Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

All-Star selections listing in infobox

I just wanted to make sure about what our consensus about how we are listing the AS game selections in the infobox. We want it like this (2010–2012) and not like this (2010, 2011, 2012), correct? I plan on mass updating the infoboxes with this format and wanted to make sure this is what was decided before starting.--Yankees10 21:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I like it that way. And for only two consecutive seasons, I prefer "(2010, 2011)" vs. "(2010–2011)". — X96lee15 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Although the number of participants was scant, the last time this was discussed, the consensus was to list the range: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I think any consecutive years should be indicated using a hyphen. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Uniform Images

I'm the creator and the steward of the uniform images, although I've had a lot of help along the way. I try to keep tabs on things, and I've added them all to a category so that I can do so, but some have been sent to the commons, and some haven't. This does not allow me to be able to view them all together. I've tried creating pages for the images, so I could do so, but people have deleted these pages. Is there a way of rectifying this? If not, then I may have to pull my images from the commons. The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you create images for the WBC teams? Currently, only the medalists of the 2006 classic have custom uniform images. GoxSox1989 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

I am writing about Jimmy Rollins, and noticed that he has quite a comprehensive biography on Jockbio.com. In the past, I cited this at Jim Thome, but ultimately removed it, as I thought that just the name might arouse controversy at an FAC. However, for Rollins, other articles have holes that the Jockbio fills. Based on its about us page, I am inclined to think it's a reliable source, but would appreciate additional input. Go Phightins! 20:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

In a discussion in March, the thinking was use jockbio if you must, but can probably find WP:SECONDARY sources to eventually replace it.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I emailed the about us page on Jockbio, and here is what he said about their quality control policy:

"Our bios are chronological so we can add to them periodically. We separate quote by and about the athletes onto their own pages, as well as random facts. By keeping these out of the main body, it makes for less constant editing as their careers progress. Our policy is to confirm personal information from at least two sources. Obviously statistical info speaks for itself. We have had issues with our proofreaders in the past, so you'll find a few spelling and grammatical errors in the bios. In 2015 we plan to do a site-wide clean-up, which is a major undertaking considering the amount of bios we've published, and that this is not a commercial venture. Keep in mind we were doing 4000-word bios when Wikipedia was barely off the ground!"

— Mark Stewart, founder of JockBio, in an email to Go Phightins!
To me, based on that, it seems like an RS to me. Go Phightins! 21:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : March 30, 2014

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

Thanks to everyone who contributed!

Do you have a great idea for something you could contribute to The Inside Corner? Please sign up at the newsletter desk and pitch in! isaacl (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

How notable is the WBC?

Hello, just how notable is participating in the World Baseball Classic when compared to other events/leagues? I have noticed that a few of the highly rated prospects don't have a page of their own, yet most of the run-of-the-mill minor leaguers that played in the WBC do? I am not against creating a page for those that participated in the WBC and are "real prospects" (or at least drafted in the top-3 rounds) but take for example the entirety of the Spain national baseball team, which is made of journey men whose only claim to fame is playing in one WBC, yet each one has a tiny bio. GoxSox1989 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Playing in a major international competition, which the WBC is, qualifies under NSPORTS while "being a highly rated prospect" doesn't. Most of the top prospects that dont have their own pages are included on the minor league player pages though. Spanneraol (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
That seems contradictory. You are more likely to find articles discussing top-prospects in reliable, mainstream publications than you are to find about any of these players. Of course, we know that a percentage of the top prospects go bust, but even in that case there is enough material to create a decent article. GoxSox1989 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, about that notability guideline. Why are active leagues limited to only MLB, Nippon Professional Baseball and the Korea Baseball Organization? What about the Winter Leagues? Due to the amount of MLB players that these have produced they should be at least on par with the KBO. GoxSox1989 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The most basic rule is if a subject meets WP:GNG, it is notable. WP:NSPORTS is meant as a quick indicator that enough coverage likely exists to meet WP:GNG. Somtimes, people mix up "real-life importance" of a subject with Wikipedia notability.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick question

Several minutes ago, I updated the 500 home run club template with it's newest member, Albert Pujols. I was wandering if it is necessary to update template lists like this (eg. 500 HR club, 50 HR club, 3,000 hit club). Let me know in the comments. Atomic XYC 16:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

He was already there. You added him in the wrong spot.--Yankees10 16:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, are they meant to be in alphabetical order?
No.--Yankees10 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April Edition of the Inside Corner

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

Thanks to everyone who contributed!

Do you have a great idea for something you could contribute to The Inside Corner? Please sign up at the newsletter desk and pitch in! Atomic XYC 17:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We shall see if it holds, but

for now, at least in this incarnation, we have lost Northern Antarctica/AutomaticStrikeout Go Phightins! 12:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Odd.. why would he want himself blocked? Spanneraol (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

He'll be back. Hasn't he left and come back like 5 different times already?--Yankees10 16:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And another departs

  • Sportsguy17 has announced that he will no longer edit regularly. :-( Go Phightins! 01:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    The curse of User:Sportsguy17 sharing the same color scheme with User:AutomaticStrikeout.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    Fear not, I will still log on most days and see what's going on, but will not edit much if at all. Hopefully, once finals and AP Exams pass then I can finish some to-be GA's that I'm hoping to finish. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Royals and Marlins

Would it be good to make a Wikiproject about the Royals and the Marlins. Because my goal was to improve the those articles lol! So is there any way we can create a project for these two teams.Tylkrby767 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't see the point. You're of course more than welcome to contribute to those as any help is appreciated, but given that none of the team projects are active, making more would just take time away from article improvement. Wizardman 01:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The Phillies is moderately active. Go Phightins! 01:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, the OP has been blocked as a sock. Go Phightins! 01:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

