Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Expanding stubs

I'd like to suggest an informal collaboration in which we pick one stub a day to expand. I'm not thinking of a major expansion with intent to reach GA status, but simply taking a stub and added a little more content to it. To begin, we could try expanding Andy Dirks. AutomaticStrikeout 21:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but it's better to improve more vital articles, like members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, or current stars which some of the articles are complete garbage, than a player who just was called up with not much hype nor a random Major Leaguer. I don't see any articles on several stub categories that needs immediate work. Secret ^account 21:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree with the concept if we were picking one vital article a day instead of one stub a day? AutomaticStrikeout 22:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Alex Johnson is probably the most standout article I've seen in about half these categories I saw that needs immediate work. He was among the most colorful figures in an era known for them, and easily well-known name among baseball buffs. The thing is we tried these concepts before, and it's hard to do one article a day because we can't predict what happens in real life that might prevent us from editing that day. Once a week is pushing it as well (I wasn't online for a week before now), once every two weeks is possible. Secret ^account 22:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be entirely fine with one a week; one a day would be moving too quickly. I'm also entirely fine with the idea being more random rather than just limiting to Hall of Famers, since GAs can come from people we may have never heard of otherwise (Dick Padden's road to GA remains one of my favorite Wikipedia moments). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The hockey project has a project that is somewhat similar, however we haven't put timelines for individual articles on it. We just made a page to track them with the goal of getting all Hall of Famers and then other highly notable players (retired numbers, career stat leaders etc) to a GA level. It is a good way to see the progress being made. Something similar here might be useful. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That we do have: User:Muboshgu/Baseball Mountain. So far going fairly well, nearing the 10% mark (which we could hit with all the ones at GAN). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that perhaps the articles for less notable players are being neglected. However, I'd support the idea of a project that takes stubs from Muboshgu's mountain and works on one per week. Even if the articles don't reach GA status, they can be that much closer. AutomaticStrikeout 16:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so much neglected as much as prioritized. Clearly the more important players should have good articles first. That being said anyone can work on anything they are more interested in. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, as part of my own personal project related to the Calgary Flames, I created a spreadsheet of each season's roster and the article quality of each player. That led, very quickly, to the identification of articles in need of work. From there, I have I periodically expanded stubs to various degrees... GAs (Paul Reinhart), B/C class for former Atlanta rookies of the year (Willi Plett, Eric Vail) and a complete nobody (Alex McKendry). IMO, the first step in finding and improving stubs is documenting them. That's why Hockey and Baseball mountains are so effective - it highlights with bright red squares what articles need work. Resolute 20:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made fairly regular practice of expanding stubs. Ken Clay, Kurt Bevacqua and Ruppert Jones are a couple examples from the recent past. I prefer to work on retired players, personally. Any suggestions there?--71.54.241.128 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

Well, how about Al Bumbry or Bake McBride? If you're up for a rather big challenge, you could try a retired umpire, perhaps Bill Haller. AutomaticStrikeout 23:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IP, maybe you're just catching me on a bad day. But your desire to contribute is why editors take the time to rate articles, classify and update their status, make tables and charts and to-do's, etc. You can glance at any number of them (lots viewable at project pages) and pick an article for yourself. Some editors like to hone in on article that's been in the news lately; others focus on what they deem an order of significance (HoFer, record holder, social consciousness, etc.); other projects like to pick articles at random or ones with the biggest issuse (such as WP:NPOV violations). Editors work hard at tabulating and classifying all of the above so members don't need to ask. On the second point, which articles should receive attention first, it's a bit of chicken vs. egg. An article that has seen improvement is going to be "advertised" drawing more page views. However, it would also make sense that a better quality work is going to be more viewed. So even if the subject is less known, it might very well receive more page views because it's being advertised as a quality article. On the other hand, yes, the more popular subjects tend to have greater page views. I'm quite confident even if the Ted Williams or Rickey Henderson or Cy Young articles were just stubs, they would still receive an awful lot of page views. Whatever you choose, hope you have fun doing it. Zepppep (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Major League Baseball Wild Card

An IP just changed the wording in the records section from "Miami Marlins" to "Florida Marlins" and I'm not sure he was wrong. Granted, the team is now known as the Miami Marlins, but the win-loss record reflected in the chart is for games that were played with the Florida Marlins moniker. Instead of reverting it myself, I decided to get a second opinion on this one. AutomaticStrikeout 03:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd add a piped link to Miami Marlins but leave would the "Florida Marlins" reference as it appears now. My reasoning is because this was the name of the team/franchise name at the time but linking should take to the appropriate franchise page (if the franchise page just so happens to be a near-identical term, so be it). Walter Johnson is listed as a member of the Washington Senators on (FA) Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award even though the team is today known as the Minnesota Twins. Zepppep (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it really doesn't matter that much because Florida Marlins redirects to Miami Marlins anyway. I should have realized that earlier. AutomaticStrikeout 03:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It does, but I wouldn't count on a redirect taking the reader there forever. When possible, the actual article name shall be utilized; that's why I'd go with a piped link. Just my two cents. Zepppep (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. AutomaticStrikeout 03:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are preferred over pipes per WP:NOTBROKEN. That being said, a direct link to Miami Marlins seems more appropriate since the franchise is being referenced, not the Florida team at the time.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all of this. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the table is showing stats for the franchise as a whole, it makes most sense to use the current franchise name, particularly when it is just a team renaming and not a change of cities. isaacl (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's desired for franchise records, then I'd recommend going in stride with how franchises are presented in the World Series article. Otherwise, franchises/names like "Washington Senators" is going to start getting confusing for readers. Zepppep (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead of the World Series article states the names of franchises when they played in multiple cities ("Los Angeles/Brooklyn Dodgers"). It, however, simply states "NYY" in the lead whilst mentioning "Highlanders" in the table below the lead. Whatever is decided, it needs to be consistent. Seeing as the name is linkable, I have no issue with the fact that the link should take the reader to the Miami Marlins page—but how the franchise is presented to the reader matters, IMO. I see below Marlins "Anaheim Angels" appears; whatever is decided for the Marlins should also apply to LAA as they too have undergone changes. If the WS article states the different monikers of a given franchise when they won a championship, I don't see why this one would be any different (especially since it appears the WC is not going anywhere as it's been expanded since the creation of that article). Zepppep (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

John Ellis

Several of the 90's Seattle Mariners seasons, such as 1994 Seattle Mariners season mention (and link to) a John Ellis who was representing the team's owner. Actually, the link leads to a disambiguation page. Does anyone know if a page for this specific John Ellis exists? AutomaticStrikeout 19:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Playoff navbox redesign proposal

I went looking at this years playoff articles and the navbox looked a little cluttered and hard to read so I took it upon myself to redesign it with the {{navbox}} template and I propose this update to the template:

Thoughts? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 05:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that the 2011 version also included the playoff teams:

In 2011 version, not sure why duplicate link to the MLB season article is needed, or why AL and NL links are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to use the duplicate links or the NL/AL links but thought someone might say something if I left them off the proposal, so I added them. As for the teams, I guess it could be done something like this:

What do you think? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 06:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Or you could do this for the teams. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I like it but I honestly don't know that the teams necessarily need to be collapsed as they are in your sandbox. At any rate, it's certainly an improvement. AutomaticStrikeout 19:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried it with regular groups, it didn't look good. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added my new design to the 2011 and 2012 navboxes, if anyone disagrees, just undo it and we'll continue discussing. If no one's reverted by Saturday I'm gonna update the others. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with your 06:25, 26 September 2012 example above without the teams collapsed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 05:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I created a template to make creating this navboxes simpler from now on. It's here. I wasn't sure what categories or "See Also" pages to put on the documentation, so I'll leave that to more informed people. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Article names for a couple of Japanese baseball teams

So I've been doing a ton of work on NPB articles for what seems like forever. And from what I can tell, it will go on forever. I'm finally trying to make things consistent throughout the project though and I came up with a couple big issues regarding team names for 2 articles: Osaka Kintetsu Buffaloes and Orix Buffaloes. Regarding the first article, that team is now defunct. Their name at the time of their dissolution (as well as the 5 years leading up to it) was the "Osaka Kintetsu Buffaloes", however their name was simply the "Kintetsu Buffaloes" for almost 40 years before that. Should we go with their last name or their most common name for the article name? As far as the second team, the name is correct, it's the stylization that is an issue. It appears as "ORIX Buffaloes" in most official NPB and team items, however when the team name is mentioned in an English language news article it almost never appears in all capitals. How should this be treated in the article name, throughout article prose and in infoboxes? As I know there is very little interest in the NPB, any opinions on these issues would be appreciated. Thanks! --Torsodog^Talk 06:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

While I am not certain how to handle the first issue policy-wise, I believe the ORIX Buffaloes should be fixed. Their parent company's article is stylized ORIX, with caps, thus the team name should have the same (accurate) stylization. -Dewelar (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevant manual of style guideline is Wikipedia's guidance on trademarks, which specifies the use of usual English capitalization rules (most English news sources do this generally). As you might imagine, it gets perennially discussed (there is an open RFC right now). isaacl (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I assumed there was a MoS guideline somewhere about it, but I couldn't find it last night. Thanks! It pretty much confirmed what I thought though. We will stick with "Orix Buffaloes". I will also try to get ORIX changed as well. --Torsodog^Talk 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that myself and presumed that the parent company's page was correctly done. Thanks for the correction, Isaac. -Dewelar (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Stats to include in info box

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice states "TBD" for stats to be included in the info box. Here seem to the be agreed upon stats to include:

• batters: batting average, home runs, RBIs
• pitchers: win-loss record, strikeouts and ERA (and saves for those pitchers with relief experience)

Seems there are inconsistencies on when to include the following: career hits (they are listed for players with say, more than 2k hits (Paul Konerko), 1k hits (Prince Fielder), and less than 200 (Mike Trout); strikeouts (not included in the all-time leader's info box (Reggie Jackson or Alex Rodriguez but included in Jim Thome and Adam Dunn (Yankee bias, anyone?)); Ryan Braun has SLG included whilst Giancarlo Stanton has SLG along with OBP; stolen bases, runs, bases on balls, and just about any other stat appear in some info boxes but not others. For pitchers, seems WHIP is included for some, not included for others.

