've been working on this article, John Adams (drummer), for about the past month and I'd like a little of your feedback. It's about one of the handful of dedicated, notable fans of baseball, and I think it's a little off the beaten path from what you normally deal with at this Wikiproject. But sure you have some advice on how to make it better and how to proceed. Already I think I'm getting close to taking it GAN (it's a very small article, but it's a small topic). So think of this as an informal peer review. Alright. Thanks -- Bobnorwal (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Splitting

Is there any possibilty, the other articles on relocated MLB teams will be split, the way the Expos/Nationals are? GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I sure hope not. Spanneraol (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Because this was a discussion that needed to be re-opened, yet again? Resolute 02:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well we can take care of all that drama right now by having a "one franchise, one article" policy on this, just like all the other franchise articles.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that we both know it will never happen for all of the reasons presented in over a dozen discussions that show it will never happen. But that will never stop GoodDay from trying to stir up drama, especially when he sees the same drama from the last discussion is starting to die down. Resolute 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Never, say never. All the MLB team articles would be sync, if it weren't for unreasonable Canadian pride from some editors. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The previous discussions have been summarized at Talk:Montreal Expos/FAQ (including a list of various MLB franchises that have separate articles for their incarnations in different cities). If you have some new arguments to raise, new light to shed upon the previous points, or suggestions that help make a given compromise more attractive by addressing its shortcomings, please do bring them forward. In the interest of saving time, however, I think it would be good to avoid rehashing the same discussion points (which you agreed with as well). isaacl (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just checking in (on April 28) to make sure there was no hope of bringing the MLB team articles in to sync. GoodDay (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, many editors have spoken on this issue on both sides on many occasions, and have expressed a whole range of thoughts and arguments. You do yourself no favours by making comments that suggest that you think you are being more reasonable than all of the other contributors over the years that have expressed an opinion that differs from yours. Making a comment like "if it weren't for unreasonable Canadian pride from some editors" is unnecessary, uncivil and contrary to WP:AGF. Knock it off.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't perfect, we all know that, but it's not fair to admonish other editors when they point out obvious flaws in some of Wikipedia's consensus procedures.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My comment was absolutely fair. I would similarly expect to be admonished if I said something silly like "if it weren't for the irrational WikiProject Baseball editors". And I think you should remember that a consensus with which you disagree ≠ obvious flaw in the consensus procedure. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Article question

I was wondering if this new article is notable. I wanted to bring it here first. Penale52 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, an article summarizing a very specific type of player transaction for a baseball season seems completely unnecessary - this should be merged into the transactions sections of the MLB teams' season articles. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Does any article include a classified or annotated list of player status types? or list of player transaction types? (Category: Baseball labor relations contains two article, designated for assignment and player to be named later.)

The answers may be yes for current types, no for historical types; may differ for status and transactions. --P64 (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I nominated the list for deletion, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper to record player transactions, especially something so common as being designated for assignment. Secret ^account 01:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible list

I am considering making a list of the ejections for the current MLB season, and I wanted to know if this is going to be considered notable. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no need to have such a list for the current season. Would the list of ejections for the 1940 season interest you? IF not then why do we need one for this season? No use for this at all. Spanneraol (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no encyclopedic rationale for documenting ejections. Just because Wikipedia can be a source of information doesn't mean it should. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted to make an all-time list of most ejections, then I could see that passing notability (I'm surprised that's never been created). Documenting each one this season, however, certainly fails list criteria. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:LISTN should be used as a guide for list notability.—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Unbreakable?

There's a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable (2nd nomination) going on right now, for anyone who feels like weighing in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Spring Training logs again

That conversation fizzled and got archived. I want to be clear, now that the WP:RECENTISM of spring training has faded, we can delete these from articles? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

For those like me who need a refresher, here's the previous discussion. My previous comment was "the main argument to keep is because the information is correct and some editors have the energy to support it. However, I haven't seen a reason why the information is notable." No compelling arguments to keep followed.—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete these please. Spanneraol (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

On it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it from the 2012 season articles that had it (CWS, BOS, LAA) and the 2011 CWS season page as well. There may be more in 2011 and beyond, but I don't have time to keep looking and this is a start. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Regular season logs

On a side note from the Spring Training log discussion, I would even favor removing the regular season logs per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. The information is all available (and probably more accurate) via a single link to any number of external sites, and the WP article is not providing any added value of consolidating information from multiple references. IMO it just seems to be a lot of duplicate effort unless this was automated through some bot.—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not as set against these... as the regular season games are notable... However, I wouldn't miss them if they were gone... My main issue is that probably 80% of our season articles are just game logs... I wish the editors that are spending their time updating these things and various other stat tables would spend some time writing prose about the season... much better use of their time. Spanneraol (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spanneraol. They're not as bad as the spring training logs, since these games actually mean something, but they detract from encyclopedic prose, and all they manage to accomplish is duplicating tables from stat websites. I don't get the point. Just like I don't get why stat pages have ridiculous "watch lists" (seriously, people update someone with 1,700 hits on the 2,000 hits page... 300 hits takes an All-Star caliber season and a half to achieve). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the biggest loss is time better spent to explain what actually happened in the season when it is not obvious by just looking at logs from 162 games. I dont mind editors gaining interest in WP by starting with those types of edits, but there is otherwise little value to be gained from duplicating what is already available on an external site. Does anyone have any past experience on responses from people that were nudged?—Bagumba (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone can, or wants to write prose. People need to keep this in mind. It takes many different people doing many different kinds of things to make the wiki run. Gnomes who update stats are just as important as those who write prose. It isn't a loss of time if the editor wouldn't write prose anyways. If anything you are gaining edits from editors who wouldn't write prose to begin with. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

True, no loss if they were never going to write pose anyways. But I wonder if that is more the case or if the editor would be willing to write pose but thinks stats are more "helpful". I guess its best to approach them one-by-one to see they are aware and interested in other (perhaps more important) tasks.—Bagumba (talk)

Yeah we couldn't know unless we asked each one individually, but I am guessing the sort of person who keeps sets of numbers up to date is a completely different type of person than would write prose. One being a logical brain type and the other being a creative brain type. I know I personally have a much harder time with prose than with fixing the ity bity gnomish stuff I take care of. If someone were to tell me my type of editing was a waste of time and that I shouldn't do it and should write prose instead I would just leave wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove them from the regular season, just because other editors choose to help the wiki in ways different than yours doesn't mean either of you aren't helping. Clearly someone looking at an article for a season of a sports team expects to see the results of the games. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That same logic would be used by Spring Training log proponents. If this was a presentation of stats in a different view or consolidated from multiple sites, someone could easier buy that it was "helping" even if they didn't like the content.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's helping even if it is from a single site in that the reader doesn't have to leave Wikipedia. Even if I could find the stats elsewhere I would be greatly inconvenienced by having to go to another website to see them when I as a reader would expect them to be on the page I am currently reading. If the information is important to the article we should have it even if they information is found elsewhere. In fact the entirety of Wikipedia should be able to be found on other sites, that is sort of the point of what wikipedia does. It gathers notable information from other sources and puts it in a single place. Removing stats from a season article is effectively removing the most important information in a season article. Personally I wouldn't remove the pre-season either, but it wasn't worth getting into a debate about since it was the pre-season. However removing the regular season stats would in my opinion just be ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps my opinion is clouded by wanting to improve prose by converting time spent on stats. I will point out that the same argument to have stats without having to leave WP is inconsistent with the consensus to not have year-by-year player stats in bios. In the same vain, I actually prefer it in the player articles, but didn't think it was worth the effort of editors in the grand scheme of things and also per NOTSTATS.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Game logs should only remain on page that get updated. They're not just on baseball season pages, but the NBA and NHL as well. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll neither argue for nor against them for WP:MLB's purposes, but speaking from my experience with the Calgary Flames season articles I write, I hate doing the game logs. I find them tedious. However, I also believe they are an important, almost central, component of the articles. Sports are defined by statistics, and it seems silly to leave the most basic and important stats out of an article and claim that our work is complete. In my case, several editors have come along and maintained the game logs and player stats, while I write the prose. I end up getting the GA credit, but the articles are a good example of Wikipedia collaboration, and it gives other editors who may not feel comfortable writing prose an avenue to positively add to the project. YMMV. Resolute 22:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally would be pleased to write more prose for the seasons I'm interested in writing about - currently only 2012 Washington Nationals season, but I'm open to expanding my interests - but I'm not certain of what should and should not be included in that prose. If someone could point me at a few examples of good-prose season articles, I can access the necessary sources for the prose. In the meantime, I'll just be a good little stats gnome :). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season is, I believe, our only season article that is a "Good Article" so I'd look at that one. Spanneraol (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, that is pretty. I like. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Chicago White Sox roster

Would someone else mind intervening here? It's a small dispute, whether to list Adam Dunn as an infielder or DH. I think we've had an issue with this user (Carthage44 (talk · contribs)) before. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bracket help

The 2012 SEC Baseball Tournament has been expanded to 10 teams from 8, so the current {{SECBracket}} won't work. I can't find a 10 team double elimination bracket template and I can't figure out how to edit the code to add another round. It will need to follow this format. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. ~ Richmond96 t • c 01:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about 10-team, but if I recall correctly, the Little League World Series uses a double-elimination system. Hope that helps. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Some one has actually created {{SECBracket2012}}, which works perfectly. I just didn't know how to get the code right. ~ Richmond96 t • c 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Player Statistics advice

I've been maintaining the player statistics for the 2012 Washington Nationals season. There is soon likely to be a pitcher who only has relief appearances - Chien-Ming Wang - who will be transitioned to a starting role. I'd like advice on how to represent his starting stats vs. his relief stats and his combined stats. My best current idea is to have his total stats included in the relief section, but only his stats as a starter in the starting section. But that seems unwieldy. Ideas? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues like that are why I tend to just put all pitchers together in a "pitchers" category on my pages... easier to deal with and you don't have to make choices like that. Spanneraol (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe do that and add a Games Started column...though that might be too many columns. I'll think about it and play a little in my sandbox. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wild Card standings?