All-Star MVP and Home Run derby champion

Apparently there is a consensus to not have these highlights in the infobox. Why? I thought the agreement was to have "official" MLB awards in the infobox and these two both fit that criteria. These are two notable nighlights that should be there as far as i'm concerned.--Yankees10 17:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The agreed upon awards can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice. The consensus came from discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 32#Standard infobox. It is probably because both of these honors stem from single-game exhibitions. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
As you may recall from your participation, the previous discussion on highlights to include reached a consensus to not include this information. We can see if anyone's opinions have changed since then. Personally, I agree with the earlier consensus that these highlights are not sufficiently essential in a concise summary of a player's career to warrant inclusion in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain why they wouldn't be. Because i'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would think this. These are major highlights, especially the AS MVP. I'm all for not including non-MLB awards (Lou Gehrig Memorial, Tony Conigliaro, etc) but all official MLB awards should go in the infobox and that includes these two.--Yankees10 17:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Put it this way. I'd have a hard time believing that somebody would be more interested in knowing that a player won the Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award (an award that isn't well publicized and not well known) than winning the home run derby or AS MVP.--Yankees10 17:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the Commissioner's award is included in that list... The Home Run Derby, especially of late, really isn't really something thats a major accomplishment to win... these are awards from exhibitions.Spanneraol (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The Commissioner's award was not among those voted on by this project, but I would think if we did take a vote, many people would say yes since receiving it represents something very unique (e.g. making baseball history, lifetime achievement, etc). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I support it's inclusion, i'm just saying that the average reader would rather be interested in the more well-known awards and if we are going to include that highlight I don't see why we don't include the other two.--Yankees10 18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Once upon a time, there was a discussion regarding what awards to include on I believe Wikipedia:Featured topics/Major League Baseball awards. I can't locate the discussion now, but the general agreement was to include awards listed on MLB's awards page, which incidentally doesn't include the All-Star home run derby winner. I believe a player may consider winning the home run derby a personal highlight, but when recapping a player's career in a few brief sentences, I do not consider this exhibition contest as essential information to convey. I am more ambivalent regarding All-Star MVP; in the context of today's All-Star games, where the outcome is much less meaningful and players are rotated in and out rapidly, it doesn't seem too important, but in games of the past, where starters played a large portion of the game, it may be more relevant in a concise summary. isaacl (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
LCS MVP's aren't on the Awards page either. So shouldn't we remove those also then?--Yankees10 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
LCS MVP's are on the awards page. Look again. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right missed it. In that case take a look at what is two bullet points above it...--Yankees10 19:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for being a bit unclear in my phrasing; I wasn't trying to propose using inclusion on the MLB.com's award page as a criterion for inclusion in the infobox. I only wanted to add a point of information regarding whether or not the All-Star home run derby winner is an official MLB award. isaacl (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
See I disagree there. I think the awards on that page should be the only awards we add. I actually thought that was what we agreed to before.--Yankees10 19:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you like you can re-read the discussion and refresh your memory—be forewarned it might mean re-living past contentious debate. isaacl (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The home run derby is for show, I don't think that it is really that important. I mean, its in the bottom tier of achievements at best. GoxSox1989 (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree its not hugely important. But it's still highlight from and "official" MLB event and gets wide spread coverage and is something the average reader probably wouldn't mind seeing in the infobox.--Yankees10 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Home Run Derby is an exhibition carrying about the same weight as spring training games. Add to this the fact that lately, many of the biggest power hitters are passing up the event, possibly out of fear that swinging for the fences might alter their swing as happened to Bobby Abreu after he won the event in 2005. I'm borderline as to whether this should be in the Career Highlighta and Awards Section of the infobox. The All-Star MVP Award carries considerably more weight, in my opinion, given the caliber of the competition, and I wouldn't have a problem seeing this in the infobox.Orsoni (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I was recently putting my article on the article assessment page to be reviewed when I noticed that the last article put up for review was on May 4th...2013. May several editor help me review the (three) articles still up to be reviewed. Thanks. Atomic XYC 19:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wizardman! Atomic XYC 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drew Wesley Taylor

Dear baseball experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. I am a lowly musician, but it seems to me that this is about a notable baseball player. Should the article be kept an improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

He definitely doesn't meet WP:BASE/N. As for meeting GNG for his academic and film careers, I don't know. A lot of those "references" are PubMed links, which don't confer notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Muboshgu. I presume that this means that he never actually played for either of the teams to which the article says that he was signed. His film career seems limited, and as a PhD student it's unlikely that he is notable yet in his field, so I will let this one go. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
He was signed to their organizations as a minor league player, which is not the same as playing for them in the major leagues. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Team season articles

I seem to be the only team-season article proponent who is reviewing at WP:FAC. I see articles are consistently being nominated where the general franchise article is used in the prose. E.g. if a player plays in a world series against Team X, the article links to Team X rather than YYYY Team X season. Similarly, if a player does something like pitch a no-hitter or hit his X00th home run against a given team, it makes sense to me to link it to the YYYY Team X season article. This does not make sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I am pretty sure I asked about this issue before at WT:MLB and was told I was advising correctly, but I want to be sure. I felt like I was pulling teeth on the Jim Thome FAC with Go Phightins!. Now I am getting involved in the Larry Doby FAC and having the same problem. I see both the Cal Ripken and Babe Ruth FACs are equally problematic. See the sample commentary from the Doby FAC as follows:
  • You should be using team-season articles correctly in an FA. A sentence like "The two took a train from Newark to Chicago where the Indians were scheduled to play the Chicago White Sox the next day." Should be pointing the reader to the page most likely to have relevant information. The 1947 Chicago White Sox season and 1947 Cleveland Indians season should be linked in a sentence like this. Could you properly incorporate team-season articles throughout.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    ...I disagree that your sample sentence above fits properly for them, given that they just note the teams without the year's context. Wizardman 23:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
    The "year's context" is provided by the chronology of the presentation. If you have written the article at an FA level, it should be clear to the readers who was playing in the game and in this case, it is clearly the 1947 Chicago White and 1947 Cleveland Indians. I presume that you feel a reader understands this sentence is about a game between the 1947 Chicago White and 1947 Cleveland Indians or do you think this is a mystery/surprise to the reader?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
P.P.S. when you sign with or get traded to a team I think the franchise articles are O.K. because the duration is usually for more than 1 season.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As with our previous battle over hockey articles, I would maintain that this is overlinking as the reader does not need to be inundated with easter eggs to the same team name repeatedly. Resolute 13:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm personally against linking directly to a season article per WP:EASTEREGG, unless the linked text provided is something along the lines of "During the [[YYYY Team X season|YYYY season]]", so you know you're not going to the franchise article. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I occasionally do something like "During the [[YYYY Team X season|following season]]" to decrease the monotony of having the year preface "season" all the time.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the others. This is by far overlinking and is definitely an easteregg which could surprise the reader who expects to go to the team article. Principal of least astonishment is definitely in effect here. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a time and place for team season articles, but in my opinion, every time one mentions that something happened in a certain year, one need not automatically have to integrate a team/season link into the article. In that respect, I agree with Resolute. However, like much of this sort of MOS nitpicking that occurs in GANs and FACs, it is not a hill on which I am willing to die, so I generally submit to whomever has the strongest opinion, and in the case of the Thome FAC, that was TTT. Go Phightins! 19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said in the last related discussion thread on this page: first, there is a discoverability issue with non-obvious link text, particularly for those unable to hover over a link, making it an accessibility challenge. Second, the way readers surf from topic to topic by following links is supported by making the destination for a given link as obvious as possible, as readers will mostly not think too much about where a link is going. If you end up at unexpected places a few times, you quickly start mistrusting clicking through. Particularly in prose, I believe link text should be as obvious as possible, to avoid degrading the overall Wikipedia experience. isaacl (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • If I am reading the thread you are pointing us to correctly the outcome was 8 to 2 in favor of piping team season articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The poll was specifically asking about the edits made by Jojhutton, and as clarified, the results were a consensus only for that type of edit: links within a table where each row corresponds to a separate year, with a legend that describes the destination of the links. This consensus has been captured on the WikiProject Baseball style advice page. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Assuming that is accurate and notwithstanding the fact that the count in this discussion is both more current and against you, consensus is not decided by vote count. It is determined by weight of argument. On your side, you have WP:ILIKEIT and an argument from authority fallacy. On the against side, we have WP:EGG, WP:OVERLINK, accessibility concerns and WP:POLA. Resolute 23:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:EGGs

