Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 8

Hall of Fame issues

There is a redlink user [1] whose sole purpose is to remove Bill James' comments putting down the 1930s Cardinals and Giants who were slipped into the Hall thanks to having buddies on the Veterans Committee. Maybe James' comments amount to POV-pushing, maybe they don't, but I would just as soon hear from some other interested parties before accelerating an edit war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my sole purpose. But, I do think that Bill James' opinion regarding HoF members belongs in the Bill James entry and not on the Hall of Fame entry.Bron226 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the focus of your work here (at least under that ID), and Bill James is not some nobody off the street. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No. He isn't. But it doesn't alter the fact that is still just his opinion. His opinion used to be that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball. That didn't work out too well. I think it is sufficient to state that the committee was revamped and why without getting into Bill James as he isn't germane to the discussion. I only have one ID - was that a question? Bron226 (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. I wondered where you went for a year and half. On a "Caribbean Cruz", perhaps? >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing James' state that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball (do you have a citation for that?), only that Rose belongs in the Hall and that Joe Jackson doesn't. Hiding the nefarious circumstances of mediocrities like Chick Hafey getting into the Hall is something that needs to be explored. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I got sick. I don't understand the reference to Caribbean Cruz. Sorry. Is that another user? I think both Shoeless Shoe and Pete Rose belong in the Hall, just not today. It isn't that I disagree with Bill James in everything, I just don't think his list of the 10 players who don't belong in the Hall needs to be included on the Hall of Fame entry and instead belong on Bill James entry. The following link provides reference to the Bill James book where he refutes the Dowd Report and evidence that Pete Rose bet on baseball. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684806975/baseballprospect/ref=nosim/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bron226 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you got sick. Bummer. The "Caribbean Cruz" comment was just a punny joke - Chris Berman used to call Jose Cruz by that name. To see exactly what James said, I would have to buy the book to find out, and I don't recall the details of the Dowd report, but I do recall that Rose was not officially suspended for betting on baseball, but only for "staining" the game - which was undermined when Giamatti went on TV and asserted that Rose did, in fact, bet on baseball. It may be that the details of the Dowd report were unconvincing to James, perhaps "guilt by association", which is basically what Rose was suspended for. Regarding Jackson, I loved Field of Dreams, but it's a fantasy. The hard reality is that Jackson took money and helped throw the 1919 Series, and he doesn't belong in the Hall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry to miss the reference. Rose wasn't suspended for betting on baseball due to the negotiations he and Giamatti conducted. I think Rose was hoping to forestall the lifetime ban by agreeing to his ineligibility obviously hoping for reinstatement. If you read the Dowd report, and I have, and yes, it is vast so most people don't read it, there is plenty of evidence to indicate Rose bet on baseball. But, the conversation of Rose and Jackson and their Hall eligibility is an emotional conversation for most people. What I mean by that is that people have strong feelings for or against and it does not come down to a discussion to the performance of either player on the field. I do understand your position on Jackson. But, back to the subject at hand, as Bill James was not the reason for the change in the Veterans Committee, it was the opinion that the group needed to be revamped because they were letting in former teammates over more qualified players covers it - in terms of the Hall. Bill James is certainly entitled to list them on his entry on his blog and in his books - as he has done. So I don't think it is hidden. It's just documented in the appropriate place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bron226 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that there appears to be no source explaining that; it's asserted without attribution, although those of us who follow it believe it's true. The one link to the Hall no longer works (maybe you didn't notice that) and I think the James writeup could have been (though not for certain) an attempt to explain or corroborate that. Statistically speaking Rose and Jackson would qualify for the Hall. Although Jackson's lifetime average is inflated due to his career being truncated, he still had an excellent career. But it's not a Hall of Statistics, it's a Hall of Fame, and throwing the World Series means you're done. There are others besides the 10 who don't belong either, but there they are. Meanwhile, two of my favorites, Ron Santo (who qualifies statistically) and Roger Maris (who qualifies on "Fame") remain excluded. So... was James simply saying the Dowd report did not sufficiently demonstrate that Rose bet on baseball? Because there seems little doubt he did, but maybe James didn't think the hard evidence was sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

James' asserted that there was no evidence that he bet on baseball, only that he was betting and that the Dowd report was flawed. Seriously, the Rose question appears to be a completely emotional issue for James and he steps away from any kind of detached analysis for which he is well known. ESPN did a mock trial on the subject of Pete Rose and if he belongs in the Hall (Rose was awarded admission by the mock jury) and Alan Dershowitz cross-examined Bill James - this is documented on the internet, you can google it. We are in agreement on Santo and Maris, too. In light of the revisions to the Veterans committee, I wonder if either of them will ever make it in. I know there are others who are considered controversial selections, and again, that's why I don't think the Bill James 10 need to be highlighted here. I have noticed links to the Hall on other pages aren't working as well. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, so I'm not exactly sure how to fix that. Bron226 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I might interpret your complaint as being that these 10 guys are being singled out, whereas there are plenty of other marginal Hall of Famers. Morgan Bulkeley, for example, has no business being the Hall and was simply voted in because he was the NL's first president, albeit in a ceremonial role. The issue remains, then, as to how to properly cite the reason the Vets' Committee was revamped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your understanding of my complaint. Nice one on the Morgan Bulkeley example! Certainly there could be more detail there to explain the revamping of the Veteran's committee. Let me see what I can find and I'll post it here.Bron226 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, the article states that "the Veterans Committee had, at times, seemed to pass over the most worthy candidates in order to enshrine contemporaries and teammates of the committee members." I think it is appropriate to provide examples from a recognized expert's opinion in order to back up this statement. A partial list is sufficient; there is no need for a comprehensive list to prove the point. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't a need for a comprehensive list, nor is there a need for any list. Again, the Veteran's Committee wasn't altered because of Bill James. Bron226 (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is from an ESPN article: The committee — once a good old boys' network where a group of former execs, players and members of the media would gather each spring and lobby for their favorite to be enshrined — was revised at the start of this century. The revisions allowed for holdovers from the original committee to be joined in voting by the living members of the Hall of Fame, as well as by the living recipients of the Ford C. Frick Award for broadcasters and the J.G. Taylor Spink Award for writers.

After three elections — 2002, 2004 and 2006 — without anyone being picked, the Veterans Committee was revised again. Now there's a ballot for players whose careers began prior to 1943, which is considered by a group heavy on historical analysis, and a ballot for the 1943-and-later players. Bron226 (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The general statement needs a citation. Maybe you could post that ESPN article as the citation. Presumably it's true that the Vets' Committee was not significantly influence by Bill James. However, the Bill James material could be cited as an example of Committee misconduct, thus corroborating or adding to the generalistic ESPN assertions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote from the ESPN article does not corroborate the statement that worthy candidates were bypassed for teammates of committee members. It would be best to provide supporting evidence based on the opinion of recognized experts (if there are other quotes from other experts, they could be used instead of Bill James). Not sure why Bron226 keeps saying that the reform was not due to Bill James, because this isn't an issue: the previous text didn't state this or imply it. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The previous text listed men that Bill James thought shouldn't be in the Hall. My assertion is that his opinion on the worthiness (or lack thereof) of these men does not belong in the entry for the Hall of Fame. It belongs on the entry for Bill James.Bron226 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Who decided that the Vets' Committee needed to be revamped? Certainly not the committee itself, as I'm sure they thought they were doing fine. And not Bill James. So who took umbrage at their misconduct and forced a revamp? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, since it is claimed that the Vets Committee engaged in cronyism, the reader will be left wondering which ballplayers were the "cronies". Was it all of them? And during which years? Were any of them deserving? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More examples on the cronyism - since it was long regarded as an issue for the committee and continued well past the 1970s era. "Meeting in secret, voting only face-to-face, not revealing vote totals or even the identities of the men under consideration, the Veterans Committee came to resemble a College of Cardinals - the ones in the Vatican, not those in Busch. One almost expected to see puffs of white smoke rising from the chimneys of Cooperstown as their selections were announced. There were, it has been reported, intrigues, alliances, and domineering personalities on the Veterans Committee over the years that would have impressed a Borgia or a Medici. Frankie Frisch invited many of his Giant and Cardinal teammates into the Hall of Fame in the 1970s. The Veterans Committee enshrined the likes of Lloyd Waner, Harry Hooper, and Rick Ferrell. More recently, Ted Williams held sway over the VC, pushing hard for teammates like Dom DiMaggio while opposing the selection of Bill Mazeroski. It's telling that Williams was recovering from open-heart surgery and unable to attend the VC meeting when Maz was chosen in 2001, and perhaps equally telling that DiMaggio isn't on this year's Veterans Committee ballot. Finally, there's the story (probably apocryphal) of Yogi Berra calling Phil Rizzuto to inform the Scooter of his election in 1994 and exulting "We got you in!" "Bron226 (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who has the definitive answer to that one. From an interview with Joe Morgan, it looks like HoF members wanted the revision: The election process was changed not just because some Hall of Famers complained that less-worthy candidates were being inducted, but because players deserving of consideration were being dropped too soon, Hall of Famer Joe Morgan said.

"At the Hall of Fame dinner (Sunday) night, one of the great players said, `It's becoming too easy to get into the Hall of Fame,' " said Morgan, vice chairman of the hall's board of directors.

"This came from the players, and it should be more difficult to get into the Hall of Fame. We also felt there should be an appeals process for players dropped off.

"This gives them a second look. They have new hope."

Bill Mazeroski's name was not mentioned Monday by Morgan or other hall officials, but some Hall of Famers -- including Ted Williams -- were unhappy the fielding whiz was elected this year by the former veterans committee headed by Joe L. Brown.

The Pittsburgh Pirates' general manager throughout Mazeroski's 17-year Pirates career, Brown will not be on the revamped 90-member veterans committee.

Mazeroski, a career .260 hitter, never received a high percentage of votes during his 15 years on the writers ballot and did not begin receiving substantial veterans committee consideration until Brown became chairman.

Another change is that all voting -- not just by the writers, but by the expanded veterans committee -- will be made public.

Previously, a 15-member veterans committee elected Hall of Famers in secret meetings in which the balloting was not revealed.

And, for the record - I wouldn't use this verbatim to explain the changes as I wouldn't want to put Mazeroski's name out there as someone not worthy of the Hall.