If the answer is "stats can be included on a player-by-player basis," that's not have much of a standard. If it's "the stat can be included if the player is the top XX position" then we're subjecting ourselves to lots of change to the info box (and quite a bit of work and additional stat checking) (additionally, appearing in the bottom XX position can perhaps be just as telling, and probably more NPOV-based). If it's "whichever stats are deemed notable for that particular player, inclusion subject to editor preference and article talk page consensus" then again, not much of a standard (which is maybe what some might prefer). For more detailed stats (that is, beyond average, HRs and RBIs) the reader can go to any number of stat websites which are typically either linked in the info box itself or at the bottom of the article. If a player, such as Reggie Jackson, is the career leader in a particular category, put "All-time leader in career strikeouts" in the "Career highlights and awards" section of the info box, but don't put the actual number of K's in the stat box. The reader should be able to see the number of strikeouts in prose form and/or the "Highlights and awards" or "Player profile" section of the article. Otherwise I don't see there being much uniformity. Zepppep (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think uniformity is an absolute necessity and having those three distinct stats and no others is not always helpful. Sometimes, other statistics do a better job of representing the player's performance. For a player known for his speed, it is a good idea to include stolen bases, for closers, saves should be listed. As for base hits, they aren't necessary but there's no real harm in them being there if the updaters don't mind having them included (and I don't). AutomaticStrikeout 03:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I say everyone should by default have the triple crown stats, no exceptions. I also propose that everyone is allowed one additional notable stat, if it is appropriate. E.g. if they led the league in that stat in a season or are among all-time leaders in that stat. When I say notable stat, I mean to exclude things like quality starts, putouts, bunts. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A player's speed (or lack thereof) can also be understood by the reader by the lack of SBs a player may have. This could argued to better adhere to WP:NPOV than only selecting the stats which favorably describe the player to the reader. That's why a standard is needed, IMO. We always list the batting average, HR and RBI...but why? And yes, we do it even for the players with a low number for any of those stats, namely because this is a way for someone to discern the player's offensive abilities (and power numbers). Another reason why a standard would be nice is because after adding the number of K's to Jackson's info box several months ago, an editor removed it because they felt it wasn't a defining career statistic for him. The editor based their argument on Jackson;'s K rate being lower than others, such as Dunn or Thome. However, keep in mind a rate is different from a career total. (I wasn't wanting to add Jackson's K rate but simply the career total). If rate is going to be the criteria, then Henderson should not have the # of career SBs included, as there were other players with a better SB rate. Would probably need to look at changing a lot of other articles, as often times the career leader may not have a greater rate than another player's. We could start with a player's HR rate and not career total; a pitcher's K/9 innings, and not career total (I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but rarely is rate given precedent over career total). Zepppep (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I could go for something like that, Y2K. Then would you leave it up to the talk page, however, to decide which ONE stat would get preference for players who've lead the league in few different stats for their career (such as SBs, SLG, etc.)? Zepppep (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AutomaticStrikeout. Uniformity isn't necessary in all cases. Statistics should be chosen based on what accurately represent the player's career. - X96lee15 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fractions vs. decimals for pitchers

I see this was brought up (as recently as here), however, it appears there was no consensus. Furthermore, I see two FAs where one uses decimals, the other fractions. The fraction camp seems to think their way is better because it helps a non-baseball audience understand partial innings easier; the decimal camp seems to think their way is best because it's consistent with other sources, such as B-R. In the past, users have noted that perhaps some of our methods should change as more readers are accessing WP via devices with relatively small screens, and a smashed up fraction might be pretty tough to view clearly. What say ye? Zepppep (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Every source I can remember seeing uses either the .1/.2 convention or spells out "one-third" or "two-thirds" in prose. I don't think using the fraction symbols (although technically we should be using the Frac template) is better than either of those options. -Dewelar (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If we're talking about innings pitched here, than the fraction is the only accurate option. Innings are pitched in thirds, not tenths. Saying ".3" or ".6" is incorrect, as those numbers aren't the same as "1⁄3" and "2⁄3". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've actually be making a lot of NPB seasons pages lately and whenever the Innings Pitched stat comes up I've been using the fraction template. The decimals just make no sense and are completely inaccessible to non-baseball savvy readers. --Torsodog^Talk 16:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that "one-third of an inning" is jargon, so saying something is the "only accurate option" when it's not portrayed that way by the source of the jargon (MLB) is total bunk. -Dewelar (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't pitching one out in an inning technically referred to as one-third of an inning?—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's referred to as that, but it isn't actually one-third of an inning (at minimum it's one-third, but it could just as easily be one-fourth, one-fifth or one-twentieth, depending on how many people get on base). It's baseball jargon for "got one out out of the required three". -Dewelar (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It can be jargon-y, but it can also be explained, either in a note or with a wikilink. I'd prefer to be too jargony than to be inaccurate. Besides, using decimals would be as jargony as fractions, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Jargon" would be the reference to the "inning" statistic itself. Do we really want to explain in every bio that an inning is three outs, and 1/3 or .1 of an inning is one out? The partial innings is explained already in Innings pitched.—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Which was my point -- that any discussion of innings will, by necessity, point to innings pitched, where the note will clarify that, generally, a pitcher getting one out will typically be displayed as ".1". -Dewelar (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

.1 and .2 are remnants of typewriter days when there was no elegant way to display fractions aside from clumsy "1/3". I usually use 1⁄3 in prose, precisely for non-baseball readers. I have no opinion if .1 is use for stats lists, as those are of less interest to non-baseball people.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I used to favor the unicode ⅓, but that no longer appears to be permissible on Wikipedia. I hate the 1⁄3 because it goes above and below the line, but it's the most accurate representation we currently have. I don't think .1 and .2 should ever be used, even in lists and tables. - X96lee15 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how using decimal points would be inaccurate; is it being suggested sources like Baseball-Reference have it all wrong? I think the reason decimals have been the status quo isn't so much related to typewriters, but because decimals are easier to view in say, a stat table or back of a baseball card. I also find the fraction write-up a bit distracting in prose. And to repeat myself, the fractions don't look too good on a small screen; it can be quite difficult to discern whether it's a "2" or "1" above the "3." With all this being said, in the end it doesn't matter to me—but not having a standard is silly. (FAs should not be so divergent on this matter.) Let's decide on one and plunge forward. Zepppep (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The .1, .2 and .3 decimals are literally wrong because it is saying that the pitcher went through 1/10, 2/10 and 3/10s of an inning, which is not what is happening. While the fractions may look less elegant, it is much more straightforward and correct so I think we should go with that. --Torsodog^Talk 18:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

".1" is no more or less literally wrong than "1/3" is. Both mean the same thing, and is as likely to refer to 1/10 in the mathematical sense as it is to an actual 1/3. Also, as mentioned above, "innings pitched" itself is jargon, and nearly always doesn't refer to actual full innings. That's why our usage should reflect the preponderance of sources rather than insist that one or the other is "the right way". -Dewelar (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dewelar.. We should go with what the sources use... and since MLB.com itself uses the .1, .2 system thats what we should use. Plus it just looks better in stat tables and I absolutely hate having to use codes to display stuff. Spanneraol (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most stats listings use .1 and .2, and I do not oppose their usage in stats lists. However, "one-third" is often found in prose and I would propose 1⁄3 be used in prose. That being said, MOS:FRAC says for science and mathematics articles 1/3 or $\textstyle {\frac {1}{3}}$ should be used and not 1⁄3. Not entirely clear why.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Whereas using fractions such as 1/3 and 2/3 will add up to the correct inning total for everyone, whether or not they understand it refers to outs, .1 and .2 do not when using the usual decimal interpretation, and so can be confusing for the uninitiated. I believe the best approach is to use fractions. isaacl (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we not think a reader would click on the innings pitched article link, like they would likely need to for ERA? If a reader is uninitiated enough to be confused by decimal points vs. fractions, they're likely to even be more confused as to what ERA (and how it's computed) or slugging percentage, or other statistics commonly found on baseball-related pages. (Not trying to be completely one-sided, but merely posing a question.) Zepppep (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:JARGON says "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence." I think we can rely on wikilink for innings pitched for people that know nothing about baseball, but a casual baseball fan who knows there are three outs in an inning would find ".1" less intuitive than 1⁄3.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(Innings pitched would only be linked upon first reference, just like articles do for HRs, RBIs, etc. I am not proposing education by means of excessive wikilinking.) Zepppep (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I though you were implying that .1 is fine because a reader could click on the link to find out it means 1/3. Do you have a preference on .1 vs 1/3?—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Aesthetics-wise, I'm leaning decimals. From Real-Life Statistics: "IP is given by a number that looks like a decimal, but isn't, 241.1 means 241 innings plus one more out, or actually 241.333." For a reader who knows nothing about baseball, they are able to pretty much click on anything that would confuse them and find out more (whether it be a stat, team, another player). Also, since pretty much all player articles reference B-R.com, MLB.com, Retrosheet, etc., and since those sources use decimals, I'm leaning decimals per consistency (have to agree with others above, sometimes WP becomes annoying when we try to create a different mold that no other sources utilize). The one and only reason I would go with fractions was if we think it would be too confusing for a know-nothing reader to use decimals and we feel that it's asking too much for them to click on a linkable article. I don't have a strong preference although up until this point, I haven't seen as strong of arguments for fractions. Zepppep (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think aesthetics is a compelling enough argument alone for decimals. And from your explanation above it seems like decimals definitely fall under WP:Jargon. By using decimals we are consciously choosing the more confusing baseball jargon over fractions, which are more intuitive and straight forward. Why force a reader to find out on their own what the decimal means when we can literally tell them what it means right then and there with a fraction? --Torsodog^Talk 20:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Aesthetics in terms of whether a reader can read the article on a device, such as a tablet or smartphone—not, for example, whether I like the hue of orange in a table or pink #227. "Aethetics" no more than why we keep info in the info box to a minimum, why we put space between paragraphs, references in a completely different section, etc.—all of this is done for readability and ease thereof. I referenced the book because some had suggested the "decimal" was incorrect; well, the reference shows the meaning behind the madness. Is it a backstory that an unassuming reader's going to be familiar with? Likely not (esp. if this audience is not familiar). On the other hand, why force a reader, who maybe just came from B-R.com or Retrosheet (or maybe will go to after viewing the article) to try and decipher what WP means by their use of fractions and the overwhelmingly popular "decimal" on numbers of our sources (not to mention the books and journals and newspaper article that typically accompany a player article)? I think Dewelar was on to something; yes, fractions might inherently make a bit more sense but if every other source out there is using decimals, what makes us think we're so special? If an editor has a strong supporting reasons for use of fractions, I'm all ears. Zepppep (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, no, I don't think the casual reader will think too much about the meaning of the innings pitched column and try to visit the corresponding Wikipedia article, as it probably won't occur to them that the number has a meaning other than the usual decimal notation. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Innings Pitched" is a function of how many outs a pitcher gets credit for. And as you can see from this 1920s box score,[1] there was no problem rendering thirds. It was simply 1/3 or 2/3. I may be remembering incorrectly, but as far as I know this .1 and .2 stuff started with late 1960s MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia, and other publishers have picked up on it. So why did MacMillan do it that way? As I recall, it was due to problems getting their computer to generate 1/3 and 2/3 characters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's indeed interesting, although the overwhelming sources used today utilize the "." @Bagumba: if MoS is cool with "1/3," I could go for that more so than the other representations. If we don't want to be consistent with other sources, we should at least aim for readability. Zepppep (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick survey of MLB.com, Retrosheet, USAToday and the New York Times. They all use the .1 and .2 designations. That's an abomination, from my old-fashioned standpoint, but it is what it is. However, I wanted to point out that it wasn't newspaper typesetters who were to blame for this - it originated with computer-generated stats sheets. The MacMillan book (which I don't have handy so I can't give you the exact quote) made a point of explaining that .1 and .2 were being used to represent 1/3 and 2/3 of an inning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the MOS does not recommend Unicode characters for fractions, but instead suggests we use the {{frac}} template. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the template description, it would take up parts of 2 lines. That could make things look ugly. That's why 1/3 or 2/3 or .2 or .3 work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Two more FYIs: the 2-line appearance of the fraction can be toggled in your user's stylesheet (see the frac template documentation). Additionally, for sorting purposes, {{sortfrac}} can be used. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been using the {{fraction}} template for this specific reason. Problem solved! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