I noticed when reviewing the Doby article at FAC that in the haystack of navboxes at the end that {{Cleveland Indians}} uses the impossible-to-decipher-without-clicking format of listing retired numbers as "14" AND has a completely redundant {{Cleveland Indians retired numbers}} template, but which provides more information. Is there any particular need for there to be two templates that convey the same information? Resolute 14:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you click on the retired number category you will see that this isn't unique to the Indians.. but I dont really see the need for those navboxes. Spanneraol (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it was probably done across the board. FWIW, I would actually favour removing the "retired numbers" row from the main infobox and using the separate template alone on the player articles. The main infobox is 99% irrelevant links to the players themselves. Resolute 14:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
What I have suggested in the past was that instead of having the numbers for each individual player, just having a link to the list of all numbers retired. And then getting rid of the individual template. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Resolute. Having a list of "numbers" in the team navbox doesn't show who the players are, and they're buried deep within regardless. I'd prefer deleting that row and keeping the retired number navboxes as they are. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep them in the team navbox and get rid of the retired number one.. The less navboxes the better. The confusion over the numbers can be fixed by putting the names on that line instead of just the number.Spanneraol (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I think a standalone Cleveland Indians retired numbers or similar team-specific article would meet WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. Ideally, most/all teams would have their own retired number article that could be linked from the team's main navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Even if you don't have an article you can link to a section of the team page which lists it. -DJSasso (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Task Forces

Most of our task forces are not active, this includes the Hall of Fame Task force and the Baseball Article Improvement Drive. I have also noticed the majority of team WikiProjects are also inactive. I haven't checked out the College Baseball Task Force or any of the Geographical task forces yet. But what is the future of these Task Forces/WikiProjects? Let me know, thanks. Atomic XYC 15:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How does one define "active"? There aren't active discussions going on there; community-based discussions on baseball are best held here. If you mean content creation/expansion, then they are probably all active to some degree. I just got Home Run Baker to DYK last week, for instance, and I will continue to work on NYY/HOF articles, as well as others. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll second that the project is small enough that much of the collaboration should occur here. That doesn't really detract from the benefit of the task force pages for me. Those pages allow us to see which editors might be interested in which topics, which articles have been promoted to GA/FA within each area, things like that. I'm working on promoting HOF articles from Start to C-class, but I'm stuck on some Negro league players. I can go to the Negro league task force page and look at the sourcing and structure for some of the recognized content within that task force.
There is a ton of good work going on here for such a narrow group of regulars. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 04:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I also been active in several Hall of Fame players, and promoting collaboration via IRC here #wiki-baseball connect. I just been focusing on football or forgotten baseball figures lately because those articles need more help. I'll eventually tackle C class baseball Hall of Fame articles. Secret account 13:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Baseball at the Summer Olympics

Is anyone interested in expanding this article? I also encountered a few inconsistencies that were mentioned in the talk page a while ago and remain unsolved. Among them are an apparent mix ups with the dates and medal quantity. Also, the fact that "unofficial" exhibition medals were awarded in 1984 an 1988, something supported by the IOC itself, was mentioned in the talk page but these are not included in the medal table. Somebody commented that they should be added with a note stating that they were awarded but did not count for the "official" medal count. What do you think? GoxSox1989 (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hash in retired number templates

MOS:HASH says that we should not use "#" to mean "number". Therefore I intend to remove the # from the retired number templates (e.g. Template:Boston Red Sox retired numbers). In this case it shouldn't even need to be replaced with anything (number / No. etc). They aren't rankings and it is obvious that they are numbers, you don't need a # to tell you that. I don't see this as particularly controversial, but as it affects multiple templates I thought I should provide fair warning here first. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of that part of MOS. I just tried it out and agree with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
And I just edited out the number signs with AWB. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Good work, cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Twitter

As of recent discussion, we have talked about creating a Twitter page for our WikiProject. Can I see some votes, comments, pros and cons to see if we could be going through with this. Thanks Atomic XYC 17:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well a twitter account would require someone to maintain it and send out tweets occasionally. Someone would have to volunteer for that duty. Do we have enough happenings to make it worthwhile? What important news would need to be tweeted? Important discussions? AFDs? Spanneraol (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to maintain it and send out some tweets. I am pretty sure we have enough going on/article upgrades to make it worthwhile. Thanks. Atomic XYC 18:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Meh. I guess it could be for important discussions, although AFDs might be a little tricky, as inevitably not all will be "tweeted" about, which might cause some inadvertent bias in what does get tweeted. Go Phightins! 20:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any particular need for a Twitter page, as I don't see any specific information that needs to be broadcast on a real-time basis, and a centralized update channel is a bit of a mismatch with Wikipedia's community-based consensus approach. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Please no Twitter, we aren't a social media site. If we want to promote new users, go to reddit. Secret account 20:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's not go anywhere. Seattle (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't posting the deletion notices in Twitter count as "stealth canvassing"? GoxSox1989 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Yup. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
All right. Consensus seems to be against a project Twitter for reasons including, but not limited to the possibility of canvassing, whether intentional or otherwise, possible stifling of the general consensus-building approach of an encyclopedia, and a general lack of appropriate content for the page. Go Phightins! 19:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Baseball At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We should definitely do this. Outreach folks, want to help draft? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Your contact details
Project name WikiProject Baseball
Short Description The sport of baseball can trace its history back to the 1700s; it has survived scandal, the Great Depression, even World Wars, but has always remained the same game that our fathers loved to play.
Longer description
Logo
Primary webpage URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball
Mailing List
Email contact gophightins_wiki@verizon.net
IRC channel #wiki-baseball connect
Facebook page
Twitter handle

Sure, I'll help! Looking at that draft though, I see Twitter, Facebook and Email. Do we need any of that stuff for WikiProject Baseball? Atomic XYC 16:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that is just a form to fill out so that people can make the pamphlet. Since this project doesn't have them you wouldn't fill them in. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. We don't have those, and I don't believe we'll be developing them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
We could have a project Twitter account, I suppose, for project news - I think some other projects have them - but I for one don't use Twitter in real life, so I am not sure how useful that would be. Whose contact details do we fill in above? By the way, I am OK with publishing my Wikipedia email address if we need to fill in one as the project contact: gophightins_wiki@verizon.net. Go Phightins! 02:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Go Phightins!, a twitter account could be kind of helpful to any followers (or project members) to keep up to date on news. Also it could be a good way of getting our WikiProject "out there." I do have a twitter account and I do think that having a WikiProject twitter account could be beneficial in some aspects. Let me know your thoughts. Atomic XYC 15:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the above as is, so we don't miss any deadline (not sure when Wikimania takes place). We need to write a longer description, and if we create a Twitter, we can add the handle there later. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How about this for a longer description: "WikiProject Baseball is a group of contributors dedicated to improving coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. From its origins to modern-day, there is always somewhere you can help, whether through updating statistics, taking photos, writing or copyediting articles, or helping to build project consensus on a wide range of issues. Join us today in celebrating the past, present, and future of America's natural pastime, which has now spread around the world into one of the most popular global sports." Go Phightins! 20:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Good for the most part, but I wouldnt start a sentence with "from it's origins to modern day"... I got confused for a second there and thought you were talking about the origins of the wikiproject... perhaps that part should be combined with the previous sentence. Spanneraol (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for signing up for a leaflet. In the template on the project leaflets wiki that I previously linked to, is there any chance that you could fill out the "Your contact details" section please? I would appreciate it could also fill out any other fields which were left empty. THanks

Adikhajuria (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Title for new list?