A hundred years from now, regardless of what we think, these guys will all still be in the Hall of Fame. Bron226 (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting quotes. What's the source? FYI, I was thrilled when Maz was finally elected. Williams was probably biased against anyone who wasn't a .300 hitter and was a better fielder than he was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's from a CBC story. Here is the link: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2001/08/06/halloffame010806.html I think, it's pretty obvious that cronyism has a long history with the Veteran's Committee. It happened in the early days of the committee and right up until it was reformed after the 2001 vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bron226 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So which person or group took the initiative to revamp the Vets Committee? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

All I have been able to find is the Board of Directors of the Hall of Fame from mlb.com. If there was a single person responsible - I mean is Ted Williams that powerful? - then it isn't mentioned anywhere that I can find.Bron226 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor league baseball

Someone edited the redirect Minor League Baseball, and redirected Minor league baseball. I'm not sure if this was discussed or not, but there was a merger before looking at the page histories. I don't know if this should be capitalised or not so I've brought it here. —Borgarde^talk 09:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely not be capitalized. I have moved the edited text back to the correct article name. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Harry Huston

There is an AfD (Articles for Deltion) discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel that includes Harry Huston, a player for the Philadelphia franchise in 1906. His involvement in major leagues was small, but you may wish to participate in this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Retired Number Template

Just wondering if there was any opinions on whether or not these should exist. Every team template has a retired number section already - and in most cases, player pages have both the team template and the separate retired number template. There really doesn't seem to be a need for a separate retired number template. Thoughts? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is like you say and both are being used, I too agree it is unnecessary. —Borgarde^btalk 03:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I do not see a duplication. Only a few players are accorded the honor of having their number retired (except for the Yankees) and I think this template is worthwhile for articles about such players. JGHowes ^talk - 19:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree I think it should be kept--Yankees10 01:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete retired number templates The same information is in both templates. The retired number templates are subsets of the franchise templates. See {{Detroit Tigers}} and {{Detroit Tigers retired numbers navbox}} for examples. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• JGHowes - I think you missed the point - the information is duplicated - once in the team template, and again in the retired number template - and most of the player pages already include both templates (they should all already have both, but thats another story) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move of Sacrifice hit

Just letting you know there is a discussion to move Sacrifice hit to sacrifice bunt at Talk:Sacrifice_hit#Requested_move. —Borgarde^talk 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image change proposal for Template:Baseball-stub

Hello. I would like to propose an image change for {{baseball-stub}}. The current image is , and I would like to change it to . Since {{baseball-stub}} is a widely used and visible template, discussion here first would be best to do. Yours, RyRy (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

• Agree. Quite a nice image; I like the second one a lot. User:Killervogel5/Support 02:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's a better image than the glove. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I like the second image better as well. Wizardman 03:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, looks good. —Borgarde^talk 03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Neonblak (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Yeah, I know I'm in the minority, but to me the image isn't very clear. Too much white, maybe? Either way, I think the glove and ball is just more distinct (and distinctive). -Dewelar (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Think it makes it clearer that its baseball, and looks good - Afaber012 (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very nice. shaggy (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support I like how it combines the Wiki theme with Baseball. Perhaps another use can be found for the Glove and ball? It's a cool pic too. Blackngold29 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the second one is simply better.   jj137 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Should we add to all the other pages that still have on it, or just change the image of {{baseball-stub}}? – RyRy (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this image should be replaced on the other ones that used the glove as well. —Borgarde^talk 13:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

MLB Retired Template

I'm having issues with the MLB retired template. Currently, Ozzie Smith's template has his career hits, stolen bases and fielding percentage. I tried altering it to allow his assists and double plays as well (considering he is the all time leader in both categories), but it won't display more than 3 categories. Am I doing something wrong or is there no way to alter the retired player infobox to include more than just 3 categories? If there isn't, I think that needs to be changed. Ozzie is in the Hall of fame as a fielder, and we are doing him a disservice by not including some of his fielding stats in his infobox. Also, what about relievers? Dennis Eckersley, for example, has his win-loss record, saves and strikeouts. What about his ERA?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

After having spent the past year working on and off on Ozzie's article, I completely understand where you're coming from. I agree that since defense is such an integral part of why he's a Hall of Famer, it's prudent to make sure this info is adequately conveyed in the template on his article. Many months ago, I investigated the MLB retired template in order to attempt exactly what you're suggesting; adding another stat that shows how great he was on the defensive side the game. My conclusion was that while you can type in a fourth stat value into the wiki code, no other stats can be displayed beyond the third stat value. If I am wrong in this assertion, I welcome any corrections.

However, in response to your proposal that the number of stat categories should be increased, I currently disagree that extra categories should be added, not in just the case of Ozzie's article, but all articles with this template. I think the point of the template is to provide vital info at a glance, and I also think even adding one more stat category is just extra clutter in a template that already features a multitude of items. The real issue is, how can we adequately convey why Ozzie is a Hall of Famer through the use of these stat categories in the template. I feel that the current setup, where # of career hits, fielding percentage, and stolen bases are displayed, effectively conveys why Ozzie is a Hall of Famer.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to correct one of your statements. In the above post, you write that Ozzie is the all-time leader in double plays. If you check Ozzie's career fielding stats included towards the bottom of his page, you'll notice that he is currently #2 all time in double plays (when Ozzie retired in 1996, he was #1 out of all shortstops in that category). My source for this info is an article from MLB.com stating that Omar Vizquel had turned 1,658 double plays as of May 25, 2008[2]. Regardless, I'd like to thank you for your interest in helping make a positive impact on Ozzie's article, and wish you good luck in your future endeavors with the MLB retired template. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the infobox should have "at a glance" stats, but I think there should be a way to add additional stats regardless. I already gave the example of closers needing 4 categories, but take Rickey Henderson for another example. Right now, his template has runs scored, hits and stolen bases. Wouldn't it be nice to have his career average in there also? What about his career extra base hits or lead off home runs?

By the way, I stand corrected. I'd forgotten that Visquel passed him this season.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 MLB season game logs

Should all the templates in the category, Category:2008 season baseball game log templates, be deleted? Effectively they are useless because they are no longer used in any articles. —Borgarde^talk 13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree. Probably have to go through the WP:TFD process though. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What are those again? Why did we need them? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Yes, they should be deleted, but only after they are subst'd (which I think is what Borgarde did). — X96lee15 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But why did we have them at all? Seems like a WP:GFDL issue to delete them now. What was the point? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There was about 3 left that weren't in the articles, but that means 27 others were. Which looks like to me people prefer to have them straight into articles now than templates. The only other solution I can think of is redirects, but I thought across name-space redirects weren't allowed. How about a soft-redirect? Then the GFDL information is still there.—Borgarde^talk 03:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest for the 2009 season they are done straight into articles as well, then we won't have to be left to clean anything up. —Borgarde^talk 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, it was pointless to create the seperate templates in the first place. Blackngold29 03:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Exactly. And I vaguely remember a discussion a long time ago where I thought we agreed to do that this year. So I'm confused. To your other suggestion, we may need to copy the history of the templates into the articles' talk pages to preserve the attributions. Ugh. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 6#Game Log templates with a lot of misguided logic. There's apparently a "task force" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Game logs which sounds a bit odd too. Not sure where the discussion is that led to that. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that task force was to fill in game logs of past seasons that nobody would probably take the initiative to do, like the 1899 Pirates or the 1956 Yankess. I don't know why it would have anything to do with a seperate template. Blackngold29 03:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That page was more a discussion to how to create the game logs, and they started off in templates, but eventually we drifted away from templates because they're only in the one article. That game log page needs to be edited to say to create the log in the page.—Borgarde^talk 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, it has Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/MLB_team_season_articles_format#Game_Log, so this is more housekeeping.. —Borgarde^talk 04:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, would anyone be willing to peer review Major League Baseball? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.--LAAFan^sign _review 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to others, this article is now a WP:GA! One of our main articles is now a GA. Thank you to those who helped with the article, and yes, I will review. -- RyRy (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going for an FA then you're gonna have to replace all cites to "ballparks.com". I had it in PNC Park, but removed them for the FAC just to be on the safe-side as it is borderline relaible. The info that is cited to the site seems pretty general and a replacement should be pretty easy to find. I would like to read some of the article, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time; I'll try to find some, but no guarentees. Blackngold29 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stadium nicknames and Rogers Centre

Currently the nickname "SkyDome" is given for Rogers Centre in the infobox. As a former name, it doesn't seem to me to quite fit the bill as a nickname. Any opinions if the infobox should be listing "SkyDome" as a nickname? Isaac Lin (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It was formerly known as "SkyDome". The current name should be the title of the article, and not the old name. Since it was renamed, more people will refer to the stadium by its new name rather than the old one, so we use the new name also since that name is what the stadium is usually referred to now. – RyanCross (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand this; my question was if the infobox on the page should be listing "SkyDome" as a nickname. In my opinion, it should not. The infobox already lists "SkyDome" as a former name — I believe this is sufficient. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Hall of Fame articles

Since the Japanese baseball task force is essentially inactive, I thought I'd just mention it overall here. I think it's important that we try to get articles together on all of the members of both Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame and Meikyukai. Personally, I have no real knowledge of any of the players or the Japanese language, so I'm honestly not sure how much help I would be in the process, but I think it should be a goal to pursue for a more world-wide focus. I would guess that articles on all of the players exist on the Japanese Wikipedia already, so translating would be a possibility if anyone is capable. I'm happy to help where I can as well. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Are sources available? Preferably in book format? If so, I'm in. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure - I'll poke around on WorldCat a little and let you know. matt91486 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

2009 Seasonal articles

Would it be alright to go ahead and start creating them? We started about this time last year and no one had a problem with it, now someone has already tried to Prod one of the ones I created, but I said I would take it here for discussion.   jj137 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't know that you guys had a precedent for it. Feel free to remove or leave the prod per whatever consensus y'all arrive at. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to start creating them, information for games is already available, it's far from crystal balling. —Borgarde^talk (Public) 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a Seattle Supersonics or Montreal Expos situation, so it should be ok. Wizardman 13:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm already documenting the Buc's record breaking year, alright! But anyway, yeah it would be good to start them now, all of the 2009 schedules have been announced so they can be created. I've been working on the Pirates' schedule, but it'll take longer than one sitting so I've kept it in my sandbox, hopefully nobody will do repeat info because it ain't exactly intriguing work. Maybe a note on the talk page if you're working on one? Blackngold29 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between the prodded 2009 Baltimore Orioles season and Blackngold29's 2009 Pittsburgh Pirates season... the former has no content whatsoever. I don't see the point of creating articles like that. I definitely prefer Blackngold's model where reliable sourced information is used to build the article, not just an empty shell. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

MLB season articles are popular to edit, they'll get updated. You need to create a shell article sometimes to make it look good. —Borgarde^talk (Public) 14:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Very popular - when the season is going on. At this point, the Baltimore season article could have been created by a bot. If that's considered acceptable, then make a bot. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, something I did want to bring up. In the past, the opponent is wikilinked every single game. I cannot see a point in this, the size of the articles are large enough without hundreds of links in them. I propose that the name is linked only the first time of each series. Any thoughts? Example Blackngold29 15:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, there is no point wikilinking teams more than once. Also, I see your point Wknight- I know that the ones I created are nothing more than shells right now, but I intend on going back and adding plenty of info to them ASAP. I guess it just sort of seems easier (sometimes) to create a bunch of the shells at once, and go back and add the content after, instead of simply creating-adding-creating-adding and so forth.   jj137 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys think of the 2009 Minnesota Twins season gamelog? I collapsed each month and only linked the team for the first game of the series. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