{{by}} vs. {{mlby}}?

Perhaps I should have come here before changing some of these, but I have noticed the widespread use of the {{by}} template as opposed to {{mlby}} in MLB player pages. Isn't the second one preferable? Why does the reader want to know about the Dominican Summer League in the year selected? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This has come up before. {{mlby}} is preferred in any MLB-related articles.—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just making sure. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, as touched on in that discussion, that most prose usages of either template are highly discouraged. -Dewelar (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

New category: screwball pitchers

I have created Category:Screwball pitchers. Add/adjust as you see fit. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up: note the category of knuckleball pitchers was deleted in 2009; the consensus view at the time was that it was a overcategorization by performance. isaacl (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

However, it was later overturned after further review.—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess no one solicited input on this talk page for the deletion review, as I wasn't aware of it (or maybe I just forgot it happened)... To be honest I think the category of screwball pitcher is about on par with forkball pitcher: a somewhat unusual pitch in the past, not thrown by anyone now, and not really a defining characteristic. isaacl (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should have any categories based on the type of pitches a pitcher might throw. Seems awfully over specific. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think knuckleballers are unique enough to have a category but not any of these other ones. Spanneraol (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the deletion discussion, I think throwing the knuckleball is a defining characteristic for those who throw it exclusively. Everyone else relies on multiple pitches—Mariano Rivera probably comes closest these days to a one-pitch pitcher, but only to left-handed batters. isaacl (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we *please* change the playoff template?

It was noted here previously before the season began that instead of following this format we should do this one. The wild card round being in the middle and not connected by line is much more asthetically pleasing in my opinion. 71.204.128.181 (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox, current season

How does one, change the 2012 'team' season to 2013 'team season, in the articles of the team's whose 2012 season has ended? GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the link on the team page in the main infobox? That is part of the infobox I think, so it is a global change for all the teams.Spanneraol (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wowsers, it's different from the NHL team articles. Reckon, one's gotta wait until the end of October. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really any different, we don't change it for NHL teams until after the awards are presented. Since the hockey project considers the awards show to be the final event of the season for teams. -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Minimum number of characters for GA?

Is there a set minimum number of characters that is required before an article can become a GA? I'm asking this because I'm not too sure of whether to nominate Neal Ball for GA. It has a wide variety of sources and is fairly in-depth but the 6,207 characters kinda makes me feel unsure. Any thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO, I'm not as concerned with the number of characters per se, but per Wikipedia:Good article criteria, 3a), a GA should "be broad in its coverage" and "address the main aspects of the topic," which to me also means to provide a reasonable amount of depth for any and all sections/subsections (looking at that specific article, I would probably add a bit more depth if wanting to go for GAN). With depth comes bytes. I would say the references of the Ball article is a strength but wouldn't go so far as to say it meets GA criteria. No matter a player played 100 years ago, there are still a multitude of sources. Some might even say the same number, as ones that were in publication then are no longer, just like ones in print today may not have existed back then. True, the sources might be a tad bit more difficult to obtain/access, but it shouldn't prevent the article from covering the subject appropriately. If you believe the subject meets the GA criteria, then don't let the number of bytes an article may have stop you from putting it up for GAN. Zepppep (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I'll definitely try to add a bit more prose to the article before nominating it for GAN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

FL reviews

The two active FLCs (Branch Rickey Award and Dick Howser Trophy could certainly benefit from any input and reviews from our baseball community. So far, it's just been the regular FL reviewers that aren't part of our WikiProject. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism?

I've been working on Jim Kern's article, and with the last part I saved, it was given a "Possible Vandalism" tag. I reread it, and didn't see what they were talking about. I'm hoping I didn't make a typo in which I turned the word "Duck" into "Fuck" or anything like that, but if I did, it eluded me. If anyone sees it, help a brother out.--71.54.247.55 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

It's tags either a BLP or vandalism issue. Nothing appears wrong, but the BLP might kick into place because the sentence "In 1994, he created and hosted Nolan Ryan’s First Spring Turkey Hunt for Fox Sports" isn't sourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the most likely cause is your section header that begins with "troubles with..." The edit filter there is based only on key words/phrases and their placement. Couple that with your being an IP editor, and it triggered the rule. I wouldn't worry about it myself. That filter doesn't prevent editing, nor will it revert your additions. It is merely the result of a few too many anonymous editors whose editing was not as productive as yours. Resolute 23:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Catching notability, O'Neill

I know in our recent discussion about notability of certain awards/feats, a pitcher recording a perfect game or no-hitter was considered worthy enough to be in the info box, but what about catcher's who've caught one of these types of games? Also, am I correct in that combined no-hitters would not be worthy enough of inclusion in the info box as well as a winner of the Tip O'Neill Award? I would argue a catcher's role in such a game could certainly be placed in the lead or "Highlights and awards" section, but not worthy enough to be placed in the info box. Combined no-hitters should not be included in the info box for all pitchers involved, IMO. Zepppep (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Other than Varitek's record of 4 no-hitters caught, I don't believe catching a perfect game quite a celebrated feat that would merit inclusion into infoboxes. Whenever there is news about a historical anniversary of a perfect game, the emphasis is almost always placed on the pitcher solely and never the catcher. Although the catcher dictates what pitches the pitcher should throw, at the end of the day, it's the pitcher who has to throw with precision, accuracy and execute the pitch that could make or break a perfecto. With regards to your second point, I would also agree that combined no-hitters are kinda cheap. For example, 6 Mariners pitchers combined for a no-hitter this season. All 5 relievers pitched an inning or less, which really doesn't merit the same recognition as pitching a complete game no-hitter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, what do fellow editors think about Fielding Bible Awards? Notable enough for info box or not? Zepppep (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so for that either. I agree with them way more than the Gold Gloves, but the GG is what's official. Wizardman 14:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

2013 Major League Baseball season discussion

Input is required at this newly created article. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is what is defined as the start of Baseball's Modern Era? AutomaticStrikeout 01:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Problem resolved. AutomaticStrikeout 01:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hold on; please review this discussion thread for some problems with identifying the first MLB season. (For some reason, part of this discussion did not get archived in the correct section; see also section 9.1 on the archive page.) isaacl (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the first season, it's about the start of the modern era, which began in 1901. AutomaticStrikeout 16:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "modern era". Spanneraol (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

