Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Baseball (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


Archive

Player Archives


1 2 3

Capitalization – "major league" or "Major League"[edit]

Should the generic term "major league" (without "Baseball" at the end) be capitalized or not when referring to MLB? In my opinion, it's a general term that should be lower cased. However, a user who disagrees keeps badgering me about it, so I'd like to settle it here once and for all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some specific examples in mind? It's hard to give guidance without seeing the specific sentences in question. In general I agree the term is generic and should be in lower case, but understanding the context would be helpful. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The editor in question capitalized the term "major league" – here's my revert. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
What's even more ridiculous was he capitalized "the Major Leagues" – I think we can all agree that it's completely incorrect, right? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If he's referring to the organization known as MLB then it should be capitalized. If its just a general comment, then no.Spanneraol (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Spanneraol – sorry, but I didn't fully understand your point, could you elaborate? Would "major league" need to be capitalized in the sentence, "Kershaw has played in the major leagues since 2008" (from your GA)? Or are you saying only when the full name ("Major League Baseball") is used does it need to be capitalized? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If I understand the history correctly, the career of the player in question predates the formal association of the National League and the American League as "Major League Baseball". As such it seems appropriate to only refer to the major leagues in its generic form in this article. On the broader note of usage, because of the historical ambiguities with the term, personally I prefer to use "MLB" (after defining it on first use) when specifically referring to the organization. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
IIRC, the Dickson baseball dictionary refers to "major league" as either the AL or NL. The organization would be "Major League Baseball".—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What Isaac and Bagumba said. Furthermore, if you are going to use the abbreviation/acronym/initialism "MLB" in the body text of an article, it should be linked and defined on its first usage with a parenthetical (e.g., "Reggie Jackson is an American former baseball right fielder who played 21 seasons in Major League Baseball (MLB).") In space-limited infoboxes and tables, it is not necessary to define "MLB" if it is defined in the main body text of the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting timing. This just happened to me when a DYK of mine was published a few days ago. The entry was that of a player who was around in the era of leagues like the FL. My point was that there has been more than one major baseball league, especially at that time. I do notice that we use "Major League Baseball" in the leads of many players of all eras (even early, early guys like Pete Browning) - which I think complicates the argument for lowercase. Whether or not "Major League" makes sense syntax-wise, I just can't get used to it based on common usage; same thing for placing a hyphen in "major league debut" or "minor league game". EricEnfermero HOWDY! 04:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It's related to the historical ambiguity: my understanding is that the term was used generically even following the start of the National and American Leagues' cooperation, and only after some time the term became a proper noun in its own right to officially designate their partnership. I also believe grammar rules were not so formal then, and accordingly capitalization was more haphazard than it is today, so sources from the time may well use initial upper case for generic terms. Thus the reason why I personally prefer to define the abbreviation MLB on first use and then stick with the abbreviation when specifically referring to the organization. isaacl (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Bagumba; one thing I've long been interested in knowing is when Major League Baseball formally incorporated as a an entity. I'm certain it wasn't before WWII, and I suspect it was probably in the '50s or even '60s, when national TV broadcasting contracts came into play; before that, virtually everything was handled by the two league offices, and the Commissioner's office (the only real joint effort) was jointly funded. MisfitToys (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been no "badgering" about this, but rather a disagreement. It happens on Wikipedia. So, is there a consensus at this point? I ask because my changes are being reverted by the OP. I recognize there are cases when this is murky, but it would seem if we're referring to the modern MLB, then "Major League" makes sense. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Major League Baseball" should be capitalized when it is used as a proper name, and only then. If it is capitalized in any other usage, it is done so improperly. "Major league" by itself is not a proper name (it's not a name at all, it's an adjective), therefore should not be capitalized (unless we're discussing the movie or something like that). -Dewelar (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
So, it doesn't depend upon the context? If you're talking about a player in Major League Baseball, and you're talking about their Major League career or Major League debut, "Major League", which is referring to "Major League Baseball" isn't capitalized? I admit that some of the changes I made to the generic use of the term "major league" were incorrect, but grammatically, I don't see an issue with capitalizing in the contextual manner I just described. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, as I mentioned, I prefer to use MLB. I feel using "Major League" by itself is a bit too subtle for a global readership who may not be familiar with the term's history. isaacl (talk)
I've struggled with this same question and have been inconsistent. What I think I've settled on is that if you could substitute "Major League Baseball" with "Major League/major league", then it should be capitalized. For example, I think, "...made his Major League debut" is appropriate. It gives an author more freedom without having to use "MLB" in every case. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The term "major league" doesn't just refer to baseball. Would you do the same for someone making their Major League Soccer debut? Would you also do it for someone who has come over from NPB? -Dewelar (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Philadelphia Phillies season[edit]