This seems like a waste of space to me... Template:2012 NL Wild Card standings Way too early to be tracking and we never included it on previous seasons. Spanneraol (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree with you that it's too early, and tracking it is probably too much. But on the other hand, it does seem useful to have once the season is over. I'd suggest keeping it, but keeping it off of pages during the active season. Unless...does it call to the various division standings templates? If it does, such that it doesn't need to be manually updated except by updating the divisions, keep it around. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think its even less useful once the season is over. Just ads more clutter to the pages. Spanneraol (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

About the only way this would have long term significance is if it was a graph showing the standings throughout the year. Otherwise, it's just news.—Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes

User user:Dirtlawyer1 is deleting succession boxes that seem to have a navigational box that covers the same subject. You may or may not have already noticed this, but I thought the project would like to know. I do not have a dog in the fight, and don't have opinion on the matter.Neonblak ^talk - 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarify please? The user is only deleting succession boxes when there's a navbox that's got a built-in succession mechanism too, if I understood correctly. Are they only doing this in baseball pages, or other places as well? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

While some may debate whether most succession boxes are even needed, I hope we all can agree duplicates for the same subject are redundant and not needed.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I just saw this discussion pop up on my watchlist. To clarify, I am only deleting succession boxes for which there is already a chronological navbox on the exact same subject (e.g. New York Yankees managers). There is no reason to have unnecessary succession box clutter when there is already a navbox. I am not deleting succession boxes for which no navbox exists (e.g. minor league managers, random awards, etc.). This has already been done throughout WP:NFL, WP:CFB and for all other college sports. Several core WP:HOCKEY editors continue to strongly prefer succession boxes over navboxes, and I leave their project's articles to their preferences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as you're confining yourself to succession boxes made redundant by other navboxes, I have no problem. Among other things, Wikipedia is not subject to the rules of the Department of Redundancy Department. :) - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Joliet Jackhammers players

Category:Joliet Jackhammers players, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bill Miller (umpire)

There has been some difference of opinion about the content relating to the Brett Lawrie incident. I would appreciate anyone interested in discussing it on the talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There are also some IP addresses that revert attempts to refine the text of the article. Any assistance or advice is welcome. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the last five IP addresses to edit this article have begun with 98.142. I could be wrong, but that seems fishy. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hack Wilson's GA review

Does anybody want to help out by picking up the review at Talk:Hack Wilson/GA1? It's not far from passing, but the nominator, Orsoni (talk · contribs), hasn't edited on Wikipedia in a week and I don't know when (or if) he's planning on returning. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can tomorrow; hopefully a free block of time will pop up for me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help in promoting this article to GA status while I was away on vacation. Much appreciated!Orsoni (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Top prospects

If I was to create an article listing Baseball America's top 100 prospects, would it be nominated for deletion? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably. The list is unique and original to BA, so is protected by copyright. Having an alphabetical list of top baseball prospects, and their ranking by the major baseball scouting organisations might be acceptable. (For example, yearly lists could include any player who was listed in the top 100 of any reputable ranking system.) It could also contain prose about which players are regarded as 'elite'. Article titles might be List of baseball prospects from 2012 or something similar. Mindmatrix 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If enough independent articles exist that could be used to recreate the list outside of the BA reference, it would be considered notable under WP:LISTN. For example, if one could find articles that "player X was #1 BA prospect", another that "player Y was #2 prospect", etc, it would not be a copyvio. In general, if a list is only available from the publisher, its a copyvio—not to mention not notable if nobody even writes about it.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Kirby Puckett Discrepancy

This may be minute, but Kirby Puckett was drafted #3 overall in 1982, which is noted on his page. However, there is no mention of him on the 1982 MLB Draft page. I don't know how to fix this but I figured someone on here might. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.51.147 (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a January draft, whereas 1982 MLB Draft only has the June draft results.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Even List articles need at least short prefaces that explain what they are about. Articles on particular draft renditions such as 1982 Major League Baseball Draft, 1983, etc, desperately need to say what is the MLB draft, when was this one conducted, and (this incident suggests) what other drafts MLB conducted this year.

Rule 5 draft results needs something similar that explains how the list is incomplete. The template {{dynamic list}} is an overstatement for a list that is currently complete but needs periodic update; if that list article does cover all of the Rule 5 drafts to date, or lacks only completion of the latest rendition (2011/2012), then use {{update}} or {{update after}}.

move to Talk: Rule 5 draft results, although my forthcoming comments will make some suggestions that have general application. --P64 (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. --P64 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

1997 AL East & Central

OK, this is a head scratcher. I randomly opened my The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum Baseball Desk Reference ISBN 0-7894-8392-0 to the 1997 season (p. 160) and it said Detroit & Milwaukee flipped divisions that year, with Det. in the Central & Mil. in the East. But that didn't sound right to me, so I checked a few more sources and they all had Det. moving to the East in 1998 and Mil. moving to the NL in 1998; there was no flip of divisions in 1997. But then I checked one last source, Total Baseball (6th ed., 1998) p. 2380 and it has the 1997 flip of Det. & Mil. in the East & Central. WP & B-R.com do not have this 1997 flip. So what gives? Did Mil. play 1997 in the AL East or AL Central? One last thing, their records were almost identical: 78-83/Mil. 79-83/Det. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.98 (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall Milwaukee ever playing in the east... but in any event, the official source is MLB so check MLB.com [9] and you get the Brewers in the Central and the Tigers in the East. Spanneraol (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Total Baseball then err? Does anyone have a more recent TB that has a correction? I would be interested in knowing if TB corrected this. I guess a simple look at newspaper standings from 1997 would also answer this, but I don't have easy access to that right now. --64.85.216.98 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

According to a Cincinnati Post article, "BASEBALL COOLS ON BIG REALIGNMENT RADICAL PLAN LOSES SUPPORT" dated August 23, 1997, the Tigers were in the AL East in 1997. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

According to American League West #Former members, the Brewers were an AL West founding member, but moved to the AL East in 1972, to the AL Central in 1994, and to the NL Central in 1998. Eagle4000 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Although Detroit & Milwaukee did not flip divisions in 1997 (with Det. in the Central & Mil. in the East), Detroit did move from the AL East to the AL Central in 1998 (American League East #Former Members), at the same time that Milwaukee moved from the AL Central to the NL Central. Also, American League West #The Division Members says that -- in 1972 -- Milwaukee switched divisions with Washington/Texas, by moving to the AL East (from the AL West), while the newly named Texas Rangers franchise moved to the AL West from the AL East (where it had resided as the Washington Senators). Eagle4000 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Place of birth in lead?

Is there a specific policy for having the place of birth in the lead for baseball players? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. It doesn't belong there. See MOS:BIO for what's supposed to be listed in the first sentence and other parts of the lead section of a biographical article on Wikipedia.

I always include the birthplace in an "early years" section, along with the subject's family background, early education, etc., together with high school sports history if the subject is an athlete. If the subject is a MLB player and only briefly played college baseball, it may be appropriate to stick the short college history in the "early years" section, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of "winner" and "award" in infobox

Previous consensus for listing All-Star appearance was to use "All-Star" instead of "All-Star selection" for brevity. Should we do the same for "winner" where many infoboxes currently list "Silver Slugger Award winner" or "Gold Glove Award winner" (e.g. Alex Rodriguez). What about even removing "Award" and shortening to "Silver Slugger" and "Gold Glove"?—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whereas players across many sports are often described as an "All-Star" as a contraction of "All-Star player", I don't believe MLB players are often referred to as a "Gold Glove". The grammar works a bit better in the case of "Silver Slugger", but my feeling is that it is still not common to refer to an MLB player by this abbreviated phrase. isaacl (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In space-limited player infoboxes, let's delete/omit the use of words like "selection," "winner," "recipient," "honoree," etc. The name of the award followed by a parenthetical with the season (or seasons) that the award was received are self-explanatory. The additional words add nothing to the reader's understanding, and often cause an otherwise unnecessary and unattractive line-wrap. I have heard the unconvincing argument, as advanced by Isaac above, that it is somehow not proper to refer to a player as "a Gold Glove." To my way of thinking, "Gold Glove (2011)" does not refer to the player; it refers to the award and the year the player received it. Editors are free to use the words "winner," "recipient," "honoree," etc., in body text when describing a player's honors, and I would encourage them to do so to the extent necessary to create smoothly flowing prose. In the infobox, such words are surplusage and may be omitted.