With the game log you probable only need to write the opponents nickname, like instead of Cleveland Indians, just Indians. —Borgarde^talk 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there any plans to do a list like this for 2009? I don't know if it helped, but I don't really see how it could hurt. Blackngold29 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not- it looks like Borgarde already created it here.   jj137 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody with lots of time and nothing to do? Help me figure out why the heck there appear to be 163 games in the Pirates' 2009 game log, found here. We've got plenty of time to figure it out, but if all else fails I'm sure we'll figure it out during the season. Thanks! Blackngold29 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Check game 37, there's no 38. —Borgarde^talk 08:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for the find. Blackngold29 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor League Baseball affiliate nav boxes

Category:Minor league baseball affiliates navigational boxes Could these nav boxes be merged into the main templates for the clubs? I feel like they would be perfectly legible as a small section in those, and it would significantly declutter the main MLB team articles. Any thoughts? matt91486 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this recently. As far as I know, most (if not all) main major league franchise templates already contain a list of their affiliates. However, in defense of the affiliate nav boxes, I feel that is is easier to navigate a farm system through them than through the main temp. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's... odd, as I was just thinking about bringing this up here yesterday too :) Yes, I definitely agree they're redundant, and don't really see any reason to keep them: although those that aren't yet in to their team's main infobox should be integrated, obviously. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The minor league navboxes are used on the minor league team pages too. Are you suggesting getting rid of them there as well? Rklear (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I hadn't thought about it. I'd say they could probably be removed from both and just use the main parent club one without too much difficulty, because after all, the parent club is the tie keeping them all together. matt91486 (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniform template

Well, I discovered that we have a baseball uniform template like that neat soccer uniform one. We could free-up some fair use images by using this instead

Home

But, heck, why is it even marked as non-free? Trademark is irrelevant. ViperSnake151 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Foli under GA review

Hello there, the article Tim Foli which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Article standardization

I signed up for the (apparently moribund) team article standardization task force a while back, and have been slowly working on standardizing (in at least some limited way) team-season articles (especially the stat tables, rosters, and transactions sections). This is, of course, an extensive task, as there are now over 2,500 team-seasons, but I've now done the pieces I needed to do to over 500 of them.

My problem is this: over the past couple days, a particular user, User:Chiefwahoo35, has started undoing my work on some of the Indians pages. Originally, he was doing it from an anonymous IP address, but he identified himself by posting to my talk page after I reverted the 2002 Cleveland Indians season while attempting to add content. I explained what I was doing, and asked on his talk page to take it up with the project if he had a problem with what I was doing, but instead he chose to blank his talk page and carry on with undoing what I'd done on the 2001 Cleveland Indians season page.

Basically, I'm asking for guidance here, because the guy obviously does want to contribute to the project, but he's going about it in a rather bullish manner. I'm afraid I may have gotten a little bitey with the user, which I'd like to avoid in the future, but on the other hand I don't want to end up having to re-standardize a bunch of pages while trying to make progress. Any suggestions, or am I basically on my own?

On a broader note...is it even worth my time and energy to be standardizing these pages? Mainly I've been doing it in the course of adding data relevant to the player pages I create, but I also try to add some other bit of content each time, while also doing this standardizing. Any input from the active members of the project would be welcome. -Dewelar (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you show where the your style of standardization was agreed to? I'm not familiar with this task force. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The task force is (or, perhaps, was) here. Apparently, there was agreement that standardization was needed, but nobody ever actually presented something. After determining that the task force was, apparently, dead, I did the following:

• Look through a large number of team-season articles to see what was the most common stat table format, clean it up slightly, and port it to other pages.
• Take the roster style that seemed universal and port it over to pages that lacked roster tables.
• Modify the wording of transactions so that they were team-centric to the team in the article.

Essentially, I took two things that were already semi-standardized over the vast majority of team-season pages and continued to spread them, and one thing that helped the flow of the articles. Nothing I'd consider controversial, but obviously others might disagree. That's why I asked Chiefwahoo35 to come over to the project page if he wanted to present a different standard, but he ignored me.

Granted, I may have overstepped my bounds a bit, but my ultimate goal would be to resurrect the above task force, even if it just winds up being a task force of one. Like I said above, if folks object to what I'm doing, or think it's a waste of time, I'm perfectly willing to stop. If someone has a better idea of how to do the standardization, even better! -Dewelar (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the specific differences? Looks like you include fewer players? Chiefwahoo wants to make a complete copy of some other web site's data? I'll leave him/her another note. I'm less likely to take the side of someone who won't even bother discussing... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't "include fewer players" so much as "don't fill in the whole table at once" because I'm working on a particular player at the time, and am focused on adding that player to all the relevant team-season pages.

When I note that the page I'm currently on needs one or more of the pieces I'm standardizing, I will do that bit, then perhaps add one or two more players at the time. I have been going back and expanding some things later, but there are only so many hours in the day :) .

The main differences between his tables and mine are (a) mine are centered, (b) mine are broken down into "Starters by position/Other batters" for batting and "Starting pitchers/Relief pitchers/Other pitchers" for pitching, and (c) mine do not include team totals because of that breakdown. I don't know whether he's just copying tables from the web site he mentioned or not, but that might be a guideline violation (can't find it right off). As I mentioned above, I use the table format I use because that seemed to be the nearly-standard format on all these pages (except a few like some Dodgers pages), but perhaps the team totals can be placed somewhere on the page.

In any case, as I said, it does appear that Chiefwahoo35 wants to help, it's just that he's being a bit of a butthead about it. -Dewelar (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it’s a good idea to standardize the articles. Most sports are getting to the point where season articles can become GAs. I would think the ultimate goal, would be to have every article in the same format. I doubt it would be practical to have every season article a GA, but we could at least make all seasons have a kind of continuity.

As for Chiefwahoo35, I would once more invite him to the task force page as well as this conversation to present his views. If he continues to ignore you, leave a message about article ownership. In the event he deletes those, I’m sure there are some admins here who would be willing to step in. Blackngold29 03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. -Dewelar (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick update on this: Chiefwahoo35 has been invited to the task force page, as well as to this page (twice). He has ignored the invitations, and has undone my work on another page, now back to editing via an IP address. At this point, I've essentially given up on talking to him, and will just wait for him to be finished and then re-standardize the tables using his data. That's life on Wikipedia. -Dewelar (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal for Balls and strikes (baseball) to be moved to Baseball rules

I came across the article Balls and strikes (baseball) about a week ago. The info in it is a little sparse and it's not really linked to by other articles, so I'm not sure how much traffic it gets. My opinion is that the content would be more fitting as part of the Baseball rules article, so I made a merger proposal on both pages. The proposal on the Talk Page of Baseball rules hasn't gotten a lot of response, though, so I thought I'd bring it up here just to be sure there aren't any strong objections to the proposal. I don't want to step on any toes! Feel free to respond either here or at the Talk page for Baseball rules, and thanks in advance for your input. raven1977 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I like the idea of this- balls and strikes, in my opinion, probably deserve their own article; they're pretty important in the game of baseball. The article can always be cleaned up, so it isn't really a matter of it just being orphaned. I'd be willing to help fix up the article, but I would too like to hear some other input on this.   jj137 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's key to the game, but basically you've got an article that's the size of a section in another article. So I would think the content could be merged into the rules article, with this one becoming a redirect to that section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Balls and strikes (baseball) is barely 2 months old, was created by a user whose only 2 edits are to that page. Given that there were so few links to other pages, I'd recommend making the page a redirect to the rules article. However, if someone believes they can expand the article beyond what be the norm for a section in another article, then have at it. Even if we redirect now, it can always be restored and expanded in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points. Now that I think about it, it probably will be difficult to find enough information for a full article. Instead of redirecting it, though, it probably would be better to just merge the content.   jj137 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally when you merge, you convert it to a redirect too. If there's any cited content in the ball/strike article that isn't in the rules article, then yes, that should be merged in. - BillCJ (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree about it being merged. Almost the entire article is about its definition, and it's currently orphaned, so I odn't see why it shouldn't be merged.--LAAFan^sign _review 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Bill: I see what you mean now, I just thought you meant just do a plain redirect without merging any content.   jj137 (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The merge-and-redirect approach preserves the useful content and also (hopefully) pre-empts someone innocently adding back the article. There are endless redirects in wikipedia, as you find out when you type something into the search panel and half a dozen different ways to capitalize the same expression come up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Championship series

Wouldn't it be nice to have a template where all the the championship series everywhere (WS, CWS, Asia Series, Caribbean Series, etc.) are in one place –Howard the Duck 08:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Tresh

There has been a problem at the Tom Tresh regarding his birthyear, most references say he was born in 1937 and died at 71, but User:FABombjoy claims that he is one of Tom's children and that he was born in 1938, but there is only one reference supporting his claim and tons of others that say 1937, see: Talk:Tom Tresh for the discussion.--Yankees10 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm curious if there are any shortcuts for {{WikiProject Baseball}}. I just created one ({{WPMLB}}), but I was mainly wondering if there are any shorter/already existent ones.   jj137 (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a good idea to embed shortcuts in article text? It's one thing to have them for discussions or page searches, but another in articles. It would just seem to add confusion, especially for new editors. Rklear (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's putting them in article text? I don't follow... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any shortcuts, and really don't see a need for them. Consistency is cool. Wizardman 03:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that instead of typing {{WikiProject Baseball}} every time on a talk page, anyone can just add {{WPMLB}} instead. I know it kind of seems redundant and useless, but after adding hundreds of talk page tags, I find it rather useful. (And it does exactly the same thing.)   jj137 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My experience with WPBiography was they had about 12 different ones, which got really annoying and actually made it harder to assess. Having a second one (WPMLB) I think would be okay, just pointing out my history with this stuff, which is why i wasn't too thrilled at first. if you want to make the redirect go for it. Wizardman 04:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree more than a couple redirects would become too much of a challenge to assess. I don't intend to create any more redirects, simply because WPMLB is short and simple enough.   jj137 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Four redirects are listed n the "Shortcut" box on the project page: WP:WPBB, WP:Baseball, WP:MLB, and WP:BASE. There may be more, but I don't have time to wade through the what-links-here right now (sister's wedding in 2 hours). As long as the shortcuts work, I don't see a problem with having enough to suit different preferences and memories. - BillCJ (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If we do redirects we should keep it low, it's already annoying to go through AWB and assess the redirect template {{Baseball-WikiProject}}. I suppose a bot could always periodically replace the template with {{WikiProject Baseball}} though.. I wonder if {{Baseball}} could be used though, like, WP:FOOTY uses with {{Football}}. —Borgarde^talk 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not, really. I added {{WikiProject Baseball}} to one of my copyediting JS scripts so that if I ever go back again to one of those talk pages where I added {{WPMLB}}, it will automatically change it. Also, I didn't realize those other redirects existed, and I have no intention of creating any more (although I might use those).   jj137 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 World Series