Hey guys! I'm planning to create a new list on players who've hit 10 RBIs or more in one game. I'm unsure of what title to give it though. Should it be "List of Major League Baseball hitters with:

  1. 10 runs batted in in one game
  2. 10 RBI in one game; or
  3. 10 RBIs in one game

The first example is the most detailed (no abbreviations), but I'm not too keen on the "consecutive ins". And if abbreviation is permissible, RBI or RBIs? Any thoughts? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Are their enough players who have done this to make such a list worthwhile?Spanneraol (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are 13 players in total. That's the same number as two grand slams, two less than unassisted triple plays and three less than four home runs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
There are 13 -- but such a list already exists -- here. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant. I'll give it its own article then. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Pre-season games at Olympic stadium

I have started a discussion on how the Jays–Mets pre-season series should be described. Any comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologize in advance, but would appreciate some help

Hi everyone, I apologize in advance for "spamming" the project talk page, but I would appreciate some help with some of my GA nominees. I presently have three Phillies' players up at GAN, and would like to have them done well in advance of the WikiCup deadline. I am more than willing to QPQ with someone. The articles are Carlos Ruiz (baseball) Kyle Kendrick Jake Diekman. Thank you. Go Phightins! 02:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a look at Kendrick, probably this weekend. Does that work for the WikiCup deadline? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The deadline isn't until the end of June, but I am going to be away the last two weeks of June, so I wanted to have it done well before then. Thank you very much! Go Phightins! 10:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey EricEnfermero, I should have time this weekend to address concerns, if you can get to it by then. Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that! I got a little sidetracked but should be able to give it some attention tonight. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 10:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Teams minor league player pages

There's been a lot of new additions to the minor league players pages recently and I really think it's time we come up with guidelines to who we add to these pages. Personally I think we should limit the players on these pages to top prospects, 40-man guys and first round picks who come close to passing WP:GNG and are a few sources away from notability for there own articles. I don't think we should be adding run-of-the-mill type players and journey-man. What do others think?--Yankees10 03:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe if a player is currently on a minor league roster, he's a fit for the minor league pages. Many, if not most, future major leaguers are not top prospects or even 40-man-roster guys before making the major leagues. What harm is there for having them on those pages? There is no harm. Alex (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm with Yankees10.. Alex what's the benefit of adding those guys you are adding? Most of them will be off the team after the season and will need to be re-directed again or deleted. The top prospects and 40 man guys will be in the organization for a long time and have a realistic chance of making it to the majors. Spanneraol (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Also there are thousands of minor league players. There needs to be a cutoff on who we add. Something needs to stick out with the players on these pages. Top prospects and 40-man guys are the best ways to do this.--Yankees10 04:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
        • If they're future major leaguers anyway, why have minor league entries waiting for them? Why not just write their articles when they reach the major leagues? No one is adding entire rosters' worth of Dominican Summer League players, nor, to my knowledge, has anyone done so. These pages are great places to put the mid-level minor league players who do not quite have the top prospect tag attached to them, but who could still reach the major leagues. That's who the pages in question should be for. If those pages are made to host such few players, then I question why even have them at all. To further my point that many major leaguers are not 40-man or top prospect players while in the minors, 2014 newcomers (who made their debuts from April 25 to May 14) Chase Anderson, Eric Campbell, Caleb Joseph, Evan Marshall, Aaron Brooks, Red Patterson, Mike Morin, Dan Robertson, Scott Carroll or Chris Martin were not ranked as 'top prospects' by any major publication, nor were they 40-man guys for long, if at all, prior to their promotions to the major leagues. Robertson was a 33rd round draft pick, Patterson a 29th round selection. Alex (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

We can't always predict who will and will not be called up to the majors ("You just can't predict baseball, Suzyn."), but we can be sensible about who we create redirects and blurbs for. I tend to create these blurbs for players who I believe are *this* close to being called up, and there are usually sources that suggest this. Pulling from my memory banks, some of the recent blurbs I've created include Kevin Quackenbush, Dominic Leone, Drew VerHagen, and Carson Smith (baseball). But all of those guys had some sources (enough that I thought maybe GNG, but maybe not, which is why I didn't give them their own pages right away) and some accomplishments. Smith was in the AFL Stars Game, VerHagen had a nice college career and high draft slot, Quackenbush was a collegiate All-American with a 0.29 ERA in AA, Miguel Rojas (baseball) was talked about as possibly breaking camp with the Dodgers (though I know Spanneraol didn't like that one, still his defense may yet get him to the show as a utility infielder). Alex, I just don't understand what criteria you're using to create some of yours. Let's look at a few. Boone Whiting: he's a 24 year old who reached Triple A, so that theoretically gives him a non-zero chance, but his stats don't make him look like he's on the cusp, and you didn't provide any sources to suggest that he even sniffs GNG. Jose Casilla: all you sourced it to was his BR Minors page, which shows that he's walking more batters than striking out this year. Buddy Baumann: also totally unsourced, a 26 year old in AAA who doesn't seem to have any RS talking about him. Rett Varner: I'll root for him because of his awesome name, but he's got a 15.43 ERA in AAA right now. That's not on the cusp of promotion. Travis Banwart: He's 28 years old and signed with Cleveland as a minor league free agent. Yangervis Solarte is the exception to the MiLB free agent rule. The purpose of these pages should be to provide information on some guys who are just about to deserve their own pages, but we think they just fall short at the moment. I'm not understanding your process with the ones you're creating. It seems unsystematic, other than a focus on AAA players. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

    • This is what I'm doing. I have a whole list of players that I would like to put onto these minor league pages, but oftentimes those players make the major leagues before I get the opportunity to create entries for them. So what I've been doing is this: Every time a player on my list that I would have made an entry for makes his major league debut, I do an entry for a guy on my list that has yet to make his debut and that doesn't have a Wikipedia entry already. One player I've entered thus far, Eric Campbell, has earned a promotion to the major leagues. I anticipate more will follow, especially towards the end of the year with roster-expansion call ups. These are all Triple-A guys, and once a player reaches Triple-A, the chances of him reaching the major leagues are extremely high. Alex (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Depends Alex.. lots of the guys in AAA are long time minor leaguers that are signed for roster depth and have very little chance of making a MLB roster.Spanneraol (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

DGG raised some good points last year in this discussion thread: with the current set of pages, there is some undue emphasis on recent events, and potential conflict with the principle that notability is not temporary. I appreciate that one of the practical reasons behind these pages is to avoid protracted debates on whether or not a given minor league player meets the general notability guideline. Nonetheless, I think some rethinking of how these pages should be managed over the long term may be advisable. isaacl (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I get the idea of DGG saying "it's notable or it's not", but baseball prospecting can be more complex than that. We are all in agreement (or at least I think we are) that players on 40 man rosters should not be red links. But, not all of them have enough coverage to meet GNG. That said, there is enough info out there to cobble together something, and these minor league player pages make a good incubation area that is more accessible than userspace to impart what we have on these guys. Whenever I think a minor leaguer meets GNG (eg Seth Blair, Mitch Nay) I give him his own page. But sometimes, there needs to be a middle ground between a standalone article and nothing, until we can figure out which one is best. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
In this case the notable subject is the Major League team's farm system... and that's what the article is about... players of varying notability pass through it all the time and the articles get updated accordingly.. They actually do contain every player in the system at the time by virtue of the roster templates that are included on the page. Spanneraol (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
They're list articles, with a few "select players" given additional coverage, which is a bit unconventional compared with other list articles I have seen. It seems like a reasonable approach, though, to highlight the top players in the system, whether or not they have a separate article by virtue of having met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Unlike most articles, the content in these type of articles never grow; it just gets thrown out and cycles to a new crop of players. If the main purpose of this is to be an incubator for future articles, making it a project sub-page is more appropriate. Then (hopefully) there will be less contention over who deserves an entry. Personally, I'd encourage creation/expansion of articles that meet GNG, as the those edits have more staying power.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a list page that shows all the players in the farm system... Thats the purpose. The more notable ones get more info on them. Project stub pages are not appropriate.Spanneraol (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing a lot of words here, but no one has really answered the simple query: What harm is there in having bios for certain players on the pages in question? Alex (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned, the issues that have been raised are of undue weight towards recent events, and removing information later on which runs counter to the principle that notability is not temporary. If some criteria can be set to determine which players warrant additional biographical information, regardless of whether or not they have a separate article by virtue of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, this would help align the list article with the goal of being about the minor league system. isaacl (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I've said it. There's nothing that stick's out with most of the players you've added. There's no reason for them to be there just because you think they have a chance to make the majors.--Yankees10 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • So really, there is no real harm in allowing these entries to be made. Alex (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I trust there is no need for me to repeat myself again. isaacl (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