In reviewing several hundred MLB player bios over the last several years, the only occasion where I believe the use of an additional word is necessary following infobox honors and awards is when we list World Series championships won by the player. Why this difference, you ask? Because when we list "World Series (2011)" in a player's infobox, it is unclear whether the player was on the winning team or was merely a participant. In this one instance, I advocate adding the word "champion" for clarity, as in "World Series champion (2011)." It is not necessary to add "winner" or "champion" to "National League pennant (1898)," however, because only the league champion claims the pennant; there is no ambiguity. In most MLB bios I've reviewed, league pennants are already presented in this fashion.

FYI, WP:NFL and WP:CFB have already decided to omit such unnecessary words from infobox honors by project consensus. WP:NFL, however, likewise makes an exception for such as "Super Bowl champion (XXXII)." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable argument; therefore I agree with omitting the word award. isaacl (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Omit the word "award" in the infobox, but keep it in the prose areas. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence about this topic, but I definitely think that the word "award" should be retained in infoboxes for awards that are named after people (e.g. "AL CY Young Award", "Roberto Clemente Award"). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for brevity, as it's only one more word. Also, we need to remember that as an online encylopedia, these articles should be directed towards the neophyte reader who may know absolutely nothing about the sport, such as readers from countries where baseball isn't a major sport. To them, the words "Gold Glove" may be meaningless, whereas the word award would help clarify the entry. I think some editors lose sight of this and tend to direct articles towards sports fans who are already knowledgeable about the sport.Orsoni (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) (edit conflict) (edit summary says "indecisive" and I can't disagree much with Orsoni)

It's reasonable to select an "infobox use names" for awards where some include the word "Award" and others do not, more likely IMO depending on length rather than what the award is named after. If this infobox or column were narrow, "Clemente Award" or "Clemente" might be reasonable.

The troubling point here is that this infobox cell covers more than awards, and group honors such as all-star, and even group achievements such as champions. The cell display name is "Awards and career highlights". Is there a fixed list of permitted highlights --at least for players who do have some permitted award, etc? (Free form seems entirely acceptable to me if a player's greatest achievement was "Triple and double in one game".) The listings in this cell ought to convey --for almost all readers, without reading another article-- which do refer to awards of some kind and which are other highlights. Abbreviations without 'Award', 'Crown', 'Medal', 'Trophy', etc may impair that --depending on what other listings occur.

{{Infobox writer}} has cell names on the left, which uses horizontal space, including one for Notable awards only, which saves horizontal space because Award goes without saying, in a general sense that may cover 'Medal', 'Prize' or whatever. ... even so, I find that it's common to abbreviate by dropping the fullname, as in Clemente Award rather than Roberto Clemente. ... Indeed, there is a tendency to display Awards: Pulitzer Prize rather than Awards: Pulitzer in History, although the 'Prize' is more famous than any baseball award. ... Awards: National Book Award rather than Awards: National Book, Fiction. ... Pulitzer and National Book in some award categories would be too long for one line, even without 'Prize' and 'Award'. I doubt that is why we spell out those redundancies and give less info where we do have room to abbreviate completely (underlined). I don't know of any relevant policy or guideline. --P64 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought this discussion might be more productive if we had some concrete examples to discuss, approve, disapprove, improve, etc. The following list was taken from the list of World Series MVP articles:

• 2x World Series champion (1978, 1979)

not 2x World Series (1978, 1979)

• 2x National League pennant (1898, 1901)

not 2x National League pennant winner (1898, 1901)

• 14x All-Star (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010)

not 14x All-Star selection (1995, 1998, 1999,

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,

2008, 2009, 2010)

• 4x NL home run champion (1957, 1963, 1966, 1967)

not 4x NL Home Run Champion (1957, 1963, 1966, 1967)

• 2x NL batting title (1965, 1966)

not 2x NL batting champion (1965, 1966)

• World Series Most Valuable Player (1964)

or 4x World Series MVP (1957, 1958, 1961, 1964)

not 4x World Series MVP Award (1957, 1958, 1961, 1964)

• NL Most Valuable Player (1975)

or 4x NL MVP (1957, 1958, 1961, 1964)

• ALCS Most Valuable Player (1996)

or 4x ALCS MVP (1957, 1958, 1961, 1964)

• NL Comeback Player of the Year (1986)

not NL Comeback Player of the Year Award (1986)

• AL Rookie of the Year (1996)

not AL Rookie of the Year Award (1996)

• AL Manager of the Year (1989)

• 4x Gold Glove Award (1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)

not 4x Gold Glove (1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)

• Hickok Belt (1955)

not Hickok Belt winner (1955)

• Hutch Award (1966)

not Hutch Award recipient (1966)

• 3× NL Rolaids Relief Man of the Year (1977, 1978, 1980)

not 3× NL Relief Man of the Year (1977, 1978, 1980)

• 3x Silver Slugger Award (1992, 1996, 1998)

not 3x Silver Slugger (1992, 1996, 1998)

• Babe Ruth Award (2008)

not Babe Ruth (2008)

• Branch Rickey Award (2007)

not Branch Rickey winner (2007)

• 2x NL Cy Young Award (1978, 1981)

not 2x NL Cy Young (1978, 1981)

• Lou Gehrig Memorial Award (2009)

not Lou Gehrig Award (2009)

• Roberto Clemente Award (2010)

not Roberto Clemente (2010)

• MLB career home run record (715)

• MLB postseason RBI record (21 in 2011)

• AL career stolen bases record (337)

• 2× NL complete games leader (2003, 2004)

not 2× NL leader in complete games (2003, 2004)

• New York Yankees No. 5 retired

not New York Yankees #5 retired

• Texas Rangers Hall of Fame

I think the list above is fairly representative of the most common MLB championships, honors and awards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The conversation started with the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger awards; you seem to be suggesting to keep the word "award" for these prizes, in spite of your previous response. Is this correct? isaacl (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaac, I thought I was pretty clear in my original comment above, but apparently I was not. My original comments were really limited to the use of the additional words "winner," "recipient," "honoree," "selection," and the like, which some editors are compelled to add to infobox honors. (The most egregious example is adding "selection" to "All-Star" and "winner" to various other awards.) While I do not think tagging "Award" on the end of MLB, AL, NL, ALCS and NLCS MVP honors serves any useful purpose, other awards have commonly used names such as the Cy Young Award and the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award. Where an award is commonly known by an actual name that includes the word "Award" or "Trophy," we should use it. This is especially true where an award is named for a player, and omitting the word "Award" only serves to confuse readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As you responded to my discussion of the term "Gold Glove" and gave "Gold Glove (2011)" as a specific example, perhaps you can understand my confusion on the matter. isaacl (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa, Isaac. In editing MLB bios, I have encountered so many infobox renderings of "Gold Glove winner (2011)" that I thought that the actual name of the award was "Gold Glove." It is not; the actual name is "Gold Glove Award." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, can we finish this discussion and come to a conclusion? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There was an argument to keep "Award" to distinguish cases where the award was named after a person, e.g. "Roberto Clemente Award" vs "Roberto Clemente". So I thought, "fine, just leave award on everything for simplicity", but I see "World Series Most Valuable Player", "NL Most Valuable Player", "AL Rookie of the Year" where "Award" isnt used. What is the general rule here? Is there are going to be exceptions, I'd prefer to not have them for Gold Glove or Silver Slugger, as baseball-reference.com lists them. Either have the rule as

1. Do not specify "Award" except in cases where the award is named after a person

2. Always use "Award".

I !vote #1.—Bagumba (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would vote to use award as mentioned above, for the benefit of readers who have no previous knowledge of the sport. Encyclopedia articles should not strive for brevity, but for thoroughness.Orsoni (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear (since there's multiple examples above), you would also want "World Series Most Valuable Player Award" and not "World Series Most Valuable Player Award"?—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 NCAA Division I baseball season

The article 2012 NCAA Division I baseball season is seriously broken. The main part looks OK; but skip down to reference 56 and it becomes a sea of Node-count limit exceeded. This tells me that there are transclusion issues: either there are too many templates, or those templates are too complicated. The problem is not necessarily with one of the references. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael McHenry

Could someone make this redlink a blue one? He seems to have slipped under the radar despite being on the active roster of a major league team for the better part of a year and a half, being involved in an infamous bad call[10] (aside: what an obnoxious puff piece on a bad call where Meals obviously made the wrong call because he was tired and wanted to go home) and having some other high profile plays (e.g., [11]). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Misspelled: Michael McKenry.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Awful. I guess if one is going to be stupid, he might as well go all the way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Or just blame the lousy Wikipedia search tool :-)—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at ANI about someone producing a whole mess of draftee stubs. Interested parties may wish to comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the direct link to the specific section of the discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DGenao18_creating_unsourced_stubs_for_every_MLB_draft_pick—Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How to become a member?