The season is over, and I finally caught up getting the season notes finished and importing stats. I have started to hack a little bit at the preseason section, and at this point, am ready for another set of eyes to do some copyediting in the season notes, and suggest what else could be pared/cut. Even if you just can take a look at one section, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Go Phightins! 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • The lead should not have Philadelphia Phillies linked per WP:BOLDTITLE. The "visual aid depicting the Phillies' 2013–14 offseason transactions" is far too small to be of any use at its current resolution. Why not just replace with a wikitable? Seattle (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Just from a real quick cursory look (all I have time for): No wikilinks in bold titles, date formats in "Players becoming free agents", lack of a key or spelled out position names in that section, rubber match should link instead to wikt:rubber match, inconsistent use of spelling out single digit numbers and listing numerals (e.g. "Domonic Brown had a home run and five RBIs, Asche had 3 RBIs"), watch the colloquialisms (e.g. "on May 21, they fell 14–5" when you mean they "lost"), some paragraphs appear dense and with 76kb prose and 347 references, it might be overly detailed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Former minor league players article[edit]

People may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players.. Do we want these types of articles? Spanneraol (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if users from this project not named Yankees10, Muboshgu, Spanneraol, Alexsautographs, Wizardman actually participated in some of these AFD's once in a while.--Yankees10 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes that would be helpful.. We may wind up having to discuss what to do with this article if it gets kept as now seems possible. Spanneraol (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Potentially WP:POV edits to Barry Bonds[edit]

I would like a second opinion on whether these edits to Barry Bonds were WP:POV.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand some of the edits, they seem to be concerned with promoting fangraphs and adding more sabermetric stuff. They got rid of his intentional walks record and added a link to isolated power. I do think you need to qualify the "greatest baseball player" remark, considering his numbers are tainted by the steroid stuff. Spanneraol (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Spanneraol, I was thinking of just reverting. Do you find some merits in the changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
On second look, none of the changes is really necessary, so i'm fine with you reverting. Spanneraol (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not wild about his contributions to this and several other articles.. he tends to condense too much and lean too much on sabermetrics, which 90% of the general readership will not know or care about. Spanneraol (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

All-time roster updates[edit]

Hey guys, being that its the offseason and all... is anyone interested in a project to bring all the all-time roster pages up to date? I know i've kept the Dodgers page updated but many of the other teams havent been updated, some of them for several seasons... and the overall List of Major League Baseball players probably needs updating too. If we split up the list it probably wouldn't be as tough an obstacle as it looks at first glance. Any takers? Spanneraol (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: I've reworked the format of List of Major League Baseball players (A) with Aardsma as an example (from [1] to [2], the "Team(s)" section would narrow when the teams are broken). Does that format seem appropriate for transfer? I'm happy to take (A). Seattle (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks a bit better with everything centered in the first example.... but the team list is probably better in the second version... Dont know if transferring this to the individual team lists makes sense cause its probably a lot of work. Hopefully we can get more people to help with this. Spanneraol (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Most of them should be relatively quick fixes, since it'd only be one to three years of names to add. A couple, however, are going to be a pain. i took a look at the Baltimore Orioles one, and it's... pretty much impossible to update as is. Wizardman 02:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball newsletter: post winter meetings edition[edit]

For anyone who might have been anticipating the next newsletter: we have delayed the November edition and plan to combine it with the December edition, currently scheduled to be released on December 14, just after the winter meetings. If you are interested in contributing, please see the "Post 2014 winter meetings edition" thread at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk discussion page, and please put the page on your watchlist in order to be kept aware of the newsletter's status. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Stats in player infobox[edit]

The style advice for baseball player articles was updated recently regarding stats to include in a player infobox. Although it's not something that was discussed recently on this discussion page, I believe it is probably a fair assessment of general consensus. If anyone would like to establish consensus for a different guideline, please feel free to discuss further in this thread. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There was an incident on Scott Kazmir that lead me to boldly add that. I couldn't find a discussion thread on this talk page that confirmed this, but I do recall it being the basic agreement. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Managerial record[edit]

I would like to propose adding managerial records to the manager articles.