There seems to be a minor edit-war going on there, over the style of dates. I wonder who's got it right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of MOS vs precedent. In either case, the MOS prevails twice, due to the correct capitalization and the deference to style provided by first major contributor. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have wanted to get this up to a GA for months now (even posted about it here) and have been slightly altering a few things from past years to accomplish that. Some editors have argued for continuity even though I've tried to explain that the majority format doesn't always mean it's the "best" format. I just want discussion not reverts. And most of the game is now past because of this mess. :( Blackngold29 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Progression of records

Does anyone know if there is a comprehensive article that talks about the progression of records? For example, I happened to notice that Ed Walsh broke the World Series strikeout record in 1906, that had been previously set in 1903. That got me to wondering what the records were in the 1880s Series', but more toward the broader question. In the home run article there's a section on the progression of that record. Anyway, I don't want to start a new page if there already is one. No point reinventing the wheelhouse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a page for Strikeout, that might be the place for the progression of records, especially given the other records listed there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you gave yourself a good answer there, perhaps somebody could cook up a timeline or something. I wouldn't know where to find a good source for that though. Blackngold29 18:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Free Agents

The user User:Planecrash111 is editing pages of players eligible for free agency this offseason saying they are free agents right NOW. I explained to this user that they become free agents after the World Series ends, but he claims I am wrong, he claims I vandalized his userpage, and is currently unreverting the articles. Jackal4 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Vandalizing userpages is generally not the best way to go about getting your way on wikipedia, but you are right that the filing period dates from the last day of the World Series. Within a couple of weeks the issue will be moot, however, so it hardly seems worth edit warring about. Indrian (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize his userpage, I didn't even edit it. Jackal4 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your post. Indrian (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would take it on a case by case basis. I updated the Chris Smith page today based upon a report in the Boston Globe that he had opted for free agency. Technically I may be jumping the gun but it seems trivial in this particular case. Other cases where teams might still resign the player probably should not be updated. Hardnfast (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Smith's case is different since he was designated for assigment and opted for free agency rather than accepting a minor league assignment. User:Planecrash111 was editing veteran major leaguers whose contracts end after this season. Jackal4 (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Logo Replacements

I've created a template that generates a small icon representing various baseball teams: Template:BaseballIcon. The idea of it is to show a visual representation for a team, without resorting to the use of their logo as a potential violation of copyright, etc. The same type of thing has been used on the National Rugby League page, primarily in tables listing the teams, or listing league leaders in various categories.

I've put the MLB teams in it, and have also put some Australian teams in, and am using it so far on the New South Wales Major League page. I thought I'd put something on here before I go and use it on the MLB and related pages. If there are any thoughts about whether it'd be useful & appropriate - or not - or if there are suggestions for how to improve it, post here. -- Afaber012 (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would change the Pirates' to black and gold or black, gold, and white. Since they use black more than white. And maybe the Red Sox, to blue and red. Other than that, cool idea. Where exactly would these be used on team pages? Blackngold29 12:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to use it similarly to how national flags get used in international sporting event pages, like the 2006 World Baseball Classic. At a basic level, pretty much anywhere in a table or other constuction, but not in the actual text itself:

• next to the team's name in tables, such as season standings
• next to the player's name, like league leaders, award winners, etc
• on all star game pages, again next to player's names in rosters, home run derby records
• info boxes for the main MLB page and season pages (if they get added)
• any box scores line scores for games or playoff brackets, next to the team's name

As an example, this is how the AL Batting Leaders' table might look using the icons, with and without the team abbreviation, compared to how it is now:

Stat	Player	Total
AVG	{{baseballIcon}} (MIN) - Joe Mauer	.328
HR	{{baseballIcon}} (DET) - Miguel Cabrera	37
RBI	{{baseballIcon}} (TEX) - Josh Hamilton	130
R	{{baseballIcon}} (BOS) - Dustin Pedroia	118
H	{{baseballIcon}} (BOS) - Dustin Pedroia {{baseballIcon}} (SEA) - Ichiro Suzuki	213
SB	{{baseballIcon}} (BOS) - Jacoby Ellsbury	50

Stat	Player	Total
AVG	{{baseballIcon}} Joe Mauer	.328
HR	{{baseballIcon}} Miguel Cabrera	37
RBI	{{baseballIcon}} Josh Hamilton	130
R	{{baseballIcon}} Dustin Pedroia	118
H	{{baseballIcon}} Dustin Pedroia {{baseballIcon}} Ichiro Suzuki	213
SB	{{baseballIcon}} Jacoby Ellsbury	50

Stat	Player	Total
AVG	Joe Mauer (MIN)	.328
HR	Miguel Cabrera (DET)	37
RBI	Josh Hamilton (TEX)	130
R	Dustin Pedroia (BOS)	118
H	Dustin Pedroia (BOS) Ichiro Suzuki (SEA)	213
SB	Jacoby Ellsbury (BOS)	50

The actual colours and designs used can obviously be changed; the ones I've got up are just initial ideas. -- Afaber012 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who this is supposed to be useful for. People who aren't baseball experts probably don't know all the teams' colors. People who do know a lot about baseball probably already know what team the player is on. And, unlike a country's national colors, uniform colors are more prone to change. For example, the Padres colors used to be completely different - which color scheme would be used for 1984 Tony Gwynn? This color idea is a nice idea, but seems to me that using the standard city abbreviations is more informative/practical. Wickethewok (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I must say I'm enthralled by the visual appeal of these templates (I LOVE the way they look), but I also have to agree with Wickethewok in that this probably would be a sidestep around WP:ACCESS for the people who aren't experts or even passing fans. Perhaps these could be used in place of the "team color" boxes in the infoboxes, to give people a better idea of how the uniforms and colors relate? Just a thought. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Another alternative that would add color without removing the information content of the three letter abbreviations would be to create graphics that put the three letters in a box, with the team colors as foreground and background, e.g. red letters BOS on a navy background. With a neutral choice of typeface, this should present no trademark infringement issues. There's probably a team where it would cause legibility issues, but I can't think of one at present. Rklear (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Quite simply, I think this is a brilliant idea.   jj137 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that this is just my personal preference, but in answer to Wickethewok, with the example I put here, the icons provide an easier way of seeing that the Boston is more heavily represented among the league leaders than other teams. Even allowing for someone who isn't familiar enough with baseball to recognise the colours used - which means that though it's less likely, they may not recognise the team abbreviations already used - they'd still see that one team was represented more than the others.

Likewise, though its not been done yet, the template could be expanded to include colour schemes from previous years where - like with the Padres - the scheme has changed at some point. Also, defunct teams - or at least former names used by current teams - could also be included where their colour schemes have changed.

I've had a look at WP:ACCESS, and unless I'm missing something, though not everyone would necessarily see the differentiation between the colours, in this example and other player-related situations, this would be used to convey extra information; the table shows the league leaders and their numbers for the corresponding categories, but doesn't have a seperate column for the team they played for. Therefore including the icon doesn't prevent the other information in the table from being visible in any way I can think of, and at worst means that some people would miss this extra information that most would have available. If it was still a concern, something could might be added so that the image links to the corresponding - or manually specified) article, or an optional team abbreviation could be displayed next to the icon, like some of the national flag templates.

Lastly, I'm not desperate to do it for every page and put it everywhere I can think of, but I think it would be worthwhile to do - judicious use of colour to highlight certain sections of articles, without detracting from the information in them. A start for using it might be to use the template in team-specific circumstances, like line scores, playoff brackets, and season standings. -- Afaber012 (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as I've not had any other responses, I'll probably start adding the icons to some current pages, but only in the context of team-specific area, like line scores, standings, that sort of thing. -- Afaber012 (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Farawa

That red-link user has taken it upon himself [3] to remove all references to the Baseball Hall of Fame in the opening paragraph of anyone in the Hall of Fame. What does anyone think about this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable fact, important element of the player's career. The only argument I could see that supports his actions is that it's in the infobox, but I think it should be there. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically he's removing anything that mentions in the text that someone is in the Hall. I've informed him that I posted here, and we'll see if he has anything to say about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely not the way to go. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is an accurate summary of the changes being made. The edits I've looked at appear to be trying to make the text more concise. The phrase "Hall of Fame former MLB player" (or similar phrases) has indeed been trimmed to "former MLB player", but other mentions of the player's induction to the Hall of Fame have not been eliminated. See for example the following edits: Johnny Mize; Phil Niekro; Nellie Fox; Steve Carlton

The comment in the edit to Nellie Fox's article seems to indicate that the objection to using "Hall of Fame" as an adjective-phrase is due to the possible confusion that a Hall of Fame player actually plays for the Hall of Fame. The comment for the edit to Roy Campanella's article seems to indicate that the editor does not like referring to a player's career as a Hall of Fame career in a passage describing events that occur before the player's induction. (I will note that do not agree with either of these writing style choices. Particularly in the introduction, which should strive to be as concise as possible, using "Hall of Fame" as an adjective can be a convenient way to fit in a bit more extra information.) Isaac Lin (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Johnny Mize edit removes mention of the Hall of Fame altogether, and I still do think that using Hall of Fame as an adjective definitely works. I think this may have been blown a little out of proportion, but also, I don't know if those are the articles Bugs was referring to. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence in the Johnny Mize article mentions when he was inducted into the Hall of Fame. I don't have a problem with using "Hall of Fame" as an adjective, but I also don't have a problem with mentioning the induction date in a separate sentence. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason this caught my attention is that the editing pattern reminded me of a currently-blocked IP address [4] who was taking a similar approach, but on a different topic area. I'm not saying they're the same guy, in fact probably not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to make something clear, I don't think references to being in a HOF should be taken completely out of an opening paragraph. I have a problem when the first sentence in the intro say something like "Joe Blow is a Hall of Fame former baseball player" or the like. It makes it sound like the Hall of Fame is the most important part of their career or it defines them. And it makes it sound like the HOF is a absolutely positive honor, despite that there are a lot of controversy among who is inducted into the Halls. And the first sentence should be concise, have the name, birthdate, and what career/fame path the person was most notable for, in simple terms.