How do I go about becoming a member of this project? Is there anything special I have to do? What responsibilities does one have upon becoming a member? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just add your name to this list, and say to yourself "I am a full-fledged member of WikiProject Baseball member." Then, start editing what you are interested in. At least that is what I did :)Neonblak ^talk - 23:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just be sure, during the initiation, to say, "Thank you sir! May I have another?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

First you have to sacrifice a live chicken. Then you have to put your right foot in, put your right foot out, put your right foot in and shake it all about. Do the hokey pokey, and turn yourself around. Then you have to stand on your head while reciting the Little league pledge: I trust in God I love my country And will respect its laws I will play fair And strive to win But win or lose I will always do my best.

Oh wait, thats the initiation for the National Rifle association. Oh well, just sign your name and let the fun begin.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Marty Foster

Would someone please look at the part about the Yankees ejections and decide if it is notable. I've already removed it as non-notable, but another editor has reintroduced it. This editor has also reverted some of my other edits, to the point that a paragraph of information that was not notable, not neutral, and not sourced was put back and duplicated. I don't feel like getting into an edit war, so I'd appreciate some help. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been dealt with by Muboshgu, although I suppose the IP editor may come back. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Umpire notability

Is there a set standard on what would qualify an umpire as notable enough for his own article? Is any experience at the MLB level good enough? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlike players, umpires don't typically get routine coverage in the media. So I'm not sure they would pass GNG even if this project said they'd qualify. So I don't think umpires have any inherent notability unless they can pass GNG. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BASEBALL/N presumes notability of MLB umps.—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And at the very least, umpires who are in the Hall of Fame would be notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Joe Kelly (pitcher) (created June 10th) and Joe Kelly (baseball) (created June 8th) are the exact same person. This project needs to figure out which one should stay and which one should be the redirect. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Joe Kelly (baseball) should probably be just re-directed to Joe Kelly. I didn't realize there was other Joe Kelly's when I created it.--Yankees10 00:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it redirect to Joe Kelly (pitcher) until such time as there is another MLB player with that name? (That is, the only baseball player on that dab page is the pitcher.) Mindmatrix 00:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Joe Kelly (Pitcher).--JOJ ^Hutton 00:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is also Joe Kelly (1910s outfielder) and Joe Kelly (1920s outfielder).--Yankees10 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thus Joe Kelly (baseball) should redirect to the disambiguation page. -Dewelar (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised Joe Kelly (baseball) wasn't already a redirect, considering there were two Joe Kelly's (plus Joe Kelley) before the new Joe Kelly debuted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surpised also. Probably why I made the mistake.--Yankees10 01:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking Joe Kelly (baseball) should be speedy deleted with CSD G6. Who would ever type it in? If they entered Joe Kelly, they would go to the individual Joe Kelly's and not to another dab. Unless we wanted to leave it solely as a placeholder so nobody uses it again.—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I grant you that no casual reader will type in "Joe Kelly (baseball)", and I doubt any of us would either, but I think it should serve as a redirect to the dab page. The fact that it wasn't a placeholder allowed this duplication to happen in the first place (although I see the baseball disambiguator article is older than the pitcher disambiguator article). – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: Joe Kelly (baseball) should redirect to Joe Kelly. Since there are now three baseball-related Joe Kellys, the disambiguation is necessary. I agree with Muboshgu in that if "Joe Kelly (baseball)" had been a redirect already (like it should have been) then this entire issue would have never arisen in the first place. I'm going to be bold and redirect it to the disambiguation page. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have only one cent but I spend it in pieces (ha'pennies?). It is valuable to be consistent about the use or non-use of "(baseball)" to disambig people, even their disambig pages. Is there a way to check how many biographies and how many disambig pages currently have "(baseball)" titles? --P64 (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

... [12] If baseball-related disambiguation pages are reliably claimed by WP:Baseball, there are none that use "(baseball)" in their own titles. I suggest continuing that practice. Any that do exist but have not been claimed should be claimed, and converted to redirects rather than deleted, as argued by Muboshgu. --P64 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Joe Kelly (baseball) was created on June 8 but was not added to Joe Kelly dab. Joe Kelly (pitcher) was created on June 10, and added to Joe Kelly at the same time. It would seem more likely the duplicates were created because the first one was not added to the master dab page, not that we need to create a new rule about creating (IMO unnecessary) redirects for "XXXX (baseball)" articles.—Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there doesn't need to be a rule about creating "XXXX (baseball)" redirects, but if two or more baseball players share the same name then "XXXX (baseball)" should most definitely be a redirect to a disambiguation page. In basketball, there is a redirect established for Bob Duffy (basketball) because two different players by that name are notable. Hence, the (basketball) redirect is appropriate, and I think that the same logic equally carries over to baseball player articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions for statistical ranking articles

I came across 2 articles that capture essentially the same information: 3,000 strikeout club and List of top 100 Major League Baseball strikeout pitchers. Can someone explain why we have both? "3,000 K's" is just a small subset of the info in "List of 100 K pitchers". Why should we duplicate a ranking for the same statistical category?

Similarly, I'm wondering why some of the statistical ranking articles are named the way they are. We have "List of top 100 Major League Baseball x category players", "List of Major League Baseball leaders in x category", "List of Major League Baseball players with y amount of x category", and "y club", all of which are essentially capturing historical statistical rankings. So why not have them named consistently?

Clubs

• 500 home run club
• 300 save club
• 3,000 strikeout club
• 300 win club
• 3,000 hit club

List of top

• List of top 100 Major League Baseball strikeout pitchers
• List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters
• List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders
• List of top 100 Major League Baseball leaders in bases on balls allowed
• List of top 100 Major League Baseball Leaders in innings pitched
• List of top 50 Major League Baseball hit by pitch leaders

List of MLB leaders in career stats

• List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in games finished
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in career ERA
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in career WHIP
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in games started
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in bases on balls

List of players past stat threshold

• List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs
• List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs batted in
• List of Major League Baseball players with a career .330 batting average
• List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage
• List of Major League Baseball players with a .500 slugging percentage
• List of Major League Baseball players with a .900 on-base plus slugging
• List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits
• List of Major League Baseball players with 400 doubles
• List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples
• List of Major League Baseball players with 4,000 total bases
• List of Major League Baseball players with 2,500 games played
• List of Major League Baseball players with 10,000 at-bats

Wouldn't it make most sense to standardize each article name as "List of Major League Baseball leaders in x stat"? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated a number of those articles for deletion personally. I think the clubs are notable as they are and would oppose renaming them. I think the other articles all violate WP:NOTSTATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The clubs should all meet WP:LISTN. As for the other lists, if they exist, a name like ""List of Major League Baseball leaders in x stat" seems consistent with WP:LISTNAME: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself ... the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list."—Bagumba (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In groups two and three, I would name them all "List ... career leaders ..." in contrast to "List ... single-season leaders ..." for all-time and contrast to "league leaders" for annual season leaders. Bagumba cites LISTNAME on target, however, and one instance must be that "single-season" is unnecessary; "season" is good enough. Anyway, I wouldn't name any leaders lists ambiguously, without "career" or "season" or "league", etc.

Adding a few tidbits I have these suggestions

• Use "List of Major League Baseball term leaders in ..." where term is "career" for all-time career leaders, "season" for all-time single-season leaders, "league" for annual league leaders.

• Don't use "all-time" in list names concerning player achievements.

• For team (or ballclub, club, franchise, etc) achievements use "List of Major League Baseball [no term] leaders in team term ..." where term is "all-time" or "season". Thus "all-time" implies cumulative team/ballclub/etc achievements.

• Use ".300 batting average" rather than "a .300 batting average"; same for any player or team average or percentage.

• Don't use commas in numbers less than 10,000.

Should all existing lists should be renamed for consistency with the agreed naming convention, whatever it may become? I doubt it. --P64 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my compliments on your proposal for long overdue standardization in the naming of these MLB list articles. I have only one small quibble, and that's with your proposal "Don't use commas in numbers less than 10,000." In American English, it is the standard convention to use a comma delimiter in any number greater than 999; IMO, it also makes them easier to read at a glance. It also consistently formats numbers when they are stacked in columns and tables. Please note that MOS:NUMBERS neither requires nor proscribes the use of comma delimiters in four-digit numbers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I might also suggest shortening "Major League Baseball" to "MLB". While initials are generally not used due to disambiguation, the long titles with baseball terms makes it clear which MLB is being referred to.—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Might I recommend a different alternative to ballclub/franchise achievements? I think "List of [team] leaders in [term] [stat]" is a better solution. For example, "List of New York Yankees leaders in career home runs" sounds better. Also, I would strongly argue to maintain the phrasing as "single-season" and move the term just before the statistic. Writing "List of Major League Baseball season (or single-season) leaders in home runs" makes me think the list will be about home run champions by year, whereas "List of Major League Baseball leaders in single-season home runs" makes it clearer the the list will be a ranking of the most home runs anyone has ever hit in a single season. If someone is a "single-season leader in home runs", then they led the league in home runs for a particular year. If someone is a "leader in single-season home runs", then they have the most home runs ever hit in one season. The placement of the time period affects the meaning of the phrase. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about team-season and team-career achievements of players, which I intend to cover at all, and overlooked completely, and don't admire in my capacity as a fan ...