Here is an example of the type of table that I'm proposing.

Team From To Regular season record Post–season record Ref.
W L Win % W L Win %
Cincinnati Reds 1970 1978 863 586 .596 26 16 .619
Detroit Tigers 1979 1995 1331 1248 .516 8 5 .615
Total 2194 1834 .545 34 21 .618

If a manager has managed a team more than once, it would look more like this.

Team From To Regular season record Post–season record
W L Win % W L Win %
Minnesota Twins 1969 1969 97 65 .599 0 3 .000
Detroit Tigers 1971 1973 248 204 .549 2 3 .400
Texas Rangers 1973 1975 137 141 .493 0 0 .000
New York Yankees 1975 1978 279 192 .592 10 10 .500
New York Yankees 1979 1979 55 40 .579 0 0 .000
Oakland Athletics 1980 1982 215 218 .497 3 3 .500
New York Yankees 1983 1983 91 71 .562 0 0 .000
New York Yankees 1985 1985 91 54 .628 0 0 .000
New York Yankees 1988 1988 40 28 .588 0 0 .000
Total 1253 1013 .553 15 19 .441
Reference:

It's smaller and more tidy than the season–by–season managerial record tables that have appeared in the past. Unlike the season–by–season managerial record tables, it clearly isn't an excessive listings of statistics and, with the addition of references in the table, it can reference the managerial record in the manager'sinfobox without cluttering the infobox with references. Kingjeff (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In the past we've had a consensus to not add large stat tables to player articles or these sort of managerial tables. Spanneraol (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I don`t really consider these table large. The second table, which is Billy Martin`s managerial record table, would be larger than normal because (in contrast to the first table shown), each time he was hired by the Yankees, a seperate entry was entered. However, if the WikiProject still feels it`s to big, it could still be condensed solely on a team–by–team basis instead of a job–by–job basis. The first table, which is Sparky Anderson's managerial record table, would be two rows for the heading, 27 rows to show a season–by–season record, and three more row to show club totals and a overall total. This is a total of 32 rows. This clearly can be called excessive. But it's condensed to Two rows for the header, two rows for the club totals, and a row for the overall total. This is a total of five rows. So, 27 rows have been eliminated and a table that has clearly been condesnsed. Kingjeff (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly better than the ones that go year-by-year. I'm still against it, though, because we have sites like B Ref that do it for us. I don't understand the need for us to create new work that's being done perfectly well on external sites that we link to. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
But why does Wikipedia exist at all if other sites does something well? The first thing this WikiProject should be concerned about is improving the baseball–related articles on this website. b ref doesn't do anything for us other than provide a good independent credible reference. I don't understand how other sports–related WikiProjects allow for such tables, but this one doesn't. Kingjeff (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
As I stated a couple years ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_30#Can_I_put_a_statistics_table_in_an_article.3F, I'd support tables of traditional stats (not the sabermetric ones) for each season (and by extension, any condensed form such as above). I was once against them, mainly wanting to see more focus from editors on "real prose" instead of gnomish stats work. However, as a reader, I think a GA/FA article is lacking if I am forced to go off-site to get some basic stats for a sportsperson. And who's to say those stats gnomes dont just stop editing WP altogether instead of producing text. Hopefully consensus changes on this.—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
For the record, FAs from other sports such as Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Thierry Henry, and Rex Ryan all have stats tables itemized by season.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
To be sure, each project should make its own decisions on these sorts of things. I disagree with the way the ice hockey project does things, which is why I stopped editing hockey articles years ago. (Well, that and I lost interest in the NHL after the last lockout.) We can decide whether or not consensus has changed. If we chose to use tables, we'd have to set standards, of course. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. That is why it's being brought up here. We definitely have a good reference in baseball reference website. Kingjeff (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We should analyze decisions on a case-by-case basis, and not automatically follow/dismiss ideas merely because of other project's decisions. Hence, I think it's good to re-examine the reasons why WP:BASEBALL has not included stats, and see if they still make sense.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, one of the reasons why it wasn't accepted was season–by–season managerial record tables were considered excessive. This is why I am suggesting the tables above. Kingjeff (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I would argue in some cases a table with season-by-season results is more succinct and presentable than text that sometimes monotonously rattles off the W-L records year by year. I think as a reader with some interest in baseball, these is an expectation to see basic stats tables. If the target audience are readers with little interest in baseball, I'd agree that it is excessive, but so would most of the stats mentioned in prose. Perhaps we should step back and decide the background of readers we are targeting.