←I know I mention this far too much here, but if you use User:Kelapstick/Sandbox as a case study, about 70% of a sample of 200 (somewhat random) articles about minor league players eventually end up getting deleted. My opinion (and I have been following this for years), is throw the presumed notability out the window, make a minor league guideline based solely on the GNG with sources that are not related to baseball (although sports in general may be acceptable), and are not related to the town they player plays in. These are the ones that in three years time are going to still be around. Just my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My two cents is that we should get rid of the "<Team> minor league players" articles. Either the players meet GNG or not. This middle ground isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. I've seen too many instances where players on one of the articles is deemed to "never be able to reach MLB" so they should be removed. In that case, the player name redirect to that page is populated with the information on the minor league player article, then that new player name page is put up for AFD. Most of the players on those pages aren't yet notable. If they are, make an article for them; if they're not, let's just wait. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean in this direction myself: either they meet GNG or they don't. What stops me, though, is that I still believe that players on 40 man rosters absolutely should have something, even though some of those players (mostly the internationally signed players, who signed at age 17 and are Rule 5 eligible despite only reaching Class A) don't meet GNG. Is there a sort of coverage for "rising prospects" that we could identify as a minimum threshold for inclusion on these pages? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
In my original sorting, I used the 40-man roster as a cut off, rather arbitrarily. Is there a rush to create their articles before they play in the Majors though? How much of their page would be focused on their minor league career after they played for five years? Not much, because it is a rather minor (pardon the pun) part of their career.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well the pages are useful even if they only have the roster templates on them, because i use these pages to update those templates. Again, the purpose of the pages really is to give an overview of the prospects in the farm system and like Mubo said, players on the 40 man roster should be listed somewhere, though those that havent played in the Majors shouldnt have their own pages. These pages were originally created back when the notability guidelines for baseball players were changed to the current rules as a compromise between those that wanted all minor leaguers to have pages and those that didnt want them to. Perhaps if the page names were changed to something more like Team X Current Farm System or something like that it might not be as confusing as it seems to be to some people.Spanneraol (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Or just have a page on the 40-man roster? That seems to be a common milestone/bright line in the system and is unambiguous in what is required for inclusion.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well we have also been covering first round draft picks and the like.. plus all the rosters are on the page. It really hasnt been a problem till Alex started adding these guys. Spanneraol (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes get rid of them. I've never been a fan of them. I was going to bring up a discussion about deleting them about two years ago, but decided against it since I didn't think the support would be there. I've added numerous players (especially in the last few months) but I figured if the option was there I might as well use it. I'd still keep the 40-man guys but with a different title.--Yankees10 17:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Getting rid of them completely would result in more fringe guys getting their own articles. I still think they serve a purpose. Spanneraol (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Either All minor leaguers are eligible to appear on those pages, or those pages shouldn't exist. Since the consensus is against the former opinion, the pages should not exist. If they're *that* close to GNG anyway, we should just wait until they make their major league debuts or actually do fulfill GNG. I vote delete. Alex (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not an afd. The pages should exist in some form, even if they are just repositories for the rosters. Spanneraol (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
"This is not an AfD." You don't say. Though I'm leaning toward getting rid of the pages altogether, I hold out hope that my fellow Wikipedians will realize the goal of Wikipedia is to enhance and collect knowledge, rather than deny and eliminate it. These minor league pages allow for that goal to be accomplished harmlessly. Entries for the minor league players do not require much work to maintain, nor do they require much work to remove. Alex (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the players listed on minor league pages should be limited to individuals with coverage outside of statistics and passing mentions. The burden of proof is on the writer to demonstrate the player's notability, rather than on the observer to discredit such a player. Players must be notable to be added on minor league pages. Do you understand? Seattle (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Major League Baseball rivalries

Resolved

Does anyone find these unsourced additions notable?—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of those rivalries. In my mind, the only rivalries of note are the three that existed among the original 16 MLB teams. Namely; Yankees-Red Sox, Dodgers-Giants & Cardinals-Cubs. Of course that's not to say that new rivalries can germinate say between the Rangers & Astros but, I think it will take a lot more than one editor's opinion to make a rivalry notable. As an example the Pirates and Phillies have been around for over 100 years yet, I cannot recall reading anything about a rivalry that compares to the Cardinals-Cubs rivalry. Of course, this is just my unsourced opinion.Orsoni (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
As there have been no arguments for keeping it, I've removed it.—Bagumba (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I also find some of the examples used to legitimize a rivalry such as, onfield scuffles, brush back pitches, etc, do not make it a rivalry. To my mind, a rivalry is created by the fans, such as the numerous Cubs and Cardinals fans who make a road trip to support their team at away games.Orsoni (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner

Just a friendly reminder that writers should submit their works to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter/Volume 02 issue 03, with less than a week until "publication". Critically, though, we need a method to make our WikiProject and The Inside Corner known to a larger range of people. The last Signpost went without a WikiProject report, and our last Signpost interview dates back to 2010. I can contact the author of the last WikiProject Report to, hopefully, set up an interview with us, contingent upon some WikiProject Baseball members agreeing to submit answers on what we're about. To me, that seems like a nice idea to ultimately improve the quality of baseball-related articles on Wikipedia. Seattle (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

AtomicXYC has posted a request at the WikiProject desk of the Signpost. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Can everyone have their contributions submitted by Thursday, May 29? Thanks! (And if one of the newsletter's contributors succeeds in becoming a newly-minted admin, perhaps he would like to perform the mass mailing delivery once I have finished preparing it ;-) isaacl (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea who that might be ... Go Phightins! 20:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yea, what poor sucker did they get to do that job?... :) Oh and Go Phightins, are you gonna include Beckett's no-hitter on your "around the horn" list? Or have you blacked that one out? Spanneraol (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, for you :-) Go Phightins! 21:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : May 31, 2014

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

Are you interested in contributing to WikiProject Baseball's newsletter? Perhaps you'd like to make some fun predictions for the second half of the season, such as the team that will surprise the most, best return from the DL, deadline deals, or best September call-up? Is there an article you have improved recently (or plan to improve) that you can share? Is there a topic area you'd like to highlight as needing some more editing help? Would you like to write some blurbs about the best and most interesting baseball-related articles and images? Sign up at the newsletter desk with your ideas!

Have you come across a new editor who you think could be a promising addition to the WikiProject Baseball team? Write them a note on their talk page welcoming their participation, and consider including this summary of the newsletter in the note (see the bottom of the newsletter for instructions).