I meant the season and all-time achievements of teams:

- List of M.L.B. leaders in team season winning percentage

- List of M.L.B. leaders in team all-time winning percentage

Now I wonder why we don't say "... leading players in ..." and "... leading teams in ..." --for leadership other than (single season) "league leaders", which is too well established.

Here is one that I overlooked.

• Don't use "leader" in Top list names, "List of top 100 Major League Baseball ..."

Now I wonder whether all of the Top lists can be named simply "Top 100 Major League Baseball team season winning percentages" without "List of".

Offhand I prefer "MLB" but can any project get away with such a thing? Do I vaguely recall regular article, list, or WP:CATegory names where every "NABBP" has been spelled out in compliance? --P64 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see a problem with making "List of top 100" the standard. If we rename the threshold articles (e.g. "List of players with 300 hr"), then some people above that threshold could get squeezed out of the newly-renamed "List of top 100" article. I like the "List of MLB leaders" convention because you can determine what the appropriate threshold for inclusion is. If the article is about hits leaders, we can say the threshold for inclusion is 2,000 hits. If the article is about walks, we can decide to just make it the top 100. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

John D'Acquisto

I'm seeking out advice on his article.

After D'Acquisto's baseball career was over, he was twice sentenced to prison for financial crimes. There are news sources for this no problem. At the moment the article contains three of them.

The thing is, I just rewrote Mr. D'Acquisto's article. He is a wikipedia editor[13] whose worked on his own article, may also have a second account[14], and he has edited[15] into the article claims that he exonerated of the crimes he was convicted of.

I have access to High Beam Research and have conducted a search of Google news article. There is only one article[16] that makes any mention of D'Acquisto being exonerated. It's a interview from 2011 after D'Acquisto edited his article.

To me, and anyone tell me if you feel I'm wrong, would think if D'Acquisto had eventually been exonerated of his crimes he would gotten media attention at the time it happened. Was I right in editing out Mr. D'Acquisto's claims?(The article was a mess with links all over the place and at one time included a phone number for Mr. D'Acquisto's attorney) Please give me some input on what should be done with the article. I've put the article on my watchlist. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. D'Acquisto tries editing back in the old material....William 02:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You missed his third account, which he used back in 2009 when I had a conversation with him about this issue. Crazy to think this is still going on. -Dewelar (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh..."conversation" is a strong word...I posted to his talk page, and he responded nearly two years later. -Dewelar (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw your conversation with Mr. D'Acquisto but missed his third account.

The 2011 news article is dubious to me. Why- Mr. D'Acquisto made many claims about his baseball playing that don't match the facts. He didn't throw 3 complete games in Richmond, didn't allow no runs in 11 games while with Oakland, and a few other tall tales. The reporter was clearly reporting IMHO things Mr. D'Acquisto was saying as fact without doublechecking anything. That makes me think the part about Mr. D'Acquisto being exonerated is also based just on what Mr. D'Acquisto said and not on any other proof....William 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I wouldn't take anything he said at face value, and certainly someone interviewing him has an interest in presenting him in a positive light, so I think leaving any mention of exoneration out of the article is prudent. I guess we really need are court records from the case. The link Mr. D'Acquisto posted in 2010 that claimed to link to such documents is dead now, and I have no idea how to search for such records. Perhaps someone else can help here. -Dewelar (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the charges and conviction are well-sourced, so there's no WP:BLP issue there. And a link to Google Docs for his information? That...doesn't look so good. As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well i have no comment on the issue at hand, but the article could use a rewrite.. that middle paragraph is extremely long and hard to read... could also use some wikilinks. Spanneraol (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

$%#@. I was just working on cleaning this up and had made some major edits, but lost them in an edit conflict. Not worth it to do all that work again. -Dewelar (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why anytime I'm ever working on an article that may take a while, I save and save often. That way if there is an edit conflict, I only lose a little bit of work, rather than the whole thing. Also you could hit backspace on your browser and bring up the changes you made, then cut and paste into an updated version of the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my big problem was that I fumbled getting my text into the clipboard, and was left pasting nothing. *shrug* It's all information that someone else can get anyway, just annoyed at the lost work. Just a tip for others: if someone suggests improving an article, it might not be a good idea to jump right in and tag it for improvement. Give people a chance to actually, you know, do it first. -Dewelar (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a situation best suited for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboards than here. Yes it's a baseball related article, but you may get better feedback on those boards.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the stuff about his playing career and added links... need to find sources for his playing in the "senior league" or his being asked to return in 1990... Spanneraol (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I did further cleanup to the article including the putting in of references, took out statements that didn't adhere to NPOV, took out claims of D'Acquisto getting a offer from the giants in 1990(Which I could find no verification for with either High Beam or Google News Archive searches) corrected the date on which he was released by the Richmond Braves etc. He did pitch in the Senior League, that's not in dispute.

For everyone's information, I did report[17] D'Acquisto's edits to the COI board....William 01:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Umpires Proposal

For those who are interested, there is currently a proposal to create a WikiProject specifically focused on umpires. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

James Bates

For what it's worth, I created the stub James Bates (baseball) today. If anyone wants to attack it to add to it please do so. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just nominated the article for deletion. A- Minor League baseball players are almost always not notable and B- There is nothing at the baseball reference page you gave as a source other than a name. So the article is unsourced....William 23:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The average minor leaguer is not going to be considered notable unless he did something extraordinary, like hitting 60 home runs in a season (as with Joe Bauman or winning nearly 300 games (as with Frank Shellenback). Shellenback was actually in the majors briefly, and is theoretically notable just on that basis; but he is far better known as an enduring minor league star. But for every Frank Shellenback, there are maybe a thousand guys whose cup of coffee was in the minors rather than the majors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, speedy delete. I did a quick Google look-see, and most of the hits involve a CBS announcer falling off his stool. So that, I guess that would be much more notable...if it were notable.Neonblak ^talk - 00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup I was going to prod it when I saw this comment yesterday, but I wanted to wait to see what others said. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There's another problem with Jrcla2's edits. He's creating category pages for college baseball players and in the category pages he's putting in a link to the university as if the university has its own category page. Unfortunately, that's not always so and therefore the category pages have redlinks in them....William 11:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call my edits a "problem" considering all categories can and should eventually be created pertaining to colleges and universities. If there is a policy about not including red link categories within other subcategories, please show it to me because I will stop doing that if it's against policy. Otherwise there's nothing wrong with it and it encourages category creation. I also have no qualms with the baseball player being deleted because I was unaware that those minor league teams he played for did not bestow inherent notability (I'm mainly a college basketball and football editor who's been dabbling in college baseball lately for uniformity among our three WikiProjects). WilliamJE, perhaps you ought to rethink your approach to interaction with, or about, other editors. Judging by your ruthless attack on the WikiEtiquette moderators (as evidence on your userpage) and that you're currently embroiled in a WikiEtiquette assistance debate yourself, it's not always 'everyone else.' It was pretty contentious to call my edits "problems" even though I'm clearly one of the good guys on this website (related: since when has creating a semi-professional baseball biography, whose creator genuinely thought was notable, to be problematic? Because that is what was insinuated by lumping that and my redlink categories together). Jrcla2 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're clearly not familar with WP:REDNOT which states- Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.

An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.

You didn't know that policy. That's why your edits are a problem....William 19:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And I appreciate you pointing out the red link policy. But, it would have been a much more easily correctable issue if you had politely dropped me a note on my talk page with a "hey, noticed you creating categories with red links...here's a policy that says why they shouldn't be there" rather than this approach. But hey, it's your prerogative. Have a great day. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You could have easily have learned REDNOT on your own by doing WP:REDLINK instead of going to my user page and then writing about it here. WP:CIVIL keeps me from saying more....William 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid this, of course, is to immediately place the new school category in the appropriate parent category (in this case, Category:College baseball players in the United States), thus making it no longer a redlink. -Dewelar (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Two-seam fastball vs. sinker

One thing that's bothered me for a while is the ambiguous way Wikipedia (and other places) treat the two-seam fastball and the sinker. On the talk page of the sinker article, I opened up a discussion on this issue because the article says the sinker is "also known as the 2 seam fastball," which strikes me as strange since we have a page for that pitch as well. Do they overlap that much? If they do, should the pages be merged?

As Bill James and Rob Neyer write in their book, The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers: An Historical Compendium of Pitching, Pitchers, and Pitches:

Until (roughly) the 1920s, you would see only one term: “fast ball.” Gradually, though, players and writers started talking about different kinds of fastballs: sinking fastballs (commonly, the “sinker”), rising fastballs, tailing fastballs, sailing fastballs, even sliding fastballs. Most of those terms remained in standard use until the 1990s, when for some reason they were replaced by terms that described how the ball looked to the hitter (“two-seam” and “four-seam”) or how the pitch was thrown (“cut fastball” and “split-fingered fastball”), rather than how it seemed to behave.

If we go by that logic, the pages should be merged because the two-seamer is the modern incarnation of the sinker. Seeming to agree with this distinction is Dan Brooks, who groups two-seamers and sinkers together on his pitcher charts.