Anyway, out of the hundreds of baseball hall of famers, very few even started their articles like that in the first place. I mean, the best players (IMO) like Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig don't start their articles like that, so why should someone like Nellie Fox have it start that way? Was Nellie better than Ruth? The hall of fame is a cool thing, but it's just a vote, cut and dry. Let's focus on describing the careers of these players, and let the readers decide how to view them. Farawa (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, look at some of the Wikipedia:Featured articles. I think a goal of WP is to improve articles as much as possible, try to make more featured. These fixes will help quite a bit to bring some of these articles to higher levels. Farawa (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to mention someone's Hall of Fame membership early in the summary, as it advises the reader that this is no ordinary player, no Casey Wise. I have to admit, though, that your removal of the way-overused "legendary" is probably on the mark. Babe Ruth is legendary. Few others are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. The intro should note the most... well, notable aspects of the person's life and provide an overview of the article. I find it difficult to believe that there are so many things that a person has achieved in their life that rank higher than being in the HOF. Babe Ruth's lead may not start off by stating he is in the HOF, but most player's articles are not up to the quality of Ruth's and their leads are shorter, but as I said the HOF should be included. I would refrain from removing anymore, atleast until something can be worked out here. Blackngold29 04:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe we are all in agreement. As I've noted, most of the edits do continue to mention the player's Hall of Fame status in the introduction. In my opinion, the edits were made to improve readability; the statement "John Doe was a Hall of Fame former baseball player" is a bit awkward because the two facts span different time periods: John Doe was a baseball player, but he is an honoree in the Hall of Fame. Breaking up the facts into two sentences removes this conflict in tenses. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An IP address has accused Farawa of being a sockpuppet. I have no idea if that charge has any merit, but maybe someone would like to look into that and possibly confirm or refute it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ECW500's edits are entirely vandalism, as well as the confirmed sockpuppets and all of the suspected ones I looked at. A favourite set of topics shows up often. Farawa's edits are clearly not vandalism, regardless of any disagreement in writing style. The accusation was posted by an IP address as its first edit ever, and the IP address has subsequently edited one of the favourite topics of ECW500. The accusation appears baseless to me. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Are you hinting that the IP address might instead be an ECW sockpuppet? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no smoking gun. Based on a cursory look, the IP's edits seem to be vandalism, but not as blatant as ECW500's edits from last year. It could be an "inspired by" editor, or perhaps ECW500 has learned subtlety, or maybe it's just a coincidence. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"And just like that, 'Poof!' He's gone." [5] A little criticism from a few users, and he's outta here... gone "far awa'" as the Scots might say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So is it safe to start loading up articles with "pov" again? Rklear (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if it's verifiable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

High-risk templates

I think Template:World Series Year and Template:MLB Year are High-risk templates. these template need protect.--KANESUE 06:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC) My English may be inappropriate, because I am a Japanese. If you discover a mistake, I want you to correct it

Only because you asked. "These templates need to be protected".Neonblak ^talk - 17:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that reply was supposed to mean, but I protected both of them.   jj137 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

He was correcting his grammar. Note the small text after the sig in the initial post. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rays vandalism

Resolved

Apparently somebody didn't get the memo and User:Poloyoe has redirected a bunch of Tampa Bay Ray's pages to "Tampa Bay Devil Rays". I don't have time right now, hopefully somebody can correct this ASAP. Thanks! Blackngold29 04:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in to WP:ANI and WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He's been indef-blocked and his renaming of that template was nullified. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Roll call?

Last month I helped deliver the newsletter to some members of our project and found myself coming across users who had little activity on their talk pages, some had not been used for months. We have a large number of participants, but I doubt that the number that actually contribute is very high. I was thinking that we should organize some sort of Roll Call to get a more accurate count of who is still actively participating, if not the list will just keep growing even after people are long gone. Any thoughts? Blackngold29 18:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll volunteer to design a messagebox or template for talk page notification if the !vote passes. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, er... do we even need to have a vote about it? It's probably long overdue and would be really useful for the project to find out who is active and who is not. Should the roll call simply be on this page?   jj137 (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or a talk page notification. It could probably be delivered the same way as the newsletter, via a bot. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question- if a bot delivered a notice on talk pages, how would we know who is active and who isn't?   jj137 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The message would be a short message box with a link to a roll-call subpage. Active participants could re-sign their names there and then that list could be copied into the participants list, removing the inactive ones. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that our current list of participants is arranged in such a way that any bot that has tried cannot read it, and therefore cannot deliever any messeges. That's why we've had to deliever newsletters manually. Perhaps we could use this oppurtunity to re-organize the participants list in such a way that a bot could read it? It might be a little drastic, but we could just blank the page and have everyone sign up again. I would assume there's an easier way than that though. Blackngold29 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Very likely an easier way. Not sure how, though. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, would it really be too much to ask everyone to add their name to a new list? If somebody has a better idea than we'll go with it, but I mean it would take what? 10 seconds? I don't want to sound bossy or anything, but I think it would be good for the long run. Blackngold29 23:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re to KV5 and Blackngold: I think the roll-call subpage sounds great. As for the bot, we could keep our current member list, although on the roll-call page, people can add *{{user|jj137}} , or something like that. That way, we would have an "active" list that the bot can read correctly- at least, I think it would. Thoughts?   jj137 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of creating a new sub-page does anyone object to just blanking the current list? I think we could include something about this in the next Newsletter (which I hope to start working on soon, let me know if you wanna help). Blackngold29 01:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That could work too. I'll help with the next newsletter; just let me know. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson is now a GA but I have a question before I go for FA

I've fixed the Jackie Robinson article up a bit, but I need help if I want to go for featured article status. His baseball career section need to be comprehensive, so I'd like to put his stats in context with his team and the MLB in general. For instance, all I have now for 1953 is "In 1953 he had 109 runs, a 0.329 batting average, and 17 steals." Does anyone know where I can easily find sources to say something like " In 1953 he had 109 runs (fourth in the league), a 0.329 batting average (sixth), and 17 steals (first)"? It would also be great to find sources so I could say something like "fourth in the league, second on the 1953 Dodgers.

Also, if anyone would like to team up on making it an FA, I could use the help. Getting it to GA took about 10 hours of copyediting and 20 hours of referencing. Creating a nice section that summarizes his career in 1948 is what I'm planning on working on next. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Team WikiProjects

A Los Angeles Dodgers team wikiproject was created a few weeks ago, so that will need to be updated on the Baseball WIkiProject page.Neonblak ^talk - 04:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've added it to the list. – RyanCross (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

All-time roster template

Just a quick note: since I (and others) have begun creating all-time rosters for old-time teams, the all-time roster template was starting to get large. Therefore, I have modified it to put the defunct team rosters into a collapsible child box. Each major league with defunct teams (i.e., all but the AL) now has its own list group, and the Expos have a group all to themselves (for now) as the only team whose earlier incarnation has a split-off roster. I think it looks less cluttered this way. Any other thoughts? -Dewelar (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the Expos be broken out from the Nationals when the St. Louis Browns are included with the Orioles, or the two Washington Senators franchises with the Twins and Rangers? And what about multi-city, same-name clubs like the Philadelphia/Kansas City/Oakland Athletics? Rklear (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking me directly, then my personal answer is "No, the Expos shouldn't be broken out from the Nationals". However, that is a question I have learned to avoid *grin*. I do not know the origin of Wikipedia's treating the Expos in such a unique manner, but every time I see the subject broached, I feel the weight of the ghosts of long and agonized discussions past bearing upon me, and I run like a scared rabbit. -Dewelar (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to depend on whether or not the records of the previous club are considered part of the same history; ex. the Senators records are part of the Twins historical records. If they are not continuous, they should be a separate roster. matt91486 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Considered by whom? MLB.com seems to say the Nationals are the Expos, historical-stat-wise. Baseball Reference also. -Dewelar (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think if the club itself does. I know the Twins a few years ago just decided to incorporate the Senators history into their own records; etc. If the club includes the former incarnation in club records, if should be included as such. If not, then I think separate. matt91486 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to this, but...on the Nationals official web site on mlb.com, if you search for historical stats for the Nationals from before the move, it displays Expos stats in addition to Nationals stats. If you request all-time stats for the Nationals here, it will tell you that their all-time leader in hits is Tim Wallach. -Dewelar (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Boston Red Sox and "Sarasota curse"?

Is there really such a thing, or is that a media joke as I suspect it is? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Red Sox are currently in negotiations with the city of Fort Myers for a new spring facility, and the "Sarasota Curse" was something the Fort Myers News-Press came up with in order to dissuade the Sox from leaving Fort Myers. There is a link to it if you would like to check it out.

The Boston Red Sox entry was over 100,000 bytes before I began editing it. Check the article's history if you don't believe me. I shortened it to the 93,000 byte range by removing redundancy and by making the facts more concise. I think the article is better for my work, and I'm a METS FAN.

There is no question that 2 years from now "The Sarasota Curse" should not be part of the Red Sox's Wikipedia entry. For right now, their negotiations with Fort Myers on a new Spring facility is the current news on the team, and the Sarasota Curse is part of that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had to search awfully hard to find any mention - and it looked pretty flimsy. A lot of blogs and such. Your one link is a PDF postcard - not exactly what I would call significant coverage. Basically, it seems like what you've written is longer than what is written in any source I've found. That's not a good sign. A nearly-parenthetical mention in one sentence of the minor league team article might be acceptable - but probably isn't worth the potential headache. As for your suggestion of removing it in the future, that is also a bad sign per WP:NTEMP. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Should current news on a subject not be part of the Wikipedia entry? The point I was trying to make is that the Red Sox are in negotiations for a new Spring facility. This is something worth mentioning RIGHT NOW, and should be part of the Wikipedia entry currently. Down the road, I could easy see it being edited out. Hell, I'd probably do it myself once the new deal is finalized and I'm posting THAT information.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That could be covered in a single sentence. Why is 4 paragraphs necessary for such a relatively trivial event? Or maybe I should say non-event, because nothing is actually going on except yakety-yak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What Bugs said. This really isn't any more noteworthy than a radio promotion. In fact, from the coverage I can find, maybe less so. Johnny Spasm, you mentioned a key word: "Should current news on a subject..." - we have a differen project for current news that may fade away or be overtaken by events in the near future: Wikinews. I think you may be confusing Wikipedia for Wikinews. WP:NOT#NEWS. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sox signed a new deal with Fort Myers today. The "Sarasota curse" is no longer in the entry.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK articles: Currently none (not true)

This section on the project page is totally inaccurate. We actually have a lot, we just have to find them. I have a lot on my user page that I created/expanded that reached DYK if someone would like to place them on the project page here. – RyanCross (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We didn't have a list previously, so I didn't have anything to go off of. By all means, please add anything! Blackngold29 23:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would if I knew where to add it. Could you hand be a link to where I should place the DYKs? – RyanCross (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it, thanks, – RyanCross (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. – RyanCross (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely plenty of baseball DYKs. I just added 11 more to the list, and there are at least 3 more baseball DYK nominations in the pipeline as I write this. Rlendog (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those. I also have 3 more more baseball nominations as we speak. I know there are more baseball DYKs out there, so I'll try to find more. – RyanCross (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See User:Wknight94/Baseball DYKs for a bunch more thanks to Cat Scan - but only the ones that are properly tagged in the baseball project. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have had 13 baseball articles reach DYK status, they are all on my talk page as well.Neonblak ^talk - 03:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a few of mine to Wknight's list, there's probably plenty more floating around. Wizardman 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--) The list is probably going to get pretty long over time. Maybe we should make the list collapsable/scroll? I think scrolling would be better. – RyanCross (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I added scrolling columns, looks alright. Also I replaced the "?" logos with bullets, it seems like it takes up a lot of space and really doesn't serve much since we already know that they're DYKs; I did the same thing with that GAs and FAs. Blackngold29 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Before We Knew It, an article started and developed by me, also appeared on the "Did you know". AdjustShift (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Project page re-design