To all contributors: please place the newsletter desk on your watchlist, so you can join in any discussions regarding preparations for the next issue. Thanks so much for your efforts! isaacl (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Hall of Fame dab page change

Recently, User:TheGoofyGolfer changed the redirect of Baseball Hall of Fame to point to a newly-created disambiguation page at Baseball Hall of Fame (disambiguation). Given that this had been a longstanding redirect (since 2006) to the obvious target of 99% of users, and because there are over 1,500 incoming links to Baseball Hall of Fame, I thought I would bring it to the project's attention. Woodshed (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Hitters/pitchers" or "players/leaders" in the title?

Hey guys! In my current FLC, a discussion popped up about whether or not a title should utilize the generic terms "players" and "leaders", or whether there should be a differentiation by using "hitters" or "pitchers". The current situation is ambiguous, as almost all career-statistic lists (e.g. 1,000 RBIs and ERA) use the generic term, while single-game record lists (e.g. 4Ks in an inning and four home runs) differentiate. Is there any past consensus on which version should be used for a specific kind of record? Or is the current discrepancy alright for now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the generic terms—"players" and "leaders"—are probably best, offering more flexibility in crafting a title, and avoiding the subtle connotations of, say, "batter" versus "hitter". isaacl (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I'd think in the later two examples it needs to be differentiated because pitchers can allow four home runs in a game also, so it needs to be hitters.. same with the strikeouts, though I dont know if anyone has ever struck out four times in an inning as a hitter, it is technically possible.Spanneraol (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Spanneraol – Sorry that I wasn't clear. It's a pitcher striking out 4 hitters in one inning, not a batter striking out. It would seem unlikely for a hitter switch positions to pitch and attain these single-game records. But, as I pointed out in the FLC, it might just happen with the right player. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Sample titles using "players" are "List of Major League Baseball players who have struck out four batters in one inning" and "List of Major League Baseball players who have allowed four home runs in one game". By definition, a player who strikes out batters or allows home runs is a pitcher, so I don't see any need to use a non-generic term. isaacl (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
But the second list isn't about players (pitchers) who've allowed 4 home runs (no one's ever given up 4 in a game). It's about hitters who've hit four in one game. My concern is whether or not it is clear enough to the reader (who's not a baseball fan) that "players with 4 home runs in one game" refers to hitters, not pitchers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread that: "List of Major League Baseball players who have hit four home runs in one game" would be the corresponding title, in this example. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
To think about it, using "players who have hit" instead will make the title too long, IMO. It seems that my FLC, and other lists having "who have hit/struck out" in the title, are the exception rather than the rule, since they have to be worded that manner. On a related note, the reviewer in my FLC was willing to make an exception for pitchers achieving single-game records. So I'm kinda leaning towards keeping it as is. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the length is an issue. It could be shortened to "List of Major League Baseball players who hit four home runs in one game". isaacl (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Two roster templates for one team

Hello everyone, I have joined to try and help expand the coverage of Japanese baseball, in particular the Hanshin Tigers. I have updated the team's roster at Template:Hanshin Tigers roster, but have since found there is a separate Template:Hanshin Tigers roster navbox. Is this normal? Are they both required or should our effort be focused on one of them? Thank you in advance for this question and the many more I'm bound to ask in the future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly common. The navbox usually goes on the pages of the players that are contained within it. I'm not a big fan of the navboxes, but they are sometimes useful. Spanneraol (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Spanneraol. If the navbox is used on the pages of players, where is the other template used, apart from the team's page? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Player profiles

Montanabw raised an interesting point at Carlos Ruiz's GAN regarding placement of player profiles. Thoughts? Go Phightins! 21:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking very briefly at the player profile for that article, I believe any description of his career progression should be integrated with the sections on his career in order to provide greater context (as at least some of it is; I didn't check it all), and so I would hope there would be no puzzlement on the part of readers that would only be resolved when reaching the player profile section. Because a description of the player's baseball-playing characteristics will refer to the player's entire career, I think it fits better after a description of the career, and not before.
On a different note, I'm not a big fan of having one section per year, each named after the year. Grouping years together and finding some thematic name to unify them would, in my view, make the article stronger. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
On your second point, I generally agree, however I tend to wait until the end of a player's career (or towards the end, i.e. Jimmy Rollins) to do so, as it is easier to find unifying themes then. Go Phightins! 22:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Colour names in team infoboxes

Regarding this edit: An editor has been capitalizing the team colour names in the team infoboxes. For many of the edits, the edit summary indicated that this was being done as the colour names are proper nouns. As this is not the case, I reverted a few of these changes. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Colour names should be lowercase, unless part of the colour name is already a proper noun/adjective. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
We use American English around these parts.. "color"... the British dont know how to spell correctly. :) Spanneraol (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
You mean "color", right? ;-) With the aim of gaining a consensus, do you have a view on the capitalization of the colo(u)r names in the team infoboxes? isaacl (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Lowercase works for me. Spanneraol (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Lowercase. Seattle (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:X96lee15 for taking the initiative to update the colour names in accordance with this discussion! isaacl (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014 edition of newsletter

Just a reminder: if you may be interested in contributing to the newsletter, please place Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk on your watchlist so you can be aware of discussions related to the current issue under preparation. For the June edition, the newsletter needs contributors to help provide a project news summary, and a summary of baseball news in general. Other contributions are also welcome; you can chime in at the related discussion thread. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Link spam in baseball player articles

A IP editor[1] is putting EL into player articles. Claudell Washington, Billy Sample, J. R. Richard to name three. The links always say they are the player's official website but the link is to a website selling memorabilia related to this player. There is no content at any of these pages except the memorabilia. I've removed the links.

This is a heads up to other baseball editors because I think these links are being added by multiple accounts....William 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps WP:ELOFFICIAL should be modified to not allow official sites with no encyclopedic content.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
After more thought, I believe that official sites that merely sell products are counter to the spirit of WP:ELOFFICIAL that "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable" and don't really "give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." Also, WP:ELNO discourages "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising."—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Official_sites_that_primarily_sell_products.—Bagumba (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject welcomes via Twinkle

Hi guys -

Have we ever looked into creating a WikiProject-specific welcome template for Twinkle? If you go to a user talk page, click on TW, select "Wel", then select WikiProject welcomes from the dropdown menu, you can see some previews of boilerplate welcomes for different projects or topics, including sports projects like rugby union and cycling. I think this might be a really easy way to welcome new users who come in and make baseball-related edits. Does anyone know about the process/feasibility for such a template? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle is supposed to allow you to customize the list of welcome templates with your own, but I couldn't get it to add {{WikiProject Baseball invitation}}; maybe you can give it a try and see if you have better luck. I perused the archive of requests for Twinkle to try to see if there was any process or criteria related to adding a new welcome template, but couldn't find anything (I saw one request that was answered by directing the editor to the custom welcome feature). isaacl (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

A few more honest voices at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names/archive2 could be heard. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : June 27, 2014

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

Thanks very much to all contributors to the newsletter! If you are interested in submitting something to the newsletter, please place Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk on your watchlist, and sign up for any areas of interest. We can always use more pre-written material to save for future issues.

Interested in expanding the WikiProject Baseball community? Keep an eye out for new editors to welcome to the project, and consider including a copy of the latest summary of The Inside Corner in your welcome (see the bottom of the newsletter for instructions). isaacl (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cal Ripken, Jr.