True. I suppose we should get consensus on how to define the modern era. AutomaticStrikeout 16:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to use MLB's counting? It celebrated the 125th season of major league baseball in 1994, which would make 2013 the 144th season. That seems the closest to objective, given "modern era" apparently is ambiguous. Resolute 16:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have others weigh in on this so that we have consensus established before I go and edit over 100 pages. Frankly, I think that Resolute is probably correct. AutomaticStrikeout 18:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The MLB is not always the greatest at counting. Take, for example, the fudged number for Cobb's career hits. :) Does the modern era begin when the AL and NL were effectively put on equal footing (1901), or when they actually were (reserve clause, World Series, etc. in 1903)? Do other major leagues in existence at the same time get thrown into the equation? The MLB is a business and thus they have their own agenda—what they dole out does not necessarily match up with the truth. We should base our decision off of evaluation from historians and their verifiable sources. If that just so happens to put the league at it's 144th season, so be it. If a footnote is going to be put into an article to explain to the reader "modern era" is ambiguous and we're using the MLB defined year per consensus, then let the reader know it. Zepppep (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Resolute as well. For something like this, it really is the MLBs decision to decide what that number is. Not historians. Now if there were an article talking about season numbering then yes you could include that historians disagree with the league. But on season pages you would have to go with the MLB numbering because that would be the official number and to use anything else would be confusing to readers and would technically be untrue even if historians disagree with them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct, in assuming that 144th is the agreed numbering for the 2013 season? GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've completed the numbering of Major League Baseball season articles, 1901 season to 2013 season. Note: There's no 1876 to 1900 Major League Baseball season articles. Just re-directs to respective 'Year in Baseball' articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know where it says 1994 was the 125th season. Was it the 125th season, or the 125th anniversary? Those are not the same thing. And keep in mind that the major leagues, or actually professional baseball, celebrated its "centennial" in 1969, going with the Red Stockings being the first professional team. So 1969 was the 100th anniversary, but the 101st season. Likewise, 2013 would be the 144th anniversary, but the 145th season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As I suspected, as per this,[2] and various other stuff you can google, 1994 was the 125th anniversary, not the 125th season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, our own article 1994 in baseball points out that it was the 125th anniversary of the Cincinnati Red Stockings. So 2012 was the 143rd anniversary, and the 144th season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the 2011, 2012 and 2013 articles to reflect the facts. Someone else can work on the others. 2012 is in no way the 143rd anniversary of Major League Baseball itself, which historians consider to have begun in 1876, not 1869. But it is the 143rd anniversary of professional baseball (i.e. the Red Stockings) as per general consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As Mr. Hand might wonder about Baseball historians, are they on dope?. I've restored the numberings that nobody 'initially' complained about. TBH, I'd have no problem 'removing' them entirely. I only bothered with them, because someone was determined to number the 2013 season article & I had no interested in getting into an edit-war or long drawn out discussion. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay has convinced me that this numbering should be removed, except for cases where MLB has explicitly honored an anniversary, e.g. 1969 and 1994. As I've said above, the numbering is factually wrong for two reasons: MLB doesn't start with either 1869 or 1870. And 1969 was the 100th anniversary of pro ball, and the 101st season of pro ball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be objecting, so during this week I'll begin deletions. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletions completed. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of these deletions mean that the opening sentence of some articles is no longer a sentence (e.g. "The 1952 Major League Baseball season."), so I will try to fix some of these. --Jameboy (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User accessibility concerns

I have recently been replying to questions about user accessibility when it come to NHL templates (as seen at WP:Hockey - User accessibility concerns. I believe the templates administered by this project also have the same problem - That is templates (like {{San Diego Padres}}) were the color combination does not meet our policy for partially or fully color blind people (see WP:CONTRAST and WP:NAVBOXCOLOR). There is also a concern about hiding links by way of nice colors (like white and red links at {{Baltimore Orioles}}). We should never impede user accessibility by way of link recognition just to have nice colors (see WP:Link color and WP:CONTRAST) - "Links should clearly be identifiable as links to readers". I see this may be a monumental task to have to fix all the templates - but following basic accessibility and link color policy is something all projects should strive for.Moxy (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely- I think the best way to fix this is to use a border like the NFL does, and the Florida Gators Baseball navbox does: ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with these sentiments. Some nav boxes I have seen, such as dark blue font with dark blue or black background color, would be difficult for anyone to view. Zepppep (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed the current NHL navboxes to help with accessibility issues but now that the color is just in the borders there are editors that disagree with the look of the templates now. If you would like to see what we (as a consensus at the time) agreed upon the link is here. I would be more than happy to aide in any way with your issues as well and maybe we can come up with a standard that can bridge across the Hockey/Baseball/Football divide. The issue is as per WP:Link color and WP:NAVBOXCOLOR all links must be easily identified to the readers and within a NavBox all text should only be the standard (Black/White) with the exception of links that are to remain the standard color. Going even further, the W3C has a algorithm that the brightness difference is to be greater than 125 and the color difference is to be greater than 500 from background color to text color.

Example: The current groupstyle for the example Richmond96 gave is the background is #FF4A00 and the text color is #FFFFFF. Using a Color Contrast Checker the brightness difference is 135 and the color difference is 436. It does not meet both criteria set by the W3C so the color contrast is incorrect.

The easiest solution we came up with was to use the teams primary colors as a top/bottom border for the title with the secondary color the border of the groups. Please if there is a way that we can as editors (regardless of WikiProjects) for Wikipedia can come to a conclusion on how to rectify the accessibility issues I will be more than happy to participate. B2project (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ejection mention in article for Sam Holbrook

I have re-opened a discussion on the inclusion of an ejection in the article for Sam Holbrook. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A request

I'm currently in the finals of the WikiCup, a competition to see who can promote the most content. I'd appreciate it if anyone can review some of the articles I've nominated for promotion. I don't normally ask for this, but as the contest ends on October 31, the clock is ticking, and I'd like to finish with as high a score as possible. I don't expect to win, but I want to have as representative a showing as possible. My active baseball FL and GA noms are listed here. Anything you review will give you the right to nudge me to review your work when you have a nomination. Thanks in advance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson retired number situation

IP 99.68.24.244 has been removing Jackie Robinson's name from several lists of retired numbers in team infoboxes. I want to know if we all agree that this should be reverted. AutomaticStrikeout 01:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This user seems to have a track record of inserting misinformation and I am taking the liberty of undoing their attack on the website. AutomaticStrikeout 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, it should be removed (just like #99 from the NHL articles). However, the IP should be getting a consensus for those removals. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This IP has a habit of changing the 1937 World Series page to say that that Series was between the White Sox and Reds (it was not). AutomaticStrikeout 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that the IP's been blocked for 3 months. Thank goodness. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed. It was retired by every team league wide. Therefore it is a retired number for that team. It's the same as Wayne Gretzky in hockey. We have it on every team page as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This type of edit from the user should be reverted. When teams start taking the number down from their outfield walls, game programs, etc., then we can follow suit. Until then, it shall remain. I believe it was the MLB that retired the number, and not each team actually voting yay or nay publicly (although likely privately, as the commissioner works for the owners of the teams), so an asterisk denoting the number is retired MLB-wide would be fine, but it's still a retired number for that team. Zepppep (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think I un-did all or at least most of the damage, but you are welcome to take a look yourself here. AutomaticStrikeout 21:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"What if" scenario for new wild card format

I have started a discussion on the inclusion of hypothetical wild card game matchups from 1995 to 2011 in the Major League Baseball Wild Card Game article. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's getting close to "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been several days and haven't seen a revert to my revert. Typically as long as the reasoning is clear or points to specific guidelines/policies (via edit summary, talk page, or editor's talk page), editors don't quarrel too much. Also don't see any replies to the article's talk page so don't think this is an issue anymore. Zepppep (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Expansion teams on Jim Leyland

Do we agree with the premise of this diff, that charter members of the American League should be considered expansion teams? AutomaticStrikeout 02:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not technically inaccurate, yet it feels dishonest saying that. I mean, technically of course the fastest team to it would be for the first one. I wouldn't keep it in but I'm not adamant about removing it. Wizardman 02:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A charter member of a league is not an expansion team in that league. Perhaps a compromise wording would be a variation on "... the second fastest since they joining the league"? That could be broad enough to pick up both an original member and an expansion team, starting the count from the team's first season of play. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The original 8 in the AL are only "expansion" teams in the sense that the league went from 0 to 8, and that's not what is meant by "expansion team". And in any case, most of the 1901 teams had also been in the league the previous year when it was still a minor league. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the Americans/Red Sox addition to the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Roberto Clemente

There is currently a discussion on the article's talk page on whether to allow growing edits to continue to remain in the article, edits which have raised significant concerns (namely WP:NPOV, or to go back to a version of the article at the time it was awarded GA status. The article lost its GA status a few months ago and there is concern that instead of making the article stronger and addressing issues editors have brought to the forefront, the issues are getting only more numerous. Zepppep (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Need help with baseball coach page please

Hello wiki baseball helpers... I need some help with the page Jack Maloof. He is my father and asked me to update his wiki page with updated and correct info. I have made the updates but it appears they may be viewed now as COI. Can someone help me with this? He was promoted today by the KC Royals as their new Hitting Coach. Here are a number of news links today verifying his promotion as well as most of the information on his wiki page:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/royals-promote-jack-maloof-to-hitting-coach-andre-david-to-assistant-hitting-coach/2012/10/24/a97f5b9e-1dfe-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121024&content_id=40014022&vkey=pr_kc&c_id=kc

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/wires/10/24/2010.ap.bba.royals.coaches.0150/

I can provide more links if needed. In addition, here's more reference material on his player/coaching stats to verify the info. on his wiki page: http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=maloof001jac
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Jack_Maloof

I simply need someone to assist me with non-COI verification so the tags at the top of his page can be removed. Can someone help with this?

cobrafromzona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobrafromzona (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I did some brief work on the article, but there's plenty more to do and some of what I did might even be wrong. I'd appreciate it if one of our better content workers would pitch in. AutomaticStrikeout 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help AutomaticStrikeout... any more baseball helpers out there to assist on this page? I can continue to verify all content and images... just need independent help to ensure we get the COI tag removed. cobrafromzona (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)cobrafromzona

Yeah, I can help out. I commented on your user talk page. But I'll start tomorrow as I'm too tired tonight. Ping me on my talk page with what you'd like help with. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack Morris infobox question