I'm more inclined to agree with a separation. As I understand them, two-seamers and sinkers serve different purposes -- which is why their actual movement, at least characterized by PITCHf/x, is somewhat different.[18] Two-seamers exist as a variant of the four-seam fastball, usually thrown as an alternative for pitchers facing hitters from the opposite side of the plate (the greater horizontal break away from the plate aiding the pitcher's cause, in theory). Sinkers tend to be utilized more by sinkerballers — people who use it as their primary pitch, like a knuckleballer would.

Therefore, I recommend keeping the pages separate and more clearly delineating the differences between the pitches in the articles. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible change to umpires infobox?

I've noticed that there seems to be a flaw with Template:Infobox Mlbumpire. The template is written so that all umpires' names are automatically wikilinked. While this may not seem like an important issue on the surface, it prevents umpires with disambiguated article names (example: Adrian Johnson (umpire)) from being included, and instead forces the infobox to link to the wrong page. While there are ways to avoid this, they are somewhat confusing and cumbersome, and it would be much easier if the wikilinks were simply removed from the template. Can anyone do this? Delaywaves • talk 23:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice if a date and place of birth could be included in the infobox. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Umpires Task Force

Per Jorgath's suggestion at my proposal for an umpire WikiProject, I am coming here to ask for discussion/advice about starting an umpire task force instead as part of this WikiProject. I don't know how to start a task force, so I'll greatly appreciate any assistance. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never set one up, but you should be able to find everything you need at Wikipedia:Task force. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume that I have the consent of the parent project in creating this task force, correct? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason why not. The only possible objection would be not needing the formality, but if this is going to happen formally or informally, why not make it formal? Go ahead and be bold, and if someone complains we'll talk about it then. Oh, and as a start, I'd advise recruiting the other two editors that were willing to join the original WikiProject idea. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken your advice here. You'll have to excuse the overall appearance of the page, I've never created something like this before and it doesn't exactly look all that great yet. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for sabermetric statistics

I have run into a problem occasionally when I want to refer to a "non-traditional" or sabermetric statistic, such that an internal link would be most useful to ensure easy reading while also providing the opportunity to educate unfamiliar readers. I have also noticed that the sabermetrics page offers a list of sabermetric statistics, but that these are often very stubby articles. Wouldn't it be useful to have a list or glossary of sabermetric statistics? It could link to those articles, like PECOTA, that are long enough to stand on their own, but something like "whiff rate" would live only as a reference for clarification and basic education. (It would also be relatively easy to compile.) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly would be, so my suggestion would be to be bold and fix it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. I just wanted to get some feedback. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All right, it seems to me that a list may or may not be appropriate. It would have to be sourced, for one thing. For another, it couldn't just be a list article links. Perhaps an article on the actual sabermetric statistics (distinct from their history) would be good, with "Main article" links for more commonly used ones? Or maybe make it a part of the Baseball statistics article? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, having revisited Baseball statistics, I think your best bet is to expand that with more prose. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Winning percentage in infoboxes

A user, Iss246 (talk · contribs), has begun adding the winning percentage of pitchers to their won-loss record. I'm reverting these additions as unnecessary (anyone who really wants to know can do their own math) clutter in the infobox, which should be approved here first. If people support including it, I won't put up much of a fight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me. Spanneraol (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It also seems unnecessary to me too. However, if it is included, it should use the {{winning percentage}} template to make it easier to verify the percentage is correct. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pitchers' winning percentages are commonly reported. Baseball recognizes the pitchers with the all-time highest winning percentages. Granted that a winning percentage is not sabremetrics, but it is commonly used and easily understood by the general reader of Wikipedia. Let's have a discussion here without reversion.Iss246 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you read WP:BRD, what's happened is exactly what should happen. You were bold, someone reverted, and now we can discuss and establish a new consensus. I personally see it as a "why not?" per WP:NOTPAPER, but also non-urgent. Per X96lee15, though, I agree that if it is done the {{winning percentage}} template should be used, not just an input of the number. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. You are right about the template. I'm pretty good with numbers but not immune to making an arithmetic error now and then.Iss246 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary clutter and not all that notable.--Yankees10 17:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the size of the infobox, I would say that adding the percentage does not clutter it. Just looking at Nolan Ryan (all time number 2 in games started), the win percentage fits easily in the win loss record section, and the size of the text in that box is fixed (it is highly unlikely that there will be someone with either 1000 wins or losses, although there is still room should that occur). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the accusation of unnecessary clutter. My wife saw the second edition of Raudenbush and Bryk's Hierarchical Linear Modeling resting on our dining room table--which we rarely use because it has become part of my study--and said that it represents "unnecessary clutter." On the contrary, the book is a useful, and gets consulted often. One person's clutter is another person's valuable source of knowledge. For me, and more many other people, the book is not clutter. For many Wikipedia readers--let's put ourselves in their shoes--winning percentage is a helpful statistic. I am fairly sophisticated in statistics. I would still like to know Whitey Ford's lifetime winning percentage. It is terrific (so is his 1961 winning percentage) but I don't know it off the top of my head. I would like to bring up a Wikipedia page and view it.Iss246 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried the winning percentage template on one player, Harry Kelley (baseball). It is workable.Iss246 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Iss246, I did some indenting on your posts above (and one by Yankees10) to make the threading clearer. If there's a problem, please feel free to correct it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jorgath. The comments now look more ordered.Iss246 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia info boxes are not baseball cards. They don't need to include every stat possible. There's too many stats in the info box as it is. No need to add any more. Remember that Wikipedia articles are about a persons entire life and not only about their Major League playing career.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • True, but it's what they're known for, or what makes them "notable". Mickey Lolich ran a donut shop, but if that's all he had done in his career, he wouldn't likely have been in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Per MOS:INFOBOX, they should contain as little information as possible. First we add win/loss, then percentage, then something else. Finally we're adding weight and height That information can go into its own section and doesn't serve any purpose in Te infobox.JOJ ^Hutton 03:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, on the typical "infobox" for a site like Retrosheet or Baseball-Reference, it's mostly just personal info, like height and weight, first game, last game, and life data. That's not to say that we necessarily need to model ours after theirs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You really can't compare the two things anyway. The "infoboxes" on those sites aren't summaries, but supplemental information, all (or at least most) of which is not found on the rest of the player page. -Dewelar (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The stat also seems unnecessary to me. While Steve Carlton's 300 victories might be notable, his winning percentage is of lesser importance and can be detailed in the text of the article.Orsoni (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I follow up on the Steve Carlton comment. One reason why the winning percentage is useful is because of interesting information it reveals. For example, Steve Carlton, a 300-game winner had a winning percentage of .574. Nolan Ryan, another 300-game winner, had a winning percentage of .526, a small margin above .500, and a 3.19 ERA. Differences like that suggest that the highly durable Ryan did not get the run-support that a pitcher like Carlton received. Here lies some interesting information. This is not to say the information could not be gotten elsewhere. I think it is good to provide the information to the average Wikipedia reader. That is who we are serving. It provokes thought among the readers who do not have to be the baseball aficionados many of the contributors to the baseball entries are. We are not writing for each other. We are writing for the general reader who has interest in baseball but the intensity of that interest may not equal ours.

I add that winning percentage does not clutter the info box. We have to consider one bit of information at a time. You could ask, do we need "batted right" or "batted left" in the info box for a pitcher. Such information is probably not that important for a pitcher. Does it clutter the info box? I don't think so. I would not delete such information.Iss246 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the number of people who can look at an infobox, and be able to surmise that Nolan Ryan did not get run support, is miniscule even among knowledgeable fans. I think it would be best to flesh out those details in the text of the article, and leave the infobox to the most basic stats.Orsoni (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A benefit of the info box is that it provides useful information at a glance. I include the winning percentage as part of the useful information. The info box enables to the average reader to open a number of windows at the same time, and look up a number of different ballplayers for comparison purposes. It does not replace the text, but it can motivate a Wikipedia user to read further. But sometimes the reader only wants the information in the info box. We want to serve the average reader. The average baseball fan. That's why I advance the view that the winning percentage belongs in the info box.Iss246 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not totally off base (pardon the pun), but consider two things: 1) There is a "slippery slope" if we are going to start including any and all "useful" information about a pitcher that would indicate his skill and performance. Should we include WHIP and strikeout to walk ratio? 2) Keep the ultimate purpose of infoboxes in mind — a simple collection of the basic facts surrounding a person or place; a snapshot. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The infoboxes should only contain the most basic stats IMHO. Winning percentage can be very misleading. Lee Guetterman went 11-4 once. How did his career pan out?...William 18:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point. When I entered winning percentages, I did so with the constraint that I enter the percentages for pitchers with more than 20 decisions. Because I did not complete all my entries on one occasion I may have varied the threshold a little from occasion to occasion. But 20 seems about the median I used. I think we could arrive at a consensus threshold for the number of decisions in which the pitcher was involved, at which point editors could enter a winning percentage.Iss246 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading this discussion correctly, it seems like there's a developing consensus not to include winning percentage in anyone's infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, the consensus at the moment is not to include winning percentage....William 19:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to include a derivative/redundant stat in the infobox if the information from which it is calculated is already available. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My position on stats in the infobox is pretty much this: use the batting/pitching triple crown stats, unless the player is particularly well known for one particular stat (e.g., Maury Wills might have stolen bases listed, or high saves totals for relief pitchers) or if the stats are meaningless due to the player having only a cup-of-coffee career or, for some 19th century players, RBI totals are incomplete. Otherwise, I really don't see any other stats as being necessary -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the "cup of coffee" comment. I said earlier that we should have a threshold of, say, 20 decisions before entering a winning percentage. I advance the view that we should include the winning percentage. Here are my reasons:

1. The statistic is helpful to the average Wikipedia reader. We are not just writing for baseball aficionados. We are writing for everyone.