A user has expressed concern in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Cal_Ripken.2C_Jr. that the article on Ripken does not draw on enough sources for his pre-1995 career and therefore may have left out relevant information the source it did cite mostly did not include. I think it covers everything, but I would appreciate it if someone knowledgable about Ripken would check the article and inform me if I left out something important or comment if they felt it included all the relevant information. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is a reasonable issue to raise: when there is a wide variety of reliable, independent sources to draw upon, greater diversity is better in an article that is labelled as one of Wikipedia's best. In order to address issues of due weight, it's necessary to evaluate the subject's coverage from multiple sources. Thus I believe it advisable to include citations to other sources, both for readers to understand the importance of the various events and pieces of information in the article, and as an example for other editors on best practices for a Wikipedia article. isaacl (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Washington Senators Opening Day starting pitchers

I removed almost all mentions of the 1961-71 Senators from this article. The 1901-60 Senators are part of Minnesota Twins history and the Twins themselves don't recognize anything from the 1961-71 years in their team history. So why should wikipedia? Secondly the List of Texas Rangers Opening Day starting pitchers does list the 1961-71 years even though the franchise was in Washington. That's where it belongs, not in both articles....William 16:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to re-name the article so its clear which version of the franchise it refers to. Spanneraol (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Title is fine, but what is and is not covered by the list should be in the lead. Per WP:LISTNAME, "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. ... Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list."—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Spam links

Hey guys; just a heads up that we're seeing an influx of spam links on behalf of footycards.com. I've reverted edits on two pages (T206 Honus Wagner and Template:Sports cards. The users were the IPs 82.0.55.151 and 81.104.114.11, which both locate to Sunderland, UK. Those are just the ones I've found; I assume there are probably other floating around. Matt Deres (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players from Japan

I'm currently making a push to make List of Major League Baseball players from Japan a Featured List. Things are going well so far but I thought it'd be nice to have some more eyes on it, specifically the Awards, records and notable accomplishments section and the Former players section. Is the awards section too in depth or just right? Is there a better way to format it that I'm not seeing? How do you feel about the Former players section having their current league/team if applicable? Worth having or not? Any other thoughts would be appreciated too! Thanks --TorsodogTalk 19:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Listing consecutive years in infobox

There was past consensus to list consecutive years as a range e.g. "2000–2003" instead of "2000, 2001, 2002, 2003". This is reflected at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Player_style_advice#Infobox. However, I'm noticing some bios follow this, except ranges of two years are still listed with a comma e.g. "2000, 2001" instead of "2000–2001". See Albert Pujols and Derek Jeter as examples. I'm proposing to simplify things and allow all consecutive years to be listed with an en dash, unless there is a something significant to having a special case for the comma.—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the "2000, 2001" way. I read the en dash as "from", and you don't really here people say "he was an All-star from 2000 to 2001". If that makes any sense. Wish I could explain it better.--Yankees10 20:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I personally hate using en dash... if you cant type the dang thing on the keyboard without having to remember some dumb code its way too much work. A normal - works fine. Spanneraol (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I find it frustrating to type an en dash, but there are key differences between it and a dash. I would read WP:HYPHEN for more info. As for 2 consecutive years, I see no difference between that and 10 consecutive years. A date range is a date range. Since there is a way to denote consecutive years, I see no logical reason to omit it for 2 year ranges. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Spanneraol: Synpathize with the frustration over keyboards and dashes. See isaacl's thread below for suggestions. Whether you enter an en dash or a hyphen, the main point of the discussion was whether commas are preferred or not when displaying two consecutive years. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with just using a range for all consecutive years, even if it is just two years (I disagree that phrases such as "from 2001 to 2001" "from 2000 to 2001" are not in use). Regarding using an en dash, typically someone will eventually come by and replace any hyphens (personally, I use the link below the text box to enter an en dash). isaacl (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the "Insert" functionality you describe is at the bottom of the edit window, and briefly mentioned at MOS:DASH. Side comment: It's also a lot easier to enter on Mac vs Windows—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
One tool for fixing an entire article is at User talk:GregU/dashes.js.—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Writing help requested (not too arduous, I don't think)

Hello fellow WP:BASEBALLers, I am hoping someone can help me out with the lead of Jimmy Rollins. I finished the body of the article (for now, which should suffice for its GA run ... FA will have to wait until he retires), and am having trouble summarizing for the lead. Also, I hate and am bad at writing leads. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look, hacking at it, taking another crack at it, offering feedback, etc., I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance, and best of luck to your team in the second half of the season. God bless. Go Phightins! 21:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a little work with it, but feel free to edit it as necessary. Good work! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Drew campbell

Resolved
 – Blocked as a VOA. --64.85.214.94 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (Same dynamic IP as below)

I know a few admins lurk here at WPBB and I imagine the above user is familiar to a few. Please keep an eye out on this user as they are currently active and changing stats and adding other baloney. Their contribution history is mainly bo-o-o-o-o-gus. If they keep it up a quick and easy block may be in order. Rgrds. --64.85.214.138 (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : July 27, 2014

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

If you are interested in contributing to the newsletter, please place Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk on your watchlist, and sign up at the newsletter desk for the topic area about which you will be writing. If you'd like to kick around some ideas, feel free to start a thread on the newsletter desk discussion page. Thanks to everyone for their work in making Wikipedia better! isaacl (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about featured picture process

I saw that File:1937_All-Star_managers.jpg has been marked as FM-Class. Is this status supposed to be only for media that has gone through the corresponding Featured media process? If so, is this photos supposed to be FM-Class? I didn't see any links to a discussion on its status. I appreciate anyone being able to help me understand the feature picture process. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That was done recently by a newer user, so I just went ahead and undid it. Yes if it actually was Featured you'd notice it on the image page pretty clearly. Wizardman 16:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! isaacl (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1901-1902 Baltimore Orioles/New York Yankees

Some interesting news here. Baseball-Reference has made the decision to remove the 1901-1902 Baltimore Orioles from the history of the New York Yankees. It appears that research provided by official MLB historian John Thorn swayed them. Should Wikipedia update to meet this decision? Penale52 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion has also been initiated at Talk:New York Yankees#Dropping the connection between the Baltimore Orioles (1901-1902) franchise and the New York Yankees.. Since this has been 100 years in the making, I would think it is best for Wikipedia to react slowly to let it sink in for a while longer. In the meantime, it may be appropriate to include a "new research suggests"-type subsection in the history of the Yankees, but for now WP should sit tight and let the rest of the world change first. Once it has been fully accepted by baseball and the sports media, then the encyclopedia can be updated to reflect that. Rgrds. --64.85.214.94 (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote the History of the New York Yankees article and am interested in how this winds up being reflected in the record books since it affects how the early history is presented. Please let me know if there is anything that should be done now, or if this is something that will instead need to be considered in the future when new sources are published. I do wish that there was something stronger than a Sports Reference blog post, which would make Baseball-Reference's position sounder. Of course, it will take time for their position to be reflected in books and the like, which makes our job harder. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we should be very cautious about delinking the Orioles and Yankees. There are MANY sources over the past 110 years validating the link between the Orioles and Yankees, so a recent bits of revisionist history are hardly definitive. Rlendog (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