There is a mini edit war going on at Jack Morris regarding the infobox mention of Morris being involved in the 93 World Series. I'm sure project-wide consensus has been reached for this sort of thing, but I don't know what it is, so if someone who does could please intervene here before it gets testy, that would be great. AutomaticStrikeout 21:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, based on prior discussions, it was determined that a player must have been on the WS roster for it to be mentioned in the infobox.--Yankees10 21:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When I noticed Yankees10's reversion of me, I started a thread on his talk page discussing it (because the lead and a subsequent section mentions 4 championships, compared to infobox's 3). I was satisfied with his response. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've researched this issue online and have not found a definitive answer. This site (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Jack_Morris) says he "didn't play" in the Series, but it doesn't say whether he was on the roster or not. It does he he is a 4x World Series winner. Where was it "determined" that he shouldn't get credit in the infobox? I agree he had a crappy year, but that seems to be immaterial.StuSutcliffe 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that it's a rather tricky issue - if the Nationals won the WS, then Strasburg would not have been listed as a World Series Champion, because the Nationals chose to shut him down. I am unable, however, to come up with a good solution. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? He would get a World Series ring and a winner's share of the gate receipts. He's still on the team, he's just effectively on the "disabled list". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

With the current "must be on the World Series Roster", he would not be able to be listed as a World Series Champion. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Whose rule is that? MLB's? Or is it wikipedia original research? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be the current rationale on WP. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(If an editor states a previous discussion was had regarding this, it'd be great if a link could be provided.) Remember getting a WS ring is not the same as being on the playoff, or WS, roster. Players who've played for a team which goes on to win the WS receive a ring in the mail; it does not mean they actually played in the WS. This means they are a WS champion, however. The info box is meant to provide a snapshot of pertinent info.; it is not supposed to replace the detail provided in the body. Zepppep (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use World Series Rings as a criteria because former players that were traded away, etc, may still get one. (Nomar Garciaparra got one for 2004 Red Sox, for example.) But there needs to be a line. WS Roster is too small, but we have no way of confirming who's on the roster at each stage of post-season. Zepppep, the issue is that at Jack Morris, the lead says he played on 4 Championship teams, but the infobox directly says 3x World Champions - which is what caused this discussion to begin with in the first place.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Right about Nomar and many others. Playing on a team that won a WS during the same season a player happened to be on the roster or get onto the field is different than playing on team which went to (and eventually won) the WS. Morris is a four-time WS champion; it does not mean he was on the roster at the same time the team won or that he even played in the actual games. He did play on 4 teams who won the WS; his contributions helped (no matter how big or small) the team do that. The lead can also make use of parentheses to make it clear to the reader that he was not on the team at the time they won a WS. What is MLB's official stance on this? Are teams required to give a ring to any players who were with the team during a year they won a WS, or is it just one of many unwritten rules of baseball? Perhaps this is why B-R.com doesn't list World Series championships won in a player's feats...Zepppep (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Can we get back to how to deal with this issue..? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have requested that editors who stated this was discussed (and agreed upon) in previous discussions simply provide a link for those of us wanting to know. So far, I haven't seen a link provided and it's possible consensus can change. Zepppep (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but there is zero actual evidence that Morris wasn't on the WS roster. The fact that he didn't appear in a game doesn't mean he wasn't on the roster. I'm adding him back in, pending any evidence that 1) he wasn't on the WS roster, and 2) that is actually a requirement for WP pages.StuSutcliffe 16:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You cant "prove" a negative. The onus of proof is in proving he was on the roster. He never played in a game in the series and the common practice is only to include people in the info box and navboxes who actively participated in the series. We go by the sources and for the older series it is impossible to tell who was on the roster and didnt play or who was awarded a ring... the only was to really have a bright line way to tell these things is to go by the boxscore.. and since he didnt play he doesnt get listed. Spanneraol (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the issue I raised still has not gone answered. For example, Barry Zito did not pitch at all in Giants' WS victory back in 2010, and his current infobox does state he is a WS Champion. (I use him because media's been blowing up about how Zito was left off the postseason roster completely in 2010.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Baseball team pages

I think a real effort needs to be made to improve the main team pages... in particular the excessive detail on recent seasons that has been added. For example, the San Francisco Giants page has a lot of info on recent seasons, more info than even is on the History of the San Francisco Giants page or the season articles. This has a tendency to make the main page very long... I would propose that the main page just have a fairly brief history of the franchise, with most of the details moved to the history of.. pages and/or the season pages, more like what I've done with the Los Angeles Dodgers and History of the Los Angeles Dodgers pages. It seems more encyclopedic that way and those wanting more detailed information can always look to the team season pages. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm thinking of undertaking something like this during the offseason cause these pages need serious work. Spanneraol (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Washington Nationals is another article that has more details that the specific season articles. I'm not clear on what general consensus is for the season articles, though: is the intent to have a summary of major events, similar to a previous season summary in a team's annual media guide? (The media guide summaries I've seen are fairly detailed.) Or should the list of events be narrowed to key ones of greater long-term notability? isaacl (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how I could have forgotten the previous extended discussion on the level of detail for a season summary, where some think a brief sentence for every game is warranted, and others don't. Not wanting to start that discussion again, consider my question withdrawn... isaacl (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue. Team pages pretty much constantly have to be edited for recentism and have the majority of detail moved to the season pages. This isn't something that can be done and then its over with. It is something people are going to have to watch every day of the seasons. It is pretty hard to keep up with though. We tried organizing people at the hockey project to watch specific teams for it, but as can be expected people lost interest and again we fell behind those adding all the recent news. @Issacl Season pages should be an overview of the entire season edited for notable events in the context of that season but possibly not the teams history overall. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats pretty much why I took all the season details stuff out of the Dodgers page and left it as a very brief summary.. discourages people from trying to expand it and they move to the history page instead. Spanneraol (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a difficult task, but an important one. I think that IP editor interest will die down during the offseason, making it an ideal time to pare down details of team articles. It might be easiest if we can have people split up all 30 team articles to cut excess detail from and monitor. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I caution that detail should not be cut, but moved to the team history and/or specific season page (WP:PRESERVE). Ideally, "History of XXX" should have details on overall team history; its lead should have a high-level summary, which should be mostly duplicated or transcluded into the main team page. Specifics on seasons can go into season team page. For example, 2012 San Diego Padres season mentions the debut of Casey Kelly, which is probably not notable for History of the San Diego Padres unless he later turns into a star. However, new team ownership is mentioned in both the season and history article, and should arguably make its way into the main team article as well. Once things are cleaned up on the team page, an editnotice informing editors of the existence of history and season articles would help with maintenance. Honestly, most part-time editors (and maybe some full-time) probably aren't aware of the hierarchy.—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that detail should be moved.. I was looking at the Padres page today and everything on the main page had been an exact duplicate of what was on the history page with the exception of a small section on 2012 so i moved that to the history page and pretty much got rid of everything else.. Perhaps needs slightly more detail on the main page but I don't know if every team ownership change needs to be there. If we can agree on how much info to include, then we can split up in the articles and get them done before the IPs return in spring training. Spanneraol (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability of local clubs (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victoria HarbourCats)

Greetings, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victoria HarbourCats is up at WP:AFC, and I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability and it mostly focuses on players, not organisations. Can anyone comment (ideally at the article) as to whether local clubs like this meet WP:N, and if so how much coverage they need (can it be all hometown or must be wider media coverage?). It's AFC, so you can comment directly on the draft itsef, preferably by putting the template {{afc comment}} first. Thanks for any expert advice for our more generalised technical reviewers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the baseball project, but I do know the soccer editors commonly use a set of guidelines to determine the notability of smaller clubs. Perhaps that can help. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:NTEST Sidatio (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A comparable club would be the Okotoks Dawgs, though that organization has received national attention. The AFC request is moot, however, as someone else already created an article in mainspace. Resolute 01:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Braun GA status

FYI

In case anyone is interested in cleaning up Ryan Braun to head off a GAR? See Talk:Ryan_Braun#section_.27Overturned_suspension.27_tagged_POV.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll at least take a look. Give me a couple of days. Go Phightins! 01:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at it while GP's doing other stuff. Wow. Most of the religious stuff could probably be nuked, and the testosterone bit needs to get tailored down to what actually happened, not what people THINK or BELIEVE happened. That was a really good article once. Sidatio (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources for Jim Thome

I have been working on bringing Thome up to GA status and I think that it's almost ready. My concern lies in the Cleveland Indians section, for which I am having difficulty finding additional sources. Should anyone happen to find something, I would greatly appreciate you letting me know. I of course am still looking, but my web options are quickly becoming exhausted. I still have an encyclopedia to pore through, but anyway, if anyone finds anything, let me know. Thanks--Go Phightins! 01:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget about the Google News Archives. AutomaticStrikeout 01:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's true. I also found some information from an encyclopedia my grandfather gave me years ago. The section now looks decent, but I'll still check the archives. Thanks--Go Phightins! 02:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. As an aside, somebody might want to take a look at this most recent edit to Double play. It might not be completely helpful, I'm not sure. AutomaticStrikeout 02:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Two things: a.) I've nominated Thome for GA b.) I reverted the edit with a polite edit summary asking the IP to use the WP:BRD model if he felt strongly about it. Go Phightins! 02:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also have a look at your local library's web site; it may offer online access to various newspaper archives. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Great resource for old baseball tid-bits

FYI, the book I used to add to the Jim Thome article has comprehensive coverage of all MLB seasons from 2002 all the way back to the late 1800s complete with an index that shows players names. If you are looking for additional info. on a player, team, or season, let me know, and this book may have what we're looking for. Thanks--Go Phightins! 02:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dan Duquette

An IP has been adding a win-loss record table in this article. I believe this is against the consensus reached by this project and I have reverted twice, yet the editor continues to reinsert the content. I'd prefer not to get in trouble over WP:3RR. AutomaticStrikeout 02:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Reverted and added lengthy edit summary. Go Phightins! 20:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

World Series lead sentence

For an article like 2012 World Series, it seems like World Series and 2012 Major League Baseball season would be obvious links readers (esp. non/casual baseball readers) would want access to. I propose wording such as

The World Series during Major League Baseball's (MLB) 2012 season was the 108th edition of the league's championship series.