I was looking at a few other projects the other day and I think it would be a good move to re-design the main page of our project. I would like to base the design on WP:NBA and WP:LOST in particular, but can hopefully add some things of our own. I will volunteer to create the new look, but remain open to any and all comments. If anyone is opposed, that's fine I won't do it, but I think with the re-working of the member's list (see above discussion) and a few other ideas I have, we can really make WikiProject Baseball one of the best on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Blackngold29 01:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're up to bat for the project now, to coin a phrase. Cheers! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - A re-tooling would be great ! Neonblak ^talk - 02:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I had more time to work on it than I had anticipated. What does everyone think? Obviously we can make changes where we want to. I think we could rotate the pictures every month or so as well. Blackngold29 22:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That is awesome.   jj137 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. Not bad at all. -Dewelar (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping people would understand the color choice. It was one of the first things that I thought of, and no other sport can copy it! Blackngold29 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think it would be better to make the green a tad lighter. Looks too dark compared to the right section, in my opinion. – RyanCross (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I think my monitor is pretty light (atleast compared to my other computer). I kept trying to find a better color, but am not too experienced with the whole Web colors thing. Blackngold29 15:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The new look of the project page is awesome. AdjustShift (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, when you update one of the sides it will not appear updated on the main page instantly. I was unaware of this and do not know how long it will take. You can always see (and edit) the most recent versions by using the "view/edit" links at the bottom of each column (currently there is a problem with the right side link, but I have corrected it, until then the page is here). Blackngold29 15:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job in taking the initiative to redesign the page. It looks great. —Borgarde^talk 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohai, WikiProject Basball!

Hey everyone, I just wanted to let you all know that Cy Young Award just passed it's featured list nomination, and is now a Featured list. By the way, is there a members list for this project? iMatthew (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool! The member list is here, though it may be redesigned soon (see above "Roll Call" discussion). Blackngold29 14:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ned Williamson

I just finished the expansion of this article, and would love it if someone in this task force could do a quick copyedit, as this is not my strong point. I will then sumbit the article for peer review. Thanks. Neonblak ^talk - 08:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it on later today between work and the World Series. Go Phils! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very minor POV issues.

• I would just say that the Blues played for one season, not that they were a "short-lived team"
• "many fielding categories" should probably be "multiple fielding categories"
• You can say his numbers improved, but not "improved significantly" without a cite
• "during a 26-6 victory" needs an endash
• Again, "Williamson's power numbers dropped" not "Williamson's power numbers dropped significantly."
• "was only able to collect two base hits"
• "scored just two runs"
• "only played in 47 games during the 1889 season"
• A more reliable citation than "thedeadballera.com" would be nice, but not needed.

Overall, this is a fantastic article, right down to the nbsp. The only thing that seems odd is the linked years, but since it remains consistant throughout that should be alright; I personally don't think I would've done that though. I love how these older players have not been forgotten, if you think about it, because the wide-range of sources about a little known guy this is probably the single best biography ever written of the man; it's definately ready for a GA review. Blackngold29 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thorough review of the article, I agree with all the changes you suggest, and will incorporate them shortly. I love the 19th century era of baseball, I find it fascinating... It helps me understand the games as it was then better when I write these articles, I have been able to move 4 players up to GA level so far, and if this one passes, it would be great. Thanks again ! Neonblak ^talk - 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting listed below.

• • "During this time he played for three different teams,"→"During this time, he played for three different teams:"
  • "Williamson held the single season record for both doubles, and home runs."→"Williamson held the single season records for both doubles and home runs."
  • "While later in career,"→"Later in his career,"
  • "His season ending statistics"→season-ending
  • "likewise his 20 doubles"→"likewise, his 20 doubles"
  • "The high amount of doubles Williamson hit were attributed" - pronoun and antecedent don't agree. "The high amount of doubles Williamson hit was attributed"
  • "This record stood for thirty five years"→35 years
  • "During these two record breaking seasons"→record-breaking
  • "Although he did not lead the league in fielding percentage in either 1883 or 1884, but did lead in assists,"→remove although, capitalize He.
  • "base on balls with 75,"→bases on balls
  • "Begining in 1886, Williamson switch his fielding position to shortstop,"→"Begining in 1886, Williamson switched his fielding position to shortstop,"
  • "although he did finish third in base on balls." - as above.
  • Unless the name was "Spalding's World Tour," world tour should be lower case.
  • "Assembled were two teams, one consisted of all Chicago White Stocking players, the other consisted of other players from around the National League called the "All-Americans"."→very awkward, consider "The two teams Spalding selected were the White Stockings and a collection of players from other National League teams."
  • I don't think it's necessary to link Western United States. I would just say western United States.
  • "Year in baseball" should be changed to "Major League Baseball season". Consider using the {{mlby|XXXX}} template.

Hope this is helpful. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I will incorporate these suggestions as well.Neonblak ^talk - 05:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One note about the {{mlby|xxxx}}; it seems that it re-directs to "xxxx in baseball" as opposed to {{by|xxxx}} is a direct link.Neonblak ^talk - 14:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The MLBY template actually links to the Major League Baseball season, not the baseball year. It's the more appropriate link since Major League Baseball season articles are established.

Ok, now I see what is up, not every year has a XXXX in Major League Baseball page yet, the ones that don't re-direct to XXXX in baseball, and since I work most often with 19th century articles, I didn't catch the change over because many of them have not been created yet.Neonblak ^talk - 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how far back the MLB seasons go. I know at least to 1883. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has passed the GA nom process, thanks for the help guys.Neonblak ^talk - 00:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement drive - Managers list

I don't know if anyone noticed, I kind of jumped the gun by adding my idea for the next "Article improvement drive" to the main page. I thought it would be cool to get all team's list of managers up to FL status. I figured if we worked together we could get it done pretty quickly. I have an idea for a chart that would show what we have and what is still needed. I know we usually vote for articles to concentrate on, but I thought that this would increase participation for the off-season. Is anyone opposed? Blackngold29 02:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As we've discussed before, I fully support this idea. I'm in the process of working on the Orioles list myself (in my sandbox, not on the page), so we could mark that as in progress. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the page hopefully we can get quite a few teams done in the off-season. Blackngold29 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nested

Just letting everyone know the banner we are using ({{WikiProject Baseball}}) supports auto-nesting after a recent update to {{WPBannerMeta}}, and will automatically nest when inside a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, example:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Baseball}}
}}

Will show:

You can still manipulate it to nest though by using the "nested=yes" parameter, it is just now unnecessary. —Borgarde^talk 04:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's cool. Should save some time. Thanks for the heads up! Blackngold29 04:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank God, no more nesting frenzies for me! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweet.   jj137 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Baseball Year

Some users are removing this template per WP:mosnum, so I was wandering if we should just stop using it because pretty soon some user or bot is just going to remove it anyway--Yankees10 14:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If they are citing MOSNUM, then obviously they haven't read it fully. Our links are suitable because they "significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic" per WP:CONTEXT#Dates. You can cite this if you replace the links as well. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if they "significantly" increase understanding because the vast majority of the "year in baseball" pages are just listcruft with little or no references, even 2008 in baseball. Most of the by's that are listed in articles do not add a significant amount to those articles. But I do ask, for clarity's sake, which topic are "by" links supposed to significantly increase the readers' understanding of? The year in baseball topics or a player whose page contains links to the year in baseball articles? It might help me figure out whether I would consider adding "by" to articles again, or even adding "mlby" to articles instead. If it's supposed to help the layperson understand the players, I don't think it's doing that because most of those links aren't going to mention the player whose article s/he is looking at. If it's the former, then someone's going to really need to improve those pages so that they can be relevant to the layperson. Maybe I'm looking at this incorrectly, but I think putting "by" links into articles is only useful if the pages we're linking to are truly useful and relevant. So far, I'm not seeing that. -- Transaspie (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You could try Template:MLBY instead if it's not satisfying. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ex-Cub Factor

I did a quick check and I think the 2008 Phillies are a refutation of the Ex-Cubs Factor. From the World Series rosters, the Phillies have three ex-Cubs (Moyer, Eyre, and Stairs) while the Rays have one (Floyd). First, am I correct in this? Second, would adding this to the article be considered Original Research? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you could find a cite it would be WP:OR, but it is interesting. I was wondering about that the other day, and now I know! Blackngold29 02:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not really OR, since it's verifiable. However, I think the 2001 D-backs pretty much put an end to the Ex-Cubs Factor "curse". This just reinforces it. It could be worth linking to that article and revising it, if it seems sufficiently noteworthy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The D-Backs played the Yankees and beat them in 7 games, which according to the article, is the only way to beat the "curse". --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the only way the curse had been beaten before. But not any more. The curse is dead. That just leaves the little matter of the Billy Goat thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, I was just saying that the Diamondbacks winning in '01 did not "kill" the "curse", like you suggested. But now it is once and for all "dead". Maybe the curse is now dead because the Billy Goat one is also dead. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, if 2001 didn't finish that off, this one did, because too many exceptions erode the theory. And the Billy Goat curse was that the Cubs would never win the pennant again. Which they haven't. But nobody knew in 1945 that there would be 4 playoff qualifiers per league eventually. I think the Billy Goat curse really doesn't have credence anymore (not that it ever did, truthfully). With 2 consecutive division titles under their belt, and several playoff appearances in recent years, the Cubs have pretty well destroyed the "Lovable Losers" nonsense. Now they just have to figure out how to go deeper into the playoffs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Billy Goat curse. Since this "Ex-Cubs factor" is based on how terribly the Cubs are doing, maybe the fact that it's dead is a sign of things to come (i.e. the Cubs winning the World Series). But I don't believe in curses. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's verifiable, but it's OR until we have a source to verify it. Blackngold29 02:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To verify what? That those players are ex-Cubs? There are endless sources for that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a third party source to confirm his research. We can cite that they were Cubs, but we can't have a citation that everyone else were not Cubs (technically we could, but well that's a lot of cites). I'd be willing to bet he's right, but we need an actual source per WP:V. Blackngold29 02:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many there are, as long as it's at least three. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, Phils coach Davey Lopes also played for the Cubs late in his career. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This theory by some university researcher, published by Mike Royko prior to the 1990 World Series, said that 1 or 2 ex-Cubs on a team is insignificant, but that 3 (or more) creates a "critical mass of Cubness". That's why he said the 1990 A's, heavily favored to win the Series, were doomed. And lo and behold, the Reds swept the A's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about OR, etc. - that's just a great article! I'd never seen/heard that before. Classic. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just imagine what it was like in 1990, when Royko made the bold (though seemingly satirical) prediction in the Tribune that the A's were doomed. That seemed absurd on its face. He wrote a followup column on the subject a week later, after the A's had been swept. I think he was as astonished as anyone else was (outside of the A's themselves). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How did I miss this conversation? *grin* I've done this calculation for the last several post seasons. Last year the teams were eliminated exactly in order of the Cubbiness (starting with my Cubs - gah!). This year I only did the final 4 teams ('cuz it's a pain to check through even 100 players): Dodgers had 3, Phillies had 3, Red Sox had 0, Tampa Bay had 1. The Dodgers were the first to go, but after that the theory fell apart.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lance Rautzhan