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Which readers are we targeting? Kingjeff (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If we refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Assessment#Quality_scale, a B-class article "may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher", a GA is "Useful to nearly all readers", while an FA is a "definitive source for encyclopedic information." I can't imagine a "serious student or researcher" not needing the traditional stats for each season.—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a bit of a slippery slope to use this as a standard, since any serious researcher nowadays will be using more than traditional stats, and to be frank, will be going straight to the Baseball Reference site anyway. I appreciate there are those who like having the season statistics present within a person's article; my concerns are more from a practical perspective, since whenever a stat is included somewhere in an article, we tend to have endless discussions on what stats to include and when to update them. (Personally, I don't find it onerous at all to have to follow a link to reach the stats from an external site.) isaacl (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In this paticular case, there is no debate on which stats to include. We're talking about managers here. So, it's clearly wins, losses, and winning percentage. The only debates here is if it should be included or not, and if yes, should it be season–to–season or job–to–job like the above tables show. Kingjeff (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Serious researchers will want to know things like number of intentional walks given, number of pitchers used, number of lineups used, and so forth. Wins, losses, and winning percentage by themselves aren't that revealing for managerial studies. I'm not necessarily against including the basic stats for managers, but if you look at the history of this talk page, I think the longest debates are about including stats, and so I'm not eager to increase the opportunities for protracted discussions. isaacl (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Those stats are not just based on what the manager wants. The number of lineups used could be based on a high level of injuries. Same with the number pitchers used. When The Blue Jays had Rance Mulliniks and Garth Iorg platooning, that was set under multiple managers. So, it wasn't a case of one particular manager just deciding to use a platoon. Baseball is a sport with a lot of stats and many of them can be broken down any which way. There must be a line drawn to what is acceptable and what isn't. You would need to find sources for all those stats and, even if you did, I would think that it would be excessive for a manager's record table. I think those extra stats would be more appropriate for a team's season article. Kingjeff (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Isaac's point is valid though... if we start using stat tables for managers, then that will open the door for stat tables for players, which will definitely spawn much debate about which stats to include. Spanneraol (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
People randomly add player stats to the infobox, but there is no discussion to entirely remove those career stats. We have been throwing out the baby with the bath water by having no season stats because a few editors won't follow consensus. We are not doing readers a favor in a sport that emphasizes stats the most. To start the discussion, I'd propose the stats at the stat section in GA "2009 Philadelphia Phillies season"Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't select those stats arbitrarily; analyses of managers have used them to form categories, and they are some of the key distinguishing characteristics between managers. As with all stats, they aren't a pure measure of a single ability, however raw win-loss record is more susceptible to other influences than these stats. I agree that the traditional records is what the casual reader will seek, but I think using the standard of trying to meet the needs of a serious researcher is problematic. isaacl (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The article will never meet all the needs of a serious researcher. However, neither should basic stats be stripped because a casual reader is unable to interpret them.—Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Spanneraol, I don't think it opens it up for any other stat. The only stats that would be allowed would be the stats that consensus allows. There are a lot of baseball statistics that can be split any which way. Therefore, there must be a line drawn for what stats are acceptable and which aren't. This is what discussions like this are for. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK clearly states that there is a line when it comes to listing statistics. It states "long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." So, we can't just take "serious researchers" into account. But I think there is no problem with a manager's record with Wins–losses–Winning percentage for both regular season and post–season. Kingjeff (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we agree that the quality scale is referring to the whole article and not just a section of the article? I think since the topic is a managerial record table, it should remain about a table that includes wins–losses–winning percentage for both regular season and post–season. Those other stats I think are meant for another discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────W-L-% are standard and seems fine. If listing season-by-season, games behind might be added too, as well as playoff info.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pitcher's position in infobox[edit]