This is also consistent with the MOS:BOLDTITLE guideline (particuarly the example listed regarding 2011 Mississippi River floods). The article title is not always suitable to be copied as is into the lead, especially for descriptive titles such as this one. Note also that MOS:CONTEXTLINK discourages 2012 World Series (links in bold), and WP:MOSLINK discourages back-to-back links. A user removed the proposed change, seemingly requiring me to change all other articles as well. Assuming this change was acceptable, I'm not sure why we wouldn't want some and eventually all WS articles improved instead of having them all consistently subpar now. At any rate, I'm not gungho enough to change them all without consensus first.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna say where does it say you have to do something, but you linked to the right policy. I'm in favor of your change and I can help implement it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Rockies

FYI

See my suggestion here. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy over MLB Holds record

There seems to be a discrepancy over which pitcher owns the MLB record for holds. Mike Stanton's article, as well as the article on holds itself, states that he is the all-time leader. However, Arthur Rhodes's article says he is. The claim for Stanton seems to be supported by Baseball-Reference.com, who list Stanton as having 266 holds, to Rhodes's 254. However, the claim for Rhodes is supported by Baseball Almanac, who list him as the record-holder with 216. Thoughts? Delaywaves • talk 18:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

MLB.com lists Rhodes as the leader with 231 and Stanton in 11th with 144, tied with Chad Qualls. So the discrepancy must be in the definition of a "hold". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny that MLB doesnt consider it an official stat, but still tracks it. Some agencies requires at least 1/3 inning pitch while others don't.—Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem may also lie in retroactive status of the hold... are pitchers credited with holds prior to the creation of the stat? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding was always that you had to record one out...I guess perhaps Almanac allows you to come in with a runner on first, walk a guy, exit, and count it as a hold and Reference doesn't or vice versa? Interesting...Go Phightins! 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The original definition, as I understand it, had the same requirements as for a save, except the pitcher didn't finish the game and so didn't get a save. This would include getting an out (but as noted above and in the holds article, some statistical sources don't require this for their counts). Regarding retroactivity, it's not like giving out an award after the fact (nothing's at stake other than an accounting of what a player did), so as long as enough information is known to determine that the right conditions were met, the hold can be counted. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'd rather go with MLB's ranking here, unless we have a source from Elias Sports Bureau. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wins in World Series infobox

2002 World Series

Team (Wins) Manager Season Anaheim Angels (4) Mike Scioscia 99–63, .611, GB: 4 San Francisco Giants (3) Dusty Baker 95–66, .590, GB: 2½
Dates:	October 19–October 27
MVP:	Troy Glaus (Anaheim)
Television:	Fox
TV announcers:	Joe Buck and Tim McCarver
Radio:	ESPN
Radio announcers:	Jon Miller and Joe Morgan
Umpires:	Jerry Crawford, Mike Reilly, Tim McClelland, Tim Tschida, Mike Winters, Angel Hernandez
ALCS:	Anaheim Angels over Minnesota Twins (4–1)
NLCS:	San Francisco Giants over St. Louis Cardinals (4–1)

Is it just me or is it a strain to see the number of wins for each team the series. I think it should be more prominent or obvious, perhaps by putting it in a dedicated column and removing the season record? Season records are not shown in 2012 NBA Finals, Super Bowl XLVI, or 2012 Stanley Cup Finals.—Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that 2012 Stanley Cup Finals having the game scores and then the tally at the end seems like a good solution to me. It is pretty readable. As for the season record I don't think its necessary but it could be moved elsewhere in the box, same with the manager. -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would support the hockey format for listing the game and series results.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

While we are at it, how essential are the umpires to having a snapshot view of the series. They seem like clutter, and to a lesser extent the TV/radio info.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would keep the umpires and definitely the media but remove the ALCS and NLCS from the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of the article, the article is about the World Series. While I would mention those things in the article, I wouldn't put them in the infobox. I would suggest changing the umpires to a listed format like the hockey one instead of trying to cram multiple on a line. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Stanley Cup infobox has a better layout than the World Series infobox. Regular season record is irrelevant by the time the World Series happens. I'm undecided about keeping LCS info in (it is important background that should be mentioned in the first sections of the WS article) or umpires/broadcasting detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

One thought looking at that box. You could move the team's season record under the team name and put the series wins into the right column as a pretty easy fix. In that case, I'd probably remove the winning percentage and the GB notation as it is not all that intuitive. The Angels were 4 games back of what? Resolute 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Since 2003, the team regular season records have become even more irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Baseball hasn't used the regular season records for the World Series in quite a while... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FL reviews needed

20+ days have passed since the two active FLCs (Branch Rickey Award and Dick Howser Trophy) were nominated. I would greatly appreciate it if members of our baseball community could help review them ASAP. Plus, Muboshgu needs them passed by October 31 in order for them to count towards the 2012 WikiCup, so let's help him (the last representative of this WikiProject in the comp) out, shall we? —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

20+ isn't all that long, compared to other lists or articles that have waited 6 mos. or more. There are an awful lot of to-do's around here. Still a few days yet, I guess...Zepppep (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Tried to do my little part. Zepppep (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, at least one of them got passed before the deadline. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:SNIyer12#Disruptive editing

This user never stops. I think it's long past time we get an administrator to intervene. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm familiar with this situation, what in particular in the problem? AutomaticStrikeout 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh man where to begin? In short, this editor has been around for years. His edits aren't quite vandalism, per se, but they violate WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:POINT, and a whole bunch of other policies. On 1996 New York Yankees season, for instance, Spanneraol and I told him not to add some synthesis in August, he let it be, and now that he thinks the dust has died down, he just readded it a few hours ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest you file a report at WP:ANI. AutomaticStrikeout 15:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been hesitant to pull the trigger myself because I have had to clean up much of his mess over the years. Technically I still could do it because most of my involvement has been administrative in nature. (mostly because he never responds to anyone) But it would be much cleaner a block if another admin could do it. But if another admin doesn't step up let me know and I will make the call. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Would Bagumba or Wizardman be eligible to handle this? Note that Bagumba might not be the best option, he seems to be on vacation. AutomaticStrikeout 16:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Without going through their edit histories I couldn't say. I don't know if either of them have every been involved with him in anything other than an admin capacity. They watch this page, so if they can help I am sure they will. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the editor in question is a net positive, even if it is tiresome to see the same information re-added every month or so, so just reverting with a minimum of fuss seemed best. However, most recently, I've posted requests to stop re-inserting information that has no consensus support, so it is clear that the issue has been raised to the editor's attention. I'm open to suggestions for new ways to engage with the editor collaboratively. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Truthfully, I have never once seen Snyler responded to any feedback in all the years I have been here. For the most part, his attitude on these things is to insert something and if it gets reverted, wait a while then try again in the hopes that nobody is watching. I'm a little too involved historically (I've taken a couple of his articles to AfD - where his response was to redirect the articles to undermine the discussion, then try to restore later), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take any administrative action myself, but I am of a mind to think that if he continues, we need to follow through on previous warnings and block him until he shows a willingness to accept and respond to the concerns of others. Resolute 17:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that if the editor really does have such a reputation of disruptive-ness and failure to listen/heed warnings, it seems the only way to get their attention is to block them. If they don't learn from the first block, keep blocking until either they learn or they've been indeffed. They may do some good work here, but no single editor is bigger than the project and no editor should be allowed to think they are. AutomaticStrikeout 17:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The behaviour wastes editors' time, but otherwise is a fairly minor disruption. Ironically, the problematic lack of communication, though disappointing, limits the amount of disruption, though some time still must be spent initiating discussions, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and community expectations. (There is a second-order effect, though: all of the person's edits are scrutinized more closely, taking up a bit more time, particularly since the editor is often quite prolific.) isaacl (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't really that minor there are whole articles that have been destroyed by his editing that are impossible to fix at this point without scraping the entire page because it wasn't caught soon enough. He makes very very few good edits. Most of what he writes are all blogging type writing in articles. Pretty much none of his edits are encyclopaedic in nature. The only useful edits he does make is when he adds references, but even those are usually only to back up his bad edits. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Most recently, there haven't been many maintenance edits, but there have been periods with a lot of them. Most of the content edits do lean towards sports columnist style versus encyclopedic; there is a very little leeway for this to add a bit of colour, but only a tiny bit, and I agree the edits are usually beyond this limit. isaacl (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

They're very few and far between, but there have been some discussions. Unfortunately, the editor has not appeared to be persuaded by any of them that the inserted material was not sufficiently notable for inclusion, or consisted of original research. Nor has there been a willingness to follow consensus views. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, SNIyer12' refusal to interact with editors who oppose his additions & re-additions, is extremely counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's time to open a Rfc/U, on SNIyer12. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

An editor can just as easily be blocked for disruptive editing as vandalism. I wouldn't hesitate to go to ANI on this one. Present the facts, let supporters and detractors have their say, and an admin will make a decision. A baseball-related admin need not look at this. WP:OR is something within the purview of all article types, not just baseball ones. Zepppep (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I already notified most of you on your user talk pages, but I have opened an ANI report here. AutomaticStrikeout 20:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, he has now been indef'd, pending something resembling a written response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It worked! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Impressive. I didn't expect anything to come from it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you both referring to the block? When I saw your remarks, I thought he had responded somewhere, but I didn't see anything. AutomaticStrikeout 16:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the block. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, he's back, with SNIyer1234 (talk · contribs). I opened a SPI case. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've notified WP:HOCKEY. Jeepers, that guy's gonna be a pain in the butt. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Be on the lookout in case there is more.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there's already been an RFC on the editor's behaviour, under the name SNIyer1 (with SNIyer12 already created and editing at the time). isaacl (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I do believe, we have a troubled editor. Expect future block-evading socks. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Eight years is a long time to have persisted in behaviour at odds with any community; I encourage the editor to find a more productive means of expression. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that account. I remember having found it years and years ago. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, here another RFC on the editor's behaviour. isaacl (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mike Redmond DYK