Hi, did this guy subsequently become an abstract artist - see here. If not it is a huge coincidence that two guys with the same unusal name were both born in Pottsville! TerriersFan (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No. The artist was born in 1974 [6], the pitcher in 1952. Possibly father and son? BRMo (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your research - I feel a new article coming on ... :-) TerriersFan (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Awards lists

Hi everyone. Just a thought, since I've been seeing some of the awards articles over at the basketball WikiProject get so much attention. We have an extremely large amount of awards and awards articles on this encyclopedia, and I think it would behoove us to have some kind of coordinated effort to improve these articles that are important to the sport. I know we have the Article Improvement Drive, but this is bigger than just one article at a time. If anyone's interested, let's discuss here. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Once we get the manager lists done at the AID, this would be a good candidate to replace it with. When I first saw these lists I was skeptical, but after seeing their poetential I think that this is something very worthwhile to spend time on. Blackngold29 05:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm thinking about taking on the Silver Slugger award articles as my first project, and I've got a manager's list in progress in my sandbox as well. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Baseball

Since this Portal hardly ever gets updated, I have created the 3 selections (article, picture, biography) to randomise. This means we don't have to update it every month, but just add selections, and if none are added, it simply means it will just use the ones that we already have. The selections I used were ones from the archives, so if they are not suitable feel free to change. —Borgarde^talk 09:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Capitoline Grounds

Brand new Baseball DYK.Neonblak ^talk - 09:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Marv Foley

Another one for the project page. -Dewelar (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Junichi Tazawa

Junichi Tazawa appears to be the Next Big Thing out of Japan, and as the subject of multiple articles (ESPN.com and NY Times), he meets WP:N for biographies. But here's the thing - as a player in the amateur industrial league in Japan, he probably doesn't meet WP:SPORT. In a case like this, do you wait for him to sign with an MLB club to start the article or not? --Mosmof (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for the Project (Wikipedia as a whole) are the primary source of the rule, so if he meets those crtieria, I say go for it! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty wary of articles on those who haven't signed yet, but looking at this case I don't have a problem with an article. Wizardman 06:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - if it's an issue, we can always put in on ice and restore it when he signs with an MLB team. --Mosmof (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability policy for athletes allows for articles for those who have competed at the highest level of amateur sports. I think this qualifies. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reggie Sanders

There's an edit skirmish going on there. [7] In case anyone is interested. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are similar ones going on at several other pages, most notably Roger Clemens and Steve Finley.

These instances bring up a good point, actually: Do we actually have guidelines regarding when someone who doesn't "officially" retire can actually be considered retired? -Dewelar (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "inactive" would be a better term for a ballplayer who hasn't played for at least a full season, but has neither announced his retirement nor croaked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And retirement is such a slippery item anyway. Consider Brett Favre and Daunte Culpepper, for example. (Apologies for staining a page about the National Pastime with a mention of some other sport. At least I didn't mention soccer. Oops, too late.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I found the other page where this is happening: José Mesa. It was also happening at Aaron Sele until I pointed out to IceFrappe that Sele was officially a coach for 2009.

As for the pertinent issue...everything you say above is absolutely correct, but at this point I'm pretty sure IceFrappe is at or near three-revert territory on all these pages, if only because he's the only one that keeps changing the pages to show active status against 3-4 people changing them back. -Dewelar (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a dilemma, because in Sanders' case (recently, at least) the reverter is also a red-link. And if it's 3 or 4 to 1, the one guy will yelp about tag-teaming or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired. Consensus was already established. Stop the drama now.--IceFrappe (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with this. One is that no vote was taken, and thus there was no method to establish consensus attempted, much less any chance that consensus could be "established". Even if consensus could be established just through such a discussion, I saw no general agreement on anything. I saw a lot of proposals, including but not limited to:

1: Establishing a 1-2 year period of inactivity before changing the infobox

2: Changing the name of the "MLB Retired" infobox to "MLB Inactive"

3: Changing from a two-infobox system to a single, all-encompassing infobox

So, no, nothing even remotely approaching consensus was established at the link provided.

The second problem is that you, along with Yankees10 and Jackal4, are the source of the so-called "drama" here. Bugs just noted the conflict in progress, and as for me, all I did was make two observations: first, that you're coming close to, if not violating, the three-revert rule (as are the other two players), and second, that you're not contributing anything constructive (which you aren't -- all you're doing is reverting other people's edits). If I were you, I'd take the dispute to an administrator before coming over here and making yourself look foolish. -Dewelar (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what I left on IceFrappes talk on why these infoboxes should stay:

• Roger Clemens- Has said that he has no interest in playing and will most likely not again considering hes 47 next year link
• Reggie Sanders - He is 40 coming off an injury, no team has had any interest in him at all, hes done
• Jose Mesa - He is another aging pitcher who no one has show interest in, hes done
• Steve Finley - This is a no brainer, hes 44 next season and has not played since the beginning of LAST SEASON, yeah he says he still wants to play, but no team wants him, so he is done

I dont know why people dont understand that a player doesnt have to officially say: "I am retired" to be retired, sometimes the game retires them, they dont retire from it, this user just starts trouble like he has done with all other articles that he has edited--Yankees10 04:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Again I say, change the concept from "retired" to "inactive" and then there can be little or no dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, add Barry Bonds to that list. There's no way he's ever playing major league ball again, unless some team is extraordinarily desperate for a circus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I didnt change Barry Bonds or Kenny Lofton and a few others because there has been interest or at least reports of team being interested in them unlike the players above who have had no interest at all.--Yankees10 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear-cut definition for retirement; however, I believe the information is not publicly available: Is the player drawing upon his MLBPA pension? For reference, see the 1997 copy of the MLBPA Benefit Plan, available at this link:

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=25

In particular, have a look at section 6, "Retirement Date". Isaac Lin (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer reading, this is only going to be indicative of retirement for players past their 45th birthday, which is the earliest point where they can file for early retirement. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If a player hasn't actually officially retired - then isn't it WP:OR to say he is just because he's inactive or a free agent? If he's not on a team and hasn't announced his retirement - then he's a free agent... it's an official status with MLB and the players union... Sure a player can come back, but thats not relevant - since making any assumptions off of that is WP:OR.JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing it from "retired" to "inactive" would solve that ambiguity. And players do make comebacks. Sammy Sosa sat out for a season before he came back, although he's effectively done now. It's risky in any case. I have a vague recollection of a Hank Aaron baseball card stating that his brother Tommie, who had a 2-year gap in his MLB career, was a "former" major leaguer, which was funny since he was reactivated that same year, for a short while. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Bugs' solution is the simplest one. -Dewelar (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the term "inactive" instead of "retired" is a great way to solve this debate. Monowi (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take any suggestion, as long as it ends the ridiculous debate about whether these four players are retired or not. If it'll stop these dumb little edit wars, and allow people to actually edit these articles again without fear of getting reverted, then I'll take that option. -- Transaspie (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well here's the big question... How will you differentiate between Free Agents and Inactives without it falling under WP:OR? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Develop a convention. Something like this: "A player who has publicly announced his retirement and not played a professional game since, including spring training, is considered retired. A player who has qualified for free agency at some time since the end of the most recent completed season is considered a free agent. Any other player who has not been under contract at any level since the end of the most recent completed season is considered inactive." Rklear (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rklear, I think if they are inactive they should have the retired infobox--Yankees10 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

According to KFFL both Clemens and Reggie Sanders are retired:[8] [9]--Yankees10 03:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt fantasy sports sites would be considered reliable sources. -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not only a fantasy sports website, it is a reliable source that is where I get all of my transaction news from, ask Chrisjnelson about it, he writes for them.--Yankees10 06:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you (or me, or Chrisjnelson for that matter) to decide whether it's reliable or not. Also, I note that their news appears not to be through their own reporting, but gathered from other sources, which means that those sources are the ones that should be cited, not KFFL itself. Find the original news story that says Clemens (or whoever) is retired and cite it in the article. Then the argument is done. -Dewelar (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I have a source saying Clemens has no interest in playing[10]--Yankees10 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it also says "I don't know if I'll ever say no", which means that by some standards we should leave the active infobox up until he's dead. -Dewelar (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe have JUST ONE INFOBOX. Ryne Sandberg retired and then made a comeback. Anyone could do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would work for me, and if I had the programming knowledge I'd go create it myself. Of course, the infobox is only part of the problem anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Milkshake continues to use his false "consensus" citation as a basis for continuing the edit war. I reverted his latest changes and reported this point on WP:ANI. Free agent vs. actually retired? Well, it's very simple, as I see it: they are either under a contract or they're not. I could call Minnie Minoso a "free agent". He's about to turn 83 years old, but he still plays sometimes, as a one-day stunt for Mike Veeck. So is he truly "retired"? I would say NO. But he's currently "inactive" except for those occasional stunts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is redundant to the one earlier, in which Yankees10 agreed to cease his disruptive behavior. Certified.Gangsta and Wknight argued that Look at Hideo Nomo earlier this season. Chan Ho Park spent almost all of last year unemployed. Jeff Weaver didn't get signed until fairly recently. Frank Castillo recently resurfaced in the Atlantic League. So is Shea Hillenbrand who was signed earlier this month. Jay Gibbons was signed to minor league contract just this week. Last year feel-good story Troy Percival also took almost 2 seasons off. Salomon Torres was inactive from 1998-2002 yet resurfaced in the big league in 2003 and has been there ever since. Heck even Juan Gone got a contract this year with the Cardinals, so did Javy Lopez, Edgardo Alfonzo, Brian Anderson, and Kent Mercker who made the roster out of spring training. Yankees just took a flier on Eric Milton and I just mentioned Todd Ritchie, inactive since 2004, signing with the Rockies. Former superstars like Carl Everett, Richard Hidalgo, and Alfonzo shouldn't be considered done just because they play in Japan or independent league. Jolbert Cabrera, Robinson Cancel, D.J. Carrasco, and Vladimir Nunez recently resurfaced in the big league as well. (Nunez was designated for assignment yesterday after only 2 appearances) Nelson Figueroa with the Mets earlier this year. And don't count on guys who play overseas like Lou Pote and Mickey Callaway. I can easily go on all day about successful comeback attempts. It's not rare at all This statement more or less proved that it is extremely common for currently unsigned players to comeback after several years of inactivity. Yankees10 needs to learn that he and his unsavory friends do not own the articles. He also does not have the power to declare the end of someone's career. Bugs, refrain from referring me to anything other than my account name in the future.--IceFrappe (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop the edit war that you started, and I'll consider your demand (I didn't see a "please" in there) to stop using a midwestern synonym for your username. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If the player comes back after being inactive for two years or whatever all you have to do is change the infobox to an active one. You dont keep it active just because the player hasn't said "I am retired". You think crappy players say I am retired, No, they don't get signed by a team and therefore it isn't there decision that they are retired or not, there is no one that wants them so they are therefore done, and all that BS about me controlling articles makes no sense, changing an infobox doesn't meen I am controlling the article, your starting trouble for one reason--Yankees10 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You also have to take in account these guys age, unlike the players you named above these guys are all over 40, Finley's 44 next season, Clemens 47 next season, and Mesa 43 but who knows how old he really is, the only one I can see possibly coming back is Sanders who is going to be 42, which I still don't see happening.--Yankees10 16:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start the edit war. Yankees10 did. There was an agreement, at least temporarily, to leave the infoboxes alone based on the thread a provided above. (in which Yankees10 was interestingly enough, a participant) Yankees10 should had open up a new discussion before unilaterally changing the infoboxes then edit war to keep his preferred version. Baseball bugs, who edit warred to keep Yankees10 preferred version, is hardly a neutral voice and should refrain from calling me anything other than my account name in the future.--IceFrappe (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you started the edit war considering you undid my revision (and basically everybody elses edit in between, because your selfish) first, and started this, and there was no agreement, the issue just died and no one payed attention to it--Yankees10 06:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Aight chill the fuck out y'all. None of you is in the right here. We all know Yankees10 has an obsession for retired infoboxes (maybe you should retired yourself?) IceFrappe, judging from his contributions, has an obsession for creating useless article redirects. (Ty Chandler? Calvin Andre Miles? Wtf?) Neither of you is doing the encyclopedia a service by engaging in this useless personal mudslinging. With no intention of biting newbies, I have to say neither of you is an asset of the project.