2. It is easily understood. It enables quick comparisons among pitchers. Earlier I gave an example of a Steve Carlton-Nolan Ryan comparison. Being able to quickly compare winning percentages of the two Hall-of-Fame pitchers suggests some hypotheses why Ryan's is much closer to .500 (the run-support hypothesis).

3. The statistic doesn't take up much space in the info box. It would be next to the won-lost numbers.

4. Adding it does not mean we are on a slippery slope to jamming lots of other metrics into the box. We can add or delete statistics as per the discussions found on this page.

I think the most important reason is the first, that the statistic is helpful to the average Wikipedia reader.Iss246 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty uncontentious that including winning percentage in an article is a proper thing to do. The question is whether or not it should be included in the infobox. You address the point of whether it should be included in the article, and your arguments are good ones. But except for point 3, you have not made any argument for why it should be in the infobox rather than just in the main article. General consensus seems that it should not. If you would like to open a formal Request for comment, that's your perogative, but I don't think that consensus is going to change in the near future. I'd suggest instead visiting articles and making sure that ones that meet your threshhold (I like it, by the way) have it in the prose or stats lists/tables of the article, rather than focusing on the infobox. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me point out that just because something is WP:Useful does not mean it automatically worth including. There are plenty of baseball statistics that would be very useful in capturing the career performance of a player, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Win/loss is already available, and winning percentage is a derivative stat that one can easily calculate. There is no need to dedicate more space to pitching decisions, which already are not great indicators of skill. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind being a minority of one, and having the 200 changes I made reversed. I'm a college professor who has taught some very technical material for many years. The students in one's class are the students one has. Wikipedia readers include some very general readers. I think it is important to reach out, and help the readers where they are. I think it a good thing if a reader asks how does the winning percentage of Steve Carlton compare to that of Nolan Ryan because those pitchers' info boxes make it easy for the reader to come up with such questions. I want to make if easy for the general reader to start poking around, and to ask questions.

The individuals who are having this discussion on this page don't need the winning percentage to do that. Many of us can calculate winning percentages in our heads without the use of a calculator. What I am asking is that we put ourselves in the place of the general reader, someone who is not likely to contribute to this discussion and who has a less intense interest in baseball than we have. What we include in the Wikipedia page makes that person more informed about baseball, more curious about baseball, and more interested in baseball. It whets that reader's curiosity and sparks further interest in baseball. I don't claim winning percentage alone does that. What I am saying is that winning percentage helps attain those goals. That is why I want the winning percentage there in the entry.

Chances are that I'm going to lose this argument. I think I'm right. I want to include a statistic that will get general readers to start thinking about this pitcher and that pitcher, and how are they different and why.Iss246 (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)01:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What guides my thinking about what to include and what not to include is this: What is helpful to the general reader?Iss246 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that your arguments are entirely insufficient for the purpose intended in this case. While winning percentage might be included in an article based on your reasoning, there is a much higher threshold for what belongs in an infobox, which is meant to be a summary, than for what belongs in an article. If you can present a cogent argument for why winning percentage meets that higher threshold, then we might have a basis for further discussing its inclusion. If not, then there is no need. -Dewelar (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, my argument is cogent. In fact, I advance that the view that winning percentage is better placed in the info box than in the article because winning percentage is, if anything, a summary. Moreover, it is helpful to the average reader, particularly the average reader who wants to compare different pitchers.

Wikipedia has educational value. I want to the goal of better educating the readers. Including winning percentage is consistent with that goal without being pedantic.Iss246 (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You ignore my point (and, indeed, Wikipedia's policy) regarding the higher threshold for inclusion. You do not make any points about why placing it in the infobox of an article might perform your stated goal of educating the reader in a substantially better way than placing it in the article would. Also, the fact that the infobox is a summary is exactly the thing that argues against winning percentage, as the presence of winning percentage is redundant to the presence of win-loss record, which is the more pertinent statistic. Once you add redundant information to the infobox, it ceases to be a summary. -Dewelar (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment for Iss246 and an addendum to Deweler's comment: Yes, Wikipedia's goal is to educate the reader. Give them useful information and in turn identify the subject of the article. Yet you must read MOS:INFOBOX and understand that the stated purpose of the info box is not to educate, but to identify the subject of the article and only summarize key facts of the subject. It's important in this case that the winning percentage be in the article, but not a key enough fact that it has to have a prominent place in the info box. Less is more for info boxes.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the previous two comments. Casual readers far outnumber editors. I want to aid casual readers. The "less is more" quote from Ludwig Mies van der Rohe has become a cliché, and is not a defense of the status quo. My suggestion is within the purview of MOS:INFOBOX because it calls for minimal change; it is a clarifying addition that fosters page-to-page comparisons and thinking about baseball. It does not call for the creation of a new field. It works within an existing field.

I recognize that we have sort of a democracy here on this page. I lost the vote.Iss246 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition of the prevailing consensus. I appreciate how frustrating it can be to attempt to overcome what appears, from the outside, to be overwhelming inertia in order to make a change that, to one's mind, seems reasonable -- or, indeed, beneficial, as you obviously view this one. However, I would suggest that your proposal might have been better received if: 1) you'd made arguments based on something other than pure assertion or logical fallacy, and 2) you'd responded to the arguments against your proposal in any way beyond "I disagree" -- which, since some of the items with which you are disagreeing are policy and not just argument, are probably best addressed elsewhere anyway. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. -Dewelar (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a casual reader would be better served with a written explanation in the text of the article as to why Nolan Ryan's won-loss percentage indicated less run support. I doubt that a casual reader would be able to reach such a conclusion based solely on the won-loss percentage.Orsoni (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent Rogers Hornsby edits

A numerically named editor has made original research edits to the article. Perhaps someone who is familiar with the article can review the edits. Besides being original research, they also contain poor grammar.Orsoni (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Being original research on an FA is enough reason to revert, which I've done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Jim Leyritz

Jim Leyritz's "attache" has admitted on my talk page that she's "appropriately edit[ing] the information that seems to cast a negative light on Jim's reputation". Help appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Attache is a public relations firm. She did seem to mess up the formatting of the page... perhaps ask her to contribute to a discussion on the talk page about what information she thinks is inaccurate.Spanneraol (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders

The List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders has become messed up. Something seems wrong with the table and I don't know how to fix it. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted to the last good copy. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki destination

hi, per some discussions at NSPORTS, I've been wondering if it might be useful to identify a place to transwiki articles that are deleted at AfD, but that contain useful content nonetheless. We could learn from the work the starwars project has done, building templates for links to wookipedia for example {{sww}} (star trek and futurama have also done this). The result might be a win-win, in that articles (perhaps on minor league players) deleted here could survive on a sister wiki, and then if the subject ever meets notability guidelines, the article could be brought back here. I've found a few candidates:

• Baseball ~5000 articles <- articles have been moved here before: [19]
• Armchair GM ~12000 articles
• Sabrpedia ~175,000 articles

I'm sure there are others. Are there any wikis now that you would recommend (or *not* recommend)? Any thoughts on this idea? Another idea would be to suggest wikisports as a wikimedia project - basically same infrastructure as wikipedia, but much more open content guidelines, so any game, any player, any statistic would be accepted. Not sure how to do this or whether it would be accepted - but given the interest in sports topics, it might be worth considering.--KarlB (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best place for non-WP-notable minor league baseball articles is the Baseball-Reference Bullpen. -Dewelar (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Any reason to prefer that over Sabrpedia? Someone on another board said there were issues with Sabrpedia. Also, does anyone else have any thoughts? Would there be any opposition to making templates to help transwiki articles to the bullpen? --KarlB (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Be advised that Karl is forum-shopping to try and undercut the current standard of one-game notability for ML players. Some relevant discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#New_AfD_and_additional_research_sources.2F_wikis. I mention this so that outside observers do not misconstrue an agreement here to transwiki articles on genuinely non-notable players as an agreement to go along with his larger plan. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be advised that HBWS is making unfounded acccusations; this is not forum shopping, it was suggested that I come here to request input from this project, which I've done. I'd kindly ask HBWS to strike his comments, which are unfair and unfounded and do not assume good faith.--KarlB (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Having read the linked discussion, the original statement could easily be read that it might be preferable to delete stub MLB articles and link out to SABRpedia rather than make the effort to improve those articles. While it may not be "forum-shopping" per se, it stands in opposition to Wikipedia's stated goals and policies, not to mention those of our own project. It's one thing to suggest it for subject that are not inherently notable, such as minor league baseball players, but it's quite another for those who played in MLB. Put a link in the "External links" section? Sure. Replace existing articles on notable subjects? Over my dead body.