Anyone wanna help me get Mike Redmond a full 5x expanded so we can get it promoted to DYK? It was at 1500 characters before, now it's at 5300, so it's getting close, but I'm going out of town for a few days. There's also a great hook in the Personal section. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the article to 7438 characters, but it's still a ways off from the 7735 characters needed to achieve 5x. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Over 5x now, albeit barely. Wizardman 23:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Barely is fine. I've now nominated it for DYK, satisfied the QPQ requirement and added listed Muboshgu and Wizardman as co-authors. Feel free to reword the hook if you think it's necessary. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Does it barely qualify now? The article was overlinked....William 00:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Now you've caused it to go under. It's now 7,666. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Added back the stat with a ref under the "Playing and managing style" section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's random sports stats trivia and that's why I removed it. Top 4....Yeesh....William 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced and it's not random because it is an official stat. By removing any prose, you could potentially jeopardize the article's DYK nomination! Seriously, if you're going to remove info, at least add some sourced info back, otherwise this will most certainly lead to a fail DYK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's random stats pulled out of thin air aka a stats record book....William 01:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

His career is based around defense. Do you have anything better to add (i.e. we need people to contribute, not take away)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Added an all-time career number (2nd in fielding % as a catcher). It is not a random stat. If William thinks it is, then I'd request that he also remove Pete Rose's 4,256 hits record from his article for the sake of consistency. After all, based on his premise, it's just another "random stat pulled out of a record book." —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You're being silly now in addition to careless like when you removed the 'People from Spokane Washington' category earlier. Being the all-time leader in hits(Rose) or having the best career fielding percentage at catcher is an accomplishment, 3 times in the top four of a yearly fielding statistic is trivia....William 02:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never added or deleted a category (and if I did, it's completely accidental). And calling me "silly now" is considered a personal attack. I don't appreciate it and I'd advise you to stop. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting me to take down Rose's number, ask yourself if it doesn't sound silly? Oh and here's your removal[3] of Spokane, Washington edit. The Redmond being #1 in fielding percentage was right in front of you and still you had to choose the CS bit. Your zeal to get this to DYK is causing you to make mistakes. The article was sloppy in places(repetition and not maintaining NPOV) and overlinked. Not anymore....William 02:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not silly at all. I'm just asking you to put your money where your mouth is. If you truly believe numbers are merely "random stat pulled out of a record book," I'm asking you to follow up on your claim. Furthermore, you just continue to harp about the fact that I got CS% and FLDG% mixed up and use that as your premise to call it "sloppy" and how I'm "mak[ing] mistakes." Truth is, your link to my accidental error was wrong and had to be corrected by Djsasso. Give me a break! —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair he wasn't saying all numbers are meerly random stats. He said placing in the top 4 in a yearly category was. That is a far cry from a career leader in a stat. Two very different things, he is correct, saying someone was in the top 4 for a couple of seasons is trivial. Mentioning a career stat leader like Pete Rose is not. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bloom you need to calm down. You are clearly too worked up over something that isn't that big a deal. Walk away. Someone saying you are being silly is not a personal attack, and even if it was I am sure you have thicker skin than for silly to bother you. -DJSasso (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel it's extremely unjust—to myself and the two other editors who worked so hard on this article—for our efforts to to go completely down the drain. We nominated this for DYK when it was over the 5× minimum requirement, but thanks to an editor who refuses to add other material after deleting what he considers "sloppy", the article is now under. Does that editor care to add material even when politely requested? Nope. I'm not going to judge his intentions, but my question now is, why not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom6132 (talk • contribs)

The things he fixed did need fixing, the information he removed did need removing. The fact that its now below the threshold means you will just have to find more information. It is not a race. You appear to have jumped the gun a bit to fast in nominating it. Which isn't a bad thing because it shows enthusiasm. But sometimes slower is better. Our goal here is for the best possible article, not shiny DYK acknowledgements. -DJSasso (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't believe I jumped the gun in nominating this article. 3 days of expansion is reasonable. What we didn't expect was for a deletionist-only editor who also refuses to help replace the information he deleted with new material. That is what annoys me the most. I know it isn't required by WP policy, but I do think something called common human decency exists. Or does that not apply on WP? —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts to get a 5x DYK on a non-stub article. That being said, there is a couple more days to fall within the five days from beginning of expansion cutoff, so there is still time. May I suggest mentioning in the body the years where he had career highs in games and RBIs. Batting .305 in 89 games in 2002 is notable, as is 38 rbi high in 2007. A few basic stats for 2003 like 59 games, 141 AB, .240 and 11 RBIs would be worth mentioning since it was a WS year. Please remember that there is no requirement that anyone has to do anything. We are all volunteers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Another problem The whole first ejection paragraph. This was discussed[4] before. First ejections were not considered notable for mention in an umpire articles and logically they shouldn't be in player articles also....William 17:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree on the ejection. It is relatively rare for a player to be ejected which would make it notable in their career. An umpire on the other hand is likely to make many ejections so an ejection wouldn't be notable in the context of their career. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's anything we've learnt from this discussion, it's that WP is brought down by reactive users, who can only complain about the contributions of others and delete them based on their subjective and skewed POV without having anything better to add. This is truly tragic, as this marginalizes proactive writers who strive to contribute to WP and come up with better ideas to improve WP. What's even more ridiculous is that this user attempts to make a DYK nomination page as his soapbox to air his views. What a shame! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Word count issue done (for now). It's presently 7,848 characters-long—unless someone decides to remove more content. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Late to the party but commenting. I would have removed it too, and William was right to do that. Your conduct was bad enough, Bloom, to the point where I'm not sure if I'll help out on a DYK bid if asked again. Wizardman 03:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing saddens me. There is no requirement for any of us to contribute anything here besides what we choose, but it is also unproductive to discourage or impede one's drive for a DYK. Not sure what the happy medium is. It's also unfortunate that sniping, if it must exist, isn't worked out on peoples' personal pages.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

i whole-heartedly agree. I never insisted on anyone being required to edit. None of us are. You may agree or disagree, but I just feel it's common human decency to help out with rather than impede another user's contributions. I'm not bitter by the fact that William trimmed down the article. It's the fact that the amount he cut out took it below the character count required for DYK and couldn't give a flying fart in space about it, even after I told him the ramifications. I eventually got it above the requirement, but then asked myself why didn't William bother doing what I did (since he seems more enthusiastic about editing the article than I am). Furthermore, I am greatly disturbed by the criticism of my actions during the discussion. While some users utilize me as a punching bag, I think they've failed to see that it takes two to start a fight. I'm surprised no one has protested to William after he falsely labeled me as "a stalker". It appears to me that turning a blind eye condones his personal attacks on me. I've been treated with nothing but hostility and disparagement during this DYK nom (except for Bagumba's helpful and constructive comments to diffuse the situation). As a result, I'm reconsidering my membership of this WikiProject, since it appears that what was originally a constructive dialogue here transcends into taking sides and marginalizing an editor. Is this seriously what I get when I come with the good intention of contributing and adding to this project? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Until William decides to redact all the lies he has made against my name, this conversation is over on my part. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:MLB primary color

Hi everyone. Could people who know about the project's templates comment over at Template talk:MLB secondary color#Mexican League teams? We're not sure if the teams in the Mexican League fall within the template's scope. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mexican Hall of Fame

The Infoboxes for Mario Mendoza, Jorge Orta, Aurelio López & Aurelio Rodríguez are all incorrect. They all show their major league debuts and their final major league games, not their professional debuts and final debuts as the infobox claims. I propose that there needs to be a new infobox created for former major leaguers who are members of the Mexican Hall of Fame.--71.54.247.55 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

This gets into a touchy area, as the Mexican League is usually considered a minor league. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I know, but given the current way the infobox exists, you either have to have it show the player's "Professional debut" or the infobox will do som sort of autocorrect to turn it into the American Hall of Fame. This is why I'm thinking some sort of alteration needs to be done to the standard MLB player infobox to allow for Mexican Hall of Fame.--71.54.247.55 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

It seems reasonable to have a reference to whatever Hall(s) of Fame a player might belong to. It's an extraordinary honor, regardless of the level of professional play. Maybe there could be an "other halls of fame" slot in the template? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but I'd call it something other than "other halls of fame", because that seems to trivialize it. Perhaps "additional hall of fame recognition" or something like that which could also reflect team halls of fame, college halls of fame, etc. Go Phightins! 03:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not married to any particular title for the item. In fact, is there a finite list of notable Halls of Fame that could each be listed individually? And then an extra spot as per your naming convention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not married to any of them. There are several types of sexuality, but I've never heard of nameosexual :). Sorry, had to go there. Anyway, I imagine most colleges have a Hall of Fame, but I doubt most of them have standalone Wikipedia articles, perhaps just sections on their athletics page. I would imagine any college hall of fame, league hall of fame (MLB, Mexican HOF, heck, the Atlantic League as far as I'm concerned), and any professional team's hall of fame or equivalent such as the Wall of Fame in Philadelphia. Go Phightins! 03:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I was once, but it was a sham - it was a marriage in name only. :( I'm sure nearly every institution has some kind of hall of fame, or a "wall of fame", or at least a glass case with trophies and team shirts and photos... and that's where notability comes in. That is, a national hall of fame should qualify, be it in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan or wherever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

True, it might be better to include just national halls of fame. The HOF in Cooperstown is simply the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the U.S. Baseball Hall of Fame or the MLB Hall of Fame however. Go Phightins! 03:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.[5] "National" is taken to mean the USA, although it's not restricted to the American-born. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I would love it if there was a templete that looked exactly like the one that is currently on the players' page, only instead of saying professional debut, it says MLB debut.--71.54.247.55 (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

There is. It's Template:Infobox baseball biography. Also, check the page for Vicente Romo on how to add the Salon de la Fama to a player's infobox. -Dewelar (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The infobox for Vicente Romo has the exact same problem I've been talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