Yankees10 committed a personal attack, so what? IceFrappe, Grow a thicker skin. It's hard knock life on 'pedia my friend. By the way, who deleted the edit summary to cover up the evidence?

But Yankees10 is blatantly lying when he deemed the discussion IceFrappe cited as pointless. You don't go back to reverting your preferred version when everything dies down homie. Wikipedia doesn't work this way. What we gotta do is keep the pre-edit warred version (with the active/free agent infobox) and get more inputs to hopefully come to compromise.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Both of you are embarrassing the proeject. This episode clearly belongs to WP:LAME.--NWA.Rep (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wknight94 offered to delete it, and I told him I wanted him to. And no the discussion wasn't pointless, but nothing came out of it. I only changed them again because it was after the season and none of them were signed yet, and I remember that some users said that if a player goes un-signed for a year then they should have it changed--Yankees10 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What was the point of changing your username and saying your attitude has changed if your still going to talk like a Certified_Gansta? User:69.136.60.6 07:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And who the fuck are you? Nobody even knows you. Why don't you grow some balls and use your own account to post this instead of hiding behind your IP address?--NWA.Rep (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a Certified_Gansta. Whatever that is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder of WP:CIVIL for everyone. No harm, no foul. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit war continues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Has it been reported? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems to be about which baseball infobox template to use, I was hoping there would be sufficient interest here to discuss and arrive at a consensus. My optimism on that point is diminishing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, and have chosen to be a passive observer of this topic rather than a contributor, because I wanted to see how the issue unfolded. Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be a lot of mudslinging and jousting with man-parts, so we may have to go to the next step. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What I can't figure out is why we need two infoboxes. Surely they could be merged into one. I hope the reason isn't something silly like team colors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What we really need to do is merge all the biographies infoboxes into one like WP:FOOTY does with Template:Infobox Football biography. The hard work would eventually pay off. —Borgarde^talk 01:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that instead of creating a whole new infobox for inactive players, I think we should call them retired and if they do resurface like Troy Percival then we just change it back to active which takes absolutely no time at all to do.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fuck! This shit is pissing me off. Stop the drama goddamnit. Iamawesome, at the same time you continue to revert war with IceFrappe? Responding dickish behaviors with more dickish behavior is unacceptable. Just because you were not part of the discussion last time does not give you the green light to revert everything you don't like. You are anything but awesome. Don't be a dick. Please read WP:DICK for own benefit. IceFrappe may be useless and belligerent (not to mention plagiarizing my quote in his argument), but he is right that Yankees was told to stop his crusade with retired userboxes and that baseball bugs should stop the milkshake bullshit. It's basic civility. Well I ain't got much to say herre. Y'all just gotta refer back to the discussion on my talkpage and the archive on this page.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well while you're dishing out commands how about you please take a read of WP:CIVIL yourself. —Borgarde^talk 13:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The expletive was directed at no one in particular. You should grow a thicker skin or life will be very hard for you on wikipedia.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a fine one to be lecturing others about drama, potty mouth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Potty mouth? Stop being a dick by calling people random names or you'll be blocked.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow you are saying he is going to be blocked for saying that you are a potty mouth, meanwhile you are calling people dicks, I am sorry but I am pretty sure calling people dicks is worse than calling someone a potty mouth--Yankees10 14:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

His interjection into this dispute, along with his over-the-top vulgarity, suggest trolling behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why cant we just make this easy and say that if you are a free agent for a full season, unless you are injured, then you should have the retired infobox, and if that player happens to come back all you have to do is just change it back.--Yankees10 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, your continued lack of respect for fellow editors continue to appall me. Your insistence to call others derogatory names "potty mouth" or "milkshake" are definitely violating WP:CIVIL and borderline personal attack. This, combied with your belligerent attitude and continued edit warring, will make your stay on wikipedia a short one. I consider you a troll and I don't use the term lightly. Yankees: No, your suggestion wouldn't work. That would be original research.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see why your request for adminship failed, as you obviously lack both the temperament and the perspective. "potty mouth" is slang for someone who uses vulgarisms. Since that's a true statement about you, it can't be construed as a "personal attack". And "milkshake" is a synonym for "frappe". And I stopped calling him that after he "asked" me not to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like a definition internal to Wikipedia than OR. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say again, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL still apply. Please abide. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The trolls who seek to stall the discussions and enforce their POVs have no business on this page.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you still here? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Yankees10 if the player has been a free agent for one full season then make them have a retired infobox. And if they comeback then change it back.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, how come me and Iamawesome800 are the only two that realize that it just takes one click to change the infobox back if the player is signed or comes out of retirement, really this discussion would be avoidable if people just used common sense.--Yankees10 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that as well, although I would not be opposed to waiting two years before treating the player as retired if that would alleviate any lingering ambiguity that may be of concern to some editors. Rlendog (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think two years is a little too long--Yankees10 23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go with "inactive" instead of "retired", the issue disappears. A player is either with a team, or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This is still original research. I dont understnad why Iamawesome and Yankees insist to label people as retired based on their personal opinion. It's absurd and unencyclopedic, especially when there is a discussion thread of creating new templates just below.--NWA.Rep (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What original research? There is no "research" involved, let alone "original research". Just determining a definition for WP purposes. A one year or two year period of inactivity without being signed by a professional team can be validated to many reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As there is already an MLB definition of "retired", based on the MLB Players Benefit Plan, it would be somewhat confusing for a different definition to be adopted solely for the use of Wikipedia. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is your source saying that they are still looking to be signed? Just because they havent said that they are retired doesnt mean they arent. Do you think crappy players wake up one day and say:"Oh I think I am going to announce my retirement today", no they just do and no one nows that they are done--Yankees10 00:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from those who don't care to try, I say that we still need achieve consensus here before we move on. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my verdict let's have 3 infoboxes, one for retired, one for inactive and one for active. I think that this will cease the issue going on. But I'm all for keeping it at two because of reasons I have previously stated.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While it doesn't seem like it should be necessary, this seems like a reasonable solution as well. How would "inactive" be defined? Surely a player like C C Sabathia right now should not be considered "inactive" just because he is an unsigned free agent. But defining "inactive" as a player who has not played or signed or been on the injured reserve list with a professional team for at least one year, has not formally announced his retirement and has not taken a coaching or other non-playing managerial position would seem to make sense. Rlendog (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Iamawesome, I think 2 infoboxes is too much trouble, 3 is pushing the limit. One infobox will do once it is refined to allow for different options, which I am currently working on. (See discussion below) —Borgarde^talk 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tommy John surgery can easily wipe out 2 seasons. Russ Ortiz and Rodrigo Lopez are two examples. Free agents do announce retirement such as John Lynch, Troy Brown, Marcus Robinson, Mike Piazza, Hideo Nomo, Terrell Brandon, Jamal Mashburn (need I go on?).--NWA.Rep (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My definition of inactive is 1 year and THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY RETIRED it just means they have not played in one full season. And if they comeback it takes no time at all to change anything back.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant this, but inactive should mean inactive AND not signed by a team. Players who have had Tommy John surgery but are on a team's injured reserve list are still active. And since even free agents get signed when injured so that the signing team can benefit once the player recovers, those players would also be out of scope for the "inactive" designation. It would just be players who have not publicly announced retirement (or taken a position that clearly indicates their retirement) AND are unsigned by any team. Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone under a player contract at any professional level should be considered active. Rklear (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is already true. At least, this is the way I handle things. -Dewelar (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume so, too, but this line of discussion keeps focusing on injured reserve players, which gives it a top-level bent. I just thought it bore mentioning. Rklear (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the NWA guy is now on a 1-week block, in connection with an article unrelated to baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank god, the guys an annoyance, saying that I am a sock of Iamawesome800, with no proof at all--Yankees10 23:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He just popped in here from nowhere and started throwing his weight around, such as it is, and throwing accusations around. He was blocked for a week for edit-warring over Salma Hayek, and also had his rollback privilege taken away since he was using it to aid in his edit war. The funny thing, so to speak, is that he's nominated for the ArbCom. Hopefully today's events will put a crimp in that plan. He's already been turned down for Adminship. Kind of working his way down the ladder, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just check out this guy's edit summaries on Salma, talking about her like she was a porn queen or something. [11] Still, it's probably good that baseball is not the only thing on his mind. Or is it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this is the only issue he cares about, he never edits anything else that has to do with baseball, so hes just here to cause more trouble and accuse people of things.--Yankees10 00:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out the rant on his talk page, which someone protected so that the ArbCom committee can see it easily. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it why would he care about Mesa, Clemens, Finley and Sanders and not edit anything else about baseball?--Iamawesome800 15:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called "trolling". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel like reading the whole thing, is he saying hes going to retire from Wikipedia?--Yankees10 16:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what he's saying, but don't you believe it. It's typical "waaaah, they blocked me!" behavior. They say they're leaving, they leave a lengthy rant with shots at everyone they can think of, then they vigorously guard their talk page. None of this matters except that he's bucking for membership in the Arbitration Committee. I'm hopeful his recent behavior and consequences will scotch that possibility, but ya never know.[12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is what he is trying to say since in the first paragraph he says he might be addressing everyone for the last time.--Iamawesome800 17:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Might" is the operative word there. He actually posted it just to see what reactions he would get. More trolling behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)