Is there any consensus whether Relief pitcher and Starting pitcher should be listed as a player's position in their bio's infobox, or should the generic Pitcher be used? For example, Sandy Koufax and Lee Smith (baseball) are listed a pitcher, but Clayton Kershaw is shows as a starter and Mariano Rivera, reliever.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I support simply using pitcher. Pitcher is the position and starter/reliever/closer is the role.--TM 11:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont see any harm in using starter or reliever for those that worked exclusively in those roles through their careers. Its more specific than simply pitcher. Spanneraol (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
To my way of thinking, "pitcher" implies starting pitcher, but that's not a value judgment. After 1970 or so, great relievers became specialists, and threw harder with a higher percentage of strike-outs than starters. If a modern player is a career reliever, it's probably worth noting that. Most other categories of pitcher, including starters, do not require further differentiation in the article's infobox; that's what the main body text is for. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I prefer "Pitcher" for all. "Starter" vs. "reliever" might be okay. "Closer" or "setup" or "ace" are certainly not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Muboshgu. Plain "pitcher" is fine but if people want to get more specific "starting pitcher" vs. "relief pitcher" is acceptable (although for some pitchers who go back and forth plain "pitcher" would still be neeeded). Getting more specific than starter vs. reliever becomes too judgemental and unnecessary. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. It looks like there is no consensus on when to use the generic Pitcher vs more specific Relief pitcher or Starting pitcher. Pitcher might be more suitable than the the specific roles when a pitcher was not predominantly used in one role more than the other. However, more specific terms like Closer, Setup pitcher or Ace are discouraged.—Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

All hands on deck[edit]

If anyone isn't watching Kemp, Grandal, Porcello, Miley, Cespedes, Latos, etc., please do so. I've got other work to do, can't keep reverting all day. This is the one time I think I should become an admin, just so I could protect these pages. @Bagumba:, you around? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Dodgers are really frustrating me with all these moves... i cant sit in front of my computer all day... sad to see Kemp and Gordon go... two of my favorite players... Big roster makeover for the two time defending NL West champs who really were only one or two relievers away from making a real run last year. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably for the best. Colleti collected too many outfielders for you, and you'll be getting a guy who can actually field the shortstop position, a second base upgrade, and the next Devin Mesoraco. I don't remember ever seeing this many trades all at once, these Winter Meetings are insane. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Would have preferred not to blow up the whole roster... they might be better defensively but they are weaker offensively at the moment.... I'm not real excited about Grandal. Spanneraol (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
For now, I've made an initial dent with some of the key figures re:Kemp.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made the rounds re: Cespedes too.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As of now, all the baseball related reports at WP:RPP have been protected.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Cespedes deal has been announced by the Red Sox. Spanneraol (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a url? I see this, but it seems like from MLB.com as opposed to Red Sox themselves.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
[3] Red Sox official twitter has it. Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks everybody! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we get Ervin Santana, too? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
YesY Done—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


That was the most crazy few days of transactions I can remember. Shoutout to Garchy, Spanneraol, Bagumba, Trut-h-urts man, Bloom6132, and everyone else who made sense of the deluge! – Muboshgu (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys, keep an eye on all these players from the Padres/Rays trade as well.. gonna take awhile before that gets finalized with all the physicals and the fly-by editors are already striking.. Spanneraol (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, a reminder that there is a pre-canned template {{uw-sportstrans}} to inform editors on their talk page why their edits were removed even though it is in the news. Hopefully we can create a few new, long-term, productive editors in the process.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Player article style advice[edit]