You need to specify debutleague and finalleague params. I've added to Vicente Romo.—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You missed the statleague parameter. Fixed now, along with dates for Romo's first and last seasons in LMB. -Dewelar (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also of some relevance would be the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame. One could also just put it in the "career highlights" spot as well. Resolute 00:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

1) The Nat'l HoF has a specific color pattern that I'm assuming is different for the Mexican HoF. Thus, a one-size-fits-all template should not be applied. Different templates could, however, be created for various HoFs. The Canadian HoF includes Canadian-born players who may have never played a professional game in their entire lives within the borders of Canada (a la Jeff Heath). Heath was essentially only born in Canada and moved to the States at a young age, yet he's in the Canadian HoF despite never having actually played a pro game inside the country. That is different and would not apply, to say, a nation with a recognized major league where a player played professional games within that country and was elected to the HoF, say the way a NPB player would earn induction to the NPB HoF. Zepppep (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That is how national hall of fames work. They are always (though I am sure there are exceptions) about where a person was born, not about where they played. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that. Joe Carter, for instance, is in the Canadian BBHOF for obvious reasons. Resolute 18:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said there are exceptions. But generally the point of national hall of fames is to celebrate those born in that particular country. But they do also include those important to that countries ball. -DJSasso (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Really, there's no reason to use the MLB Infobox over the Baseball biography one as far as I can tell. I've run into a lot of issues with this whenever a former MLB player plays in Japan. --Torsodog^Talk 13:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge infoboxes

Any reason a merge discussion for {{Infobox baseball biography}} and {{Infobox MLB player}} shouldn't be started at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? They seem mostly the same. Multi-HOF is likely for someone like Ichiro Suzuki.—Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to have merge discussions at Templates for discussion, that is usually for deletion. You just need to have it on the talk page of the template just like you would do on an article. That being said I see no reason not to merge. -DJSasso (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go Phightins! 23:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would be very much in favor of this merge. -Dewelar (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Using nationality to disambiguate bio titles

I ran across Talk:Francisco_Rodríguez_(baseball,_born_1982)#Requested_Move_2, where Francisco Rodríguez (baseball, born 1982) → Francisco Rodríguez (Venezuelan pitcher), and Francisco Rodríguez (baseball, born 1983) → Francisco Rodríguez (Mexican pitcher). The rationale was that their birth years were so close that nationality was a better way to disambiguate in this scenario. If there is no objection, this should be added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players).—Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If the years are different years then no I would switch them back to years. I would only do this if they were the same years. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Ryan Scoma notable?

I have had time to look closely if Ryan scoma is really notable, so I tagged it with {{notability}} in the interim. However, an IP keeps removing the tag. Can someone else take a look?—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I changed the title from Ryan scoma to Ryan Scoma. Go Phightins! 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And no, I don't think he's notable if all he's done is play in the minor leagues. I see no other claim to notability. Is it time for an AfD? Go Phightins! 06:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Slight chance he could meet WP:GNG, but one needs to look at the subscription-required articles.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No Scoma isn't notable but per WP:PROD, once a proposed deletion tags are removed they aren't supposed to be replaced. The only exceptions are page blanking, vandalism, or if the PROD is taken down by a banned user. None of these apply to Scoma....William 15:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

He was referring to a notability tag... the prod was only removed one, by Kinston Eagle who seems determined that no matter how unnotable a baseball player is, he wont let it remain prodded. I have sent it to afd. Spanneraol (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get him topic banned from de-prodding if the disruptiveness continues? AutomaticStrikeout 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the first step has been taken to discuss with Kinston eagle directly. There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion that people can help drive a community consensus on PROD etiquette. Unless there is a change in policy, I would say that another case might be made if a user's PRODs were consistently against the eventual AfD consensus to delete.—Bagumba (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with Kinston removing the prods, he has the right to do it and doesn't have to explain himself. As for a topic ban for disruptiveness, he isn't being disruptive so a ban will go nowhere....William 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with both Bagumba and William on the topic ban. I think he is editing in good faith. Go Phightins! 00:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Potential Featured Topic

After looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Special projects, I noticed that the first round draft picks topic looks ready to be nominated for FTC, since all the lists there are featured. I would have liked to nominate this, but since I did not work on any of the FLs in this topic (i.e. not a significant contributor to the lists), I'd prefer it if someone else who has worked on any of the lists to do the nomination. Any takers? —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• You can still get involved. That FT nom failed because List of first overall Major League Baseball draft picks isn't quite the topic article. We need to get List of Major League Baseball first-round draft picks to FL status, then we can nominate the topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox TFD's

A series of baseball infoboxes have been TFD'd. Please review and comment here - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 14. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As well as here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

All hands on deck

Bagumba, if you read this, would you semi-protect Bonifacio, Buehrle, Reyes, Escobar, etc. Others, would you help me fend off the WP:CRYSTAL ignoring IPs? I'm getting overwhelmed a bit. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 00:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Help at Mark Buehrle and Emilio Bonifacio would be especially helpful as I can't technically revert again without breaking the three revert rule. Go Phightins! 00:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like trade is still awaiting MLB approval which in this case might take a little while. Spanneraol (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Bagumba, thanks. Go Phightins! 01:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In case you were unaware, Bagumba is not the only admin that is regularly involved in this project. A couple others that come immediately to mind are DJSasso and Wizardman. I'm sure there are others. AutomaticStrikeout 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Bagumba was the only one that was coming to mind. I'll add DJSasso and Wizardman to my spreadsheet of admins who work in various areas. Go Phightins! 04:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm obviously mostly hockey, but I watch this page as well. I can be available at need also. Resolute 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added both to my watchlist. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding the same protection to the team roster pages also. Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Toronto Blue Jays roster protected 2 days. Miami activity has been light so far.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I only protected for 1 day yesterday. It may need to be extended if the deal is not finalized.—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Added two more days. —Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence in World Series article

A discussion has been started on the wording of the lead sentence in the World Series article, regarding if it should contain some information on the operating range of Major League Baseball. Any feedback is welcome, to help establish a clear consensus. isaacl (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor league cats

Minor League Baseball categories up for renaming. I'm not sure it's a good idea. Spanneraol (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion

FYI I put up a whole mess of redirects at RfD today, they are the old ones left over from Gjr rodriguez (talk · contribs) when he was creating minor league player articles en masse. I put up the ones who were not playing for their respective minor league team any more. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Winter leagues in info box

An IP keeps adding the winter league team that Vladimir Guerrero played for this year to his info box on the grounds that it is the top level team in the Dominican. We have never added winter league teams to players info boxes before... as many players participate in winter leagues every year... i'm in danger of getting in an edit war over this so thought i'd bring it up here... he has started a discussion on it on my talk page, though Vlad's talk page probably would have been more appropriate. Spanneraol (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Have we ever come up with an official consensus on this matter or should we do so now? AutomaticStrikeout 20:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The previous consensus was that only MLB teams and similar top leagues such as NPB would get included, not minor league teams or such... verification is a problem for many of the Latin American leagues and it seems silly to list all the winter league teams that various players play in each year. Spanneraol (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree but do we have any official policy on that? AutomaticStrikeout 20:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you are looking for; the previous consensus (small discussion on WT:BASEBALL, discussion on including college information that touched on minor league teams) was captured on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice page, linked to from the WikiProject Baseball style advice page. If you're looking for a longer discussion thread, my very hasty search hasn't turned it up; you can try checking the archives for this page. isaacl (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for going to the trouble to find that. I guess I'm thinking we should just hammer this out for good while the matter is brought up here so we have something to point to if somebody raises the issue again. A question: do we have a place where we list different WikiProject Baseball policies? Would that be the style advice page? AutomaticStrikeout 21:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Baseball style advice page is primarily concerned with writing style, and advice for writing articles that conform with Wikipedia policies. Accordingly it is intended to capture the relevant consensus advice reached by this project regarding article writing. (It can be thought of as an unofficial manual of style for articles related to the scope of WikiProject Baseball; to make it official would require going through the Wikipedia proposal process and gaining acceptance by the entire Wikipedia community.) I'm not sure if this is the scope you're thinking of when you refer to "WikiProject Baseball policies"? isaacl (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Another, more lengthy discussion here regarding what constitutes a top-level league and the implications thereof, including infobox team listings. -Dewelar (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That discussion is on the baseball-specific notability guideline, though, which is a little bit different than determining what is key information for the infobox. Even if playing in the minor leagues does not confer the assumption that notable, independent coverage from reliable sources exists, if a minor league player has been found to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, it can be reasonable to include the minor league teams in the infobox, as part of the defining characteristics for that person. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that what I am trying to understand is whether or not we have a consensus against including Winter League teams in the infobox. Apparently we do, but if not, we can always take a !vote below or something. AutomaticStrikeout 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I recall there was a concurrent discussion going on elsewhere (can't find it as yet) that led to there being general agreement that, if a league qualified for the notability presumption, then it should be listed in the infobox, and if it didn't, then it shouldn't. That would be my default position on the matter as well. -Dewelar (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify my previous remarks, I meant that if a player had never reached the major leagues, and yet was shown to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article, it may be reasonable to include the player's minor league teams in the infobox, if this is considered to be part of the defining characteristics of the player. For a player that has reached the major leagues, I believe the consensus is that this achievement becomes the key characteristic of the player's baseball career, and so the list of minor league teams is no longer important enough to include in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. This makes sense to me. But then, of course, you'd be using the baseball biography infobox rather than the MLB player one (given that there's apparently no real taste for merging them as discussed above). -Dewelar (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus captured on the player article style advice page is specifically for the MLB player infobox, and so it explicitly lists MLB and NPB for post-integration era players. If someone would like to make a start at summarizing consensus for the baseball biography infobox, please have at it! isaacl (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

RIP Marvin Miller

For those of you who don't yet know, Marvin Miller died today. It's now on the main page through "In the News"; since the article will be high profile for the next few days, now might be a good time to try to improve its quality. That section on the HoF snubbing, while relevant, is a bit undue as it's as long as his "career" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)