Regarding SABRpedia vs. BR Bullpen, I admit that I am unfamiliar with the posting guidelines of SABR's wiki. If, for instance, you are required to be a SABR member to post to SABRpedia, then I could see it being held in somewhat higher regard than other user-generated content, but otherwise no such resource is really preferable to any other. -Dewelar (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think I ever suggested moving notable players to a different wiki. Now that that's cleared up, I'll create some sample templates so we can trial them within the context of existing articles.--KarlB (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Since "notable players" is accepted by consensus to mean "anyone who ever appeared in MLB, even in one game", that's exactly what you did. If you're now dropping your stated objection to that standard, then by all means proceed with any such templates. Additionally, I would highly suggest not start mucking with existing articles until they've been demonstrated in on a sandbox-type page and approved for use by the project at large. In other words, proceed with caution, because after reading more deeply into the issue (specifically, the Ed Carfrey deletion discussion), I think you might want to take measures to ensure that we can continue to assume your good faith. -Dewelar (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Page needing major referencing

Rubber match needs some major referencing and citation work. At present, it's pretty much all unsourced, and at least partially OR. That said, none of it is in the slightest bit controversial - it's just basically saying what "everybody" knows without having any real sources for that. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion, and I could be wrong, but that might be a candidate for deletion due to Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Orsoni (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Chipper Jones

Hey all. Someone nommed Jones for GAN. While it's not at that level yet, would anyone be willing to make changes and try to improve it if I provide a detailed review? Thought I'd ask here before adding too much detail if no one's going to fix it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to help. Chipper is one of my "homeys." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Same thing with Yankees - Red Sox rivalry. Someone did a driveby nomination, and I'm too busy to wade into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

69kb of prose? Eek. Yeah I feel bad for whoever takes that on on both sides. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I also like how there are TWO large sections on the 2004 ALCS and as much detail on the last three seasons as there is two entire decades between 1940 and 1960. That article doesn't need a GA nomination, it needs someone to take a weedwacker to it. Resolute 23:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And that weedwhacker should be named WP:RECENTISM. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, though, as it pertains to this particular rivalry, that's probably a fair weighting of those two eras. The rivalry as such didn't really kick into gear until the mid-70s. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I agree about the timing, but I still feel that '04, '09, '10, and '11 do not deserve as much weight as they're given compared to the '80s and '90s. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I was responding more to Resolute there. I also agree that it should be done by trimming the later years rather than expanding the earlier. -Dewelar (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Cardinals-Cubs

Can people please contribute to this article. I have done my best by adding some of the matchups prior to the Cardinals joining the NL. The article before I got to it was mostly devoted towards the McGwire-Sosa HR chase, which is silly considering the 1.5 centuries these two teams have faced each other. This thing needs to be drastically improved. Arnabdas (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

MLB attendance

I started a discussion on some recent edits to the introduction to the Major League Baseball article regarding MLB's attendance. Any input is welcome. isaacl (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion to create a new section in the article, "Popularity", which can cover the relative popularity of MLB with other sports leagues, as well as the historical popularity of MLB. Feedback within the discussion thread is welcome, in order to help establish a consensus. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I put a statistics table in an article?

Is this allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuDarvishFan (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Which article? And what statistics table? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you mean a table of the players' career statistics, that's against the consensus of this project. There's a discussion thread on this in the archives of this talk page, but I'm too busy to search for it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth is that against consensus? Are there some sort of copyright concerns? I wouldn't think so because uncreative factual information isn't copyrightable; however, the way it is presented might be copyrightable. In any case, a career statistics table is reason number one that I would go to a sports bio. We could even create some fancy transclusion method where we use one overall list, or we could transclude from the season statistics, like the table seen at 2012 Minnesota Twins season. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I looked. See here. It's not a copyright issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very unconvinced by the arguments presented there. I understand the difficulty with stats not being updated, and perhaps the tables should list stats prior to the most current year or the infobox should include a note to update the stats box when the infobox is updated. I feel like a discussion should be reopened but with community input outside of WikiProject Baseball. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the former, especially with a hidden comment note. Something like <!-- By consensus, players' career statistics are only updated through the end of the most recently completed season --> - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck enforcing that. These tables are too cumbersome, both in terms of the size it takes up bite-wise, and also in terms of maintenance. Try telling an IP editor how they're supposed to be handled. Besides, tables like that are completely redundant to external stats sites, which exist for that very purpose. They do the numbers, we do the prose. I'd even argue the stats tables at that Twins season page should go. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen you argue the latter before, and I disagree - not just because I'm the one maintaining the 2012 Washington Nationals season equivalent table, but because we have at least one GA with them in it: 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season. Logically, that means that they are part of good season articles, although I also agree that they should not outweigh the prose. In the Twins case, that means that that article needs some serious prose-writing. Finally, Wikipedia is a work in progress. If our data is out of date, it's because it's unfinished. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have data! - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We have only the one season article GA, and it would remain that way if the stat tables were removed because of the prose. The Nationals article has some nice prose, but the table isn't the most intuitive. You can't tell by looking at it that the sortable function is enabled, for instance. So that we can all see the appropriate policy, I'm quoting WP:INDISCRIMINATE:

“ Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2008, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely. ”

As I don't see how listing every statistic is necessary, and they aren't all discussed with the proper context, it seems best to me in a players article to summarize the key points (triple crown stats, stats where the player led the league, any top 10 finishes) and leave the rest out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That ignores the entire purpose of the table. If I want to know how many stolen bases a player had each year, I'm not going to wade through a bunch of text to find out. Tables are for organizing information and presenting the information in an easily understandable manner. Even 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season doesn't contain the table statistics in prose... because it shouldn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I !voted to not have stats before, but I've softened my stance since the discussion on team game logs. Players stats, in an ideal world, would be good to have in the same article without having to go to an external site. I wouldnt go adding every sabermetric stat, but some stats are reasonable and expected. Not allowing stats doesn't necessarily mean stat editors will start to write prose; they might not edit period. Updating tables only during the offseason seems like a reasonable solution that addresses out of date updates. Poor editors, whether they be registered or IPs, should be dealt with through discussions, enforcing edit-warring, seeking page protection, ANI, etc. A good article isn't just all stats, but neither is a good article all prose.—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exactly. "Necessary data" doesn't cover every statistic, I agree, but it does cover the "big 10" at least (R, HR, RBI, AVG, SB, W, L, SV, ERA, WHIP) - the ones that are presented on the front page of MLB.com. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A statistic table is ok in certain situation, and depends on the statistics shown. I'm completely against adding player season by season statistics in most biography articles because Wikipedia isn't a place to have a overload of statistics and it defeats the purpose of external websites like baseball reference. Something like regular season logs are fine. Secret ^account 23:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

External site have more stats than WP bios will ever have, like splits and game logs. WP consolidates from multiple sources, whether it be prose or stats. If it wasnt for incorrect stats or badly formatted edits, I'm sure most of us as a reader (throwing aside the editing concerns) would find some subset of yearly stats in the bio useful. Just like there can be excessive text, there can be excessive stats.—Bagumba (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, for articles about individual players, text in combination with the infobox, should be used to flesh out significant career statistics. I agree with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, that stats reduce the readability of an article. A link to the player's page on Baseball-Reference should be sufficient for those interested in statistics.Orsoni (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind this postseason

Remember, this is attractive:

Hatted table

January 7 - Giants Stadium 5 L.A. Rams (OT) 19 December 31 - Veterans Stadium January 14 - Candlestick Park 2* N.Y. Giants 13 NFC 5 L.A. Rams 21 5 L.A. Rams 3 January 6 - Candlestick Park 4 Philadelphia 7 1 San Francisco 30 NFC Championship 3 Minnesota 13 January 28 - Louisiana Superdome 1* San Francisco 41 Divisional playoffs Wild Card playoffs N1 San Francisco 55 January 6 - Cleveland Stadium A1 Denver 10 Super Bowl XXIV 3 Buffalo 30 December 31 - Astrodome January 14 - Mile High Stadium 2 Cleveland 34 AFC 5 Pittsburgh (OT) 26 2 Cleveland 21 January 7 - Mile High Stadium 4 Houston 23 1 Denver 37 AFC Championship 5 Pittsburgh 23 1 Denver 24

This is not:

Hatted table
First Round Conference Semifinals Conference Finals NBA Finals                         1 Golden State 4 4 Seattle 2 4 Seattle 2 5 Detroit 1 1 Golden State 4 Western Conference 2 Chicago 3 3 Kansas City 2 2 Chicago 4 1 Golden State 4 2 Washington 0 1 Boston 4 4 Houston 1 4 Houston 2 5 New York 1 1 Boston 2 Eastern Conference 2 Washington 4 3 Buffalo 3 2 Washington 4

See the difference? Remember that. Just a friendly reminder. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{07:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}

I hatted these for ease of readability. I agree fully with the reminder. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sam Holbrook

I'm not sure whether Holbrook's ejection of Zack Greinke merits mention in the article. I would be interested to hear what some of the more experience editors have to say. I could have raised the issue on the article talk page, but I am not sure that very many people would have seen it. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page. isaacl (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)