Regarding this modification to the player article style advice: the previous guidance had the sections "Early life", "Career", and "Personal life" in that order as it was based on how most biographical articles cover the subject's life in chronological order first, and then proceed with sections discussing various themes about the subject. Accordingly, I suggest that the "Personal life" section should be restored to follow the "Career" section, and that "Player profile" follow the "Legacy" section. (I'm a bit wary of the "Player profile" section, but I'd like to first discuss the ordering before discussing player profiles.) isaacl (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would think personal life would be after all the stuff on their career... Not many articles have "legacy" sections as that would really only be useful for a select group of hall of famers. Spanneraol (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more that just a select group of hall of famers, as the "Legacy" section includes any community awards, team awards, and so forth, but I agree that it is an optional section. I'm a bit unclear; are you agreeing that the "Personal life" section should follow the "Career" section, and the "Player profile" section should come after "Personal life", with an optional "Legacy" section? The key point for me is that the article is a person's biography, not just a career biography, and so coverage of the person's life in chronological order is desirable to set a complete context for thematic sections. isaacl (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The personal life section wouldnt really follow the career in chronological order as it would feature events that happened all throughout their professional career and usually has information about their family... I'd probably put it after player profile as i believe that is how it is in most of the articles that contain these sections. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I realize it isn't a perfect mapping, but it comes fairly close: pre-career information is in "Early life", main information about career is in "Career", and everything else is finished up in "Personal life". I think it is preferable to complete the overview of the subject's life before summarizing aspects of the subject. I had reviewed featured articles for players when devising the guidelines, but here's a new review. The following featured articles for players of top or high importance place post-baseball life before legacy information:
The following articles place legacy information before post-baseball life:
So it's a bit of a mixed bag, with a bit more articles placing post-baseball information immediately after career information. It can be a bit tricky trying to separate post-baseball from personal life, as the post-baseball section often includes family-related information. Perhaps the section following career can be "Post-baseball", and then after other thematic sections ("Legacy", "Player profile" if desired), there can be a "Family" section, which would be focused on family details? isaacl (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say it depends on the article and what makes sense (and what we already have). While general consistency is ideal, we need not make our articles look so templated that there are not nuanced variations. Go Phightins! 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we should never blindly follow rules.—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My edit to move the "Personal life" section down was based on Wikipedia:Summary style: "Sections that are less important for understanding the topic will tend to be lower in the article (this is news style applied to sections). Often this is difficult to do for articles on history or that are otherwise chronologically based, unless there is some type of analysis section. Organizing in this way is important because many readers will not finish reading the article." In most cases, a player is primarily notable for their career and not their personal life.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think for a biography, a chronological overview is important to be able to place the events of the person's life into appropriate context. Otherwise, it can be difficult to follow the threads in the text that jump back and forth between time periods. By the line of reasoning you put forth, it can be argued that the "Legacy" section should be placed first immediately after the lead. It is a defensible format, as obituaries do this, but I do not think Wikipedia needs to perfectly mimic the newspaper approach for its biographies. isaacl (talk)
To be clear, we wouldn't copy newspapers for the sake of mimicking them; we should follow points based on their merit. It seems logical to me that more people would be interested in a typical player's career, playing style, and legacy, over their personal life details about who they married, their hobbies, kids' names, etc. Incidently, those items wouldn't be chronological anyways, unless they somehow had an impact on their career. Again, there can be exceptions, and we can have a caveat in the style guide that provides guidance in such cases.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
There could be merit to moving the legacy section up, but I'd hesitate to add it to the style guide until it has been implemented in some articles first. Otherwise, a well-written lead would summarize key points in the legacy section, which is perhaps sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for being overly concise; I did not mean to imply that the newspaper approach was being mimicked without reason. Wikipedia's objectives, though, differ from that of a newspaper, and so while the inverted pyramid style has some relevance, it is not necessarily an overriding concern with respect to clarify of presentation. It's hard to know what each reader will find interesting, so I think we should be careful not to assume too much. I don't think it is unusual to present what a baseball player has done after their retirement from a playing career immediately following a description of their career. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the chronological approach, so I generally place legacy sections last and only use them for players who have died. We can certainly cover the most significant legacy information in the lead. I just can't wrap my head around placing legacy information early in the body (lead → legacy → early life → career → later life?). But I agree with the point that we should not create a rigid template for all entries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternate terms for full count[edit]

I have started a discussion on using "full house" to mean "full count". Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Korean baseball and merging team categories[edit]

I dont know much about Korean baseball, and find the rules for categories confusing at times, but this is for those of you who are interested. Is this redirecting of team player categories the norm (I assume the team moved or changed sponsors)? I ran across this while investigating unrelated edits.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : December 16, 2014[edit]

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

May everyone enjoy a pleasant festive season, with Santa bringing that LOOGY your team has been looking for! Thanks to everyone for their work on baseball-related articles this year. If you'd like to contribute to the newsletter in 2015, please put the newsletter desk on your watchlist, and join in the conversation on its discussion page. Best wishes for 2015! isaacl (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)