All hands on deck - Trade deadline 2014

The most exciting day of the year, and the most unconfirmed edits too. Lester and Gomes for Cespedes? Wow. Still not seeing it as confirmed, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If everyone tries to fit in the on-deck circle, it's going to get awfully crowded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes its not worth fighting that fight... you just get in a revert war with various IPs for a few minutes until the official announcements come down... I'd think if enough sources report something I have no real interest in fighting over it... The Lester deal has been confirmed now, by the way. Spanneraol (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you post the url of confirmation? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The teams both tweeted the news of the deal.. that counts as official confirmation if it comes from the official team twitter.Spanneraol (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cespedes was unsourced, so I reverted and semi-protected for 12h. Lester's editing for the trade has been mostly by auto confirmed editors, and is sourced (though original research to stretch it to a done deal), so I've left as is.—Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Fact of the matter is that, regardless of how you feel about waiting for confirmation or not, a lot of messy editing is taking place. Now it's starting on Marlon Byrd, though the top NYY blog is saying no deal has been done yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yea, the Byrd thing came from a fake tweet. And the editing is a mess, trying to fix rosters and make sure the right navbox gets added doesnt seem to interest these people. Spanneraol (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That's why we have to be diligent: (A) We don't know what rumors are true and which are fake, and (B) the templates and in page edits (leads, infoboxes) are sloppy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The deadline is in an hour, so we'll know what is confirmed or not soon enough. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped with this. As I was away and was unable to help, let me know if there are any messes that still need to be cleaned up; I am more than willing to do my retroactive share :-) Go Phightins! 17:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

300 GAs

As of right now, we have 273 good articles, and there are roughly 20 more nominated at GAN. Given that we're close to a pretty nice milestone for any project, perhaps that's a quick mini-drive we could do. Aside from reviewing the already-nominated, find an article to turn around and nom to get us over the hump. Doesn't have to be a Hall of Famer worked on, though that'd be a nice bonus as well. Wizardman 23:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

274 now. I'm willing to review them so long as you're all willing to write them, btw. Wizardman 16:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a few sitting there, I think. I will work on some more. I agree; that would be a nice mini-milestone. Go Phightins! 17:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll write more in time. Real life is a more pressing priority atm. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Input on Javier Báez

I would appreciate anyone's input on Javier Báez, specifically the detail in the minor league section. I made a significant cutdown which was reverted. Discussion is ongoing here (link). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost WikiProject report

The WikiProject Report of The Signpost would like to focus on WikiProject Baseball for a Signpost article on or around August 20. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. If you are willing to answer a few questions about WikiProject Baseball, just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. Thank you for your time; the visibility will allow other users to better engage with the project. (writing largely based on [2]). Seattle (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost WikiProject report

The WikiProject Report of The Signpost would like to focus on WikiProject Baseball for a Signpost article on or around August 20. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. If you are willing to answer a few questions about WikiProject Baseball, just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. Thank you for your time; the visibility will allow other users to better engage with the project. (writing largely based on [3]). Seattle (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Team season game logs

A long-time blocked editor, SNIyer12, has who has an obsessive-to-the-point-of-needing-psychiatric-help focus on the 1993-94 New York Rangers and Knicks seems to have begun branching out into baseball articles, and is pushing significant changes to season game logs. A current example is 2002 Anaheim Angels season. His obsession tends to focus on media outlets, and on the hockey side at least, we've decided that knowing what the start time was and which television station broadcast a game from 20 years ago is not useful information. It simply detracts from the important parts of a game log. I'm not sure what you guys think of this on the baseball side, so am simply bringing it up for discussion rather than taking any action. Either way, don't expect SNIyer to respond to any requests, and if you decide to revert it out, plan on his coming back and trying to put it right back in. Resolute 13:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Now an anonymous editor has popped up at 1969 New York Mets season and 1986 New York Mets season making the same type of edits. Do we need to establish if any portion of these edits have consensus support? isaacl (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Latest pages to encounter these edits: 1994 Montreal Expos season, 2009 New York Yankees season, more edits to the 1969 and 1986 New York Mets season pages, and various New Jersey Devils season pages. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Source list? input requested

Hey fellow editors, I was thinking it might not be a bad idea if we were to start a list somewhere in our project space of sources for each team, so if, for example, a player was traded from the Orioles to the Phillies, I as a Phillies editor would be able to find some good sources on the Orioles to check for information about the player. For example, for the Phillies, I would list the newspapers, other sites, blogs (noting which are reliable and which are unreliable), etc. that cover the Phillies, and hopefully y'all would do the same on other teams so we could all know which sources are good for which teams. This made more sense in my head than when I actually typed it, so feel free to ask for clarification if you need it. Thanks, and God bless! Go Phightins! 02:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. For books, we might also be able to indicate whether any project members own copies. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 12:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
True - a "virtual library" might be a good idea .. I have a personal one, but we could amalgamate; I will get started on this when time allows. Go Phightins! 12:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

List of St. Louis Cardinals team records and Red Munger

Munger's ERA of 1.34 in 1944 is on the list even though Munger didn't pitch enough innings to qualify for National League ERA title. Should he therefore be mentioned?...William 11:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I would lean toward not mentioning it. If we do, that opens the door for having a bunch of 0.00 "team records" that reflect 3+1⁄3 innings pitched and such. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 12:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Announcing the latest new and exciting news in WP:BASEBALL! (please read)

I have boldly created the WikiProject Baseball library here. Please help get it off the ground by updating the information for your team, and by adding the resources to which you have access. Let me know if you have any questions/suggestions/etc. Thanks! Go Phightins! 21:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Great work, GP! I think this is going to be very helpful. Question: I have a number of player biographies. Should I add them under the team-specific sections for the player's primary team, or is there a better way to handle that? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I would say probably add them under a new subsection for players; just list the player and book title, I'd say. Thanks for all your help. Go Phightins! 11:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Columns in season game logs

In this series of edits to 1994 Montreal Expos season, an editor added tables for game logs. I removed the columns for stadium, game time, local TV, local cable TV, national TV, national cable TV, local radio, and national radio, as I believe this information is overly detailed, as well as being mostly repetitive, and so obscure the more important data in the table. Can we establish a consensus view on this? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the editor has re-added game log tables for the spring training season. Based on previous discussion, I had removed this addition. I've asked the editor to join in this discussion. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Now the editor is filling in the game log table and re-inserting the additional columns. Can anyone weigh in on whether or not these columns should be present? Assuming there is a consensus to omit these columns, I'm at a bit of a loss at what to do, since short of semi-protection of every single team season article, I don't see a good way to stop these columns from being entered, and taking them out without removing the rest of the tabular data is tedious. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The TV stuff is ridiculous.. the local tv/radio info is already in the info box at the head of each article and doesnt change game to game. No reason to have it in these gamelogs. Spanneraol (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've warned the IP. We can block the editors adding spring training game logs, but that's all I can think to do. We had a discussion about (probably) the same user adding local TV and local radio stations to regular-season game logs, and agreed that those parameters shouldn't be added to the table. Seattle (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a note: it's a different IP address now (see the edit history for 1994 Montreal Expos season). I'd forgotten about this discussion from 2012; not too much input, but the couple of people who commented did favour dropping the TV information. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Go Phightins!: Left the same warning. The next time it happens should lead to a block... Seattle (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't find a discussion regarding an anonymous IP editor; if you happen to have an idea where the discussion is located, I'd appreciate a pointer. The spring training logs are easy to remove since there is consensus to drop the whole table, but extra columns in the game logs table are a pain to remove. (I suppose I could write a Lua module to assist.) isaacl (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I remember having one but I can't find it in the archives. I remember it was a recent discussion though. Seattle (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor has re-inserted the stadium column and the spring training log. (The last few edits were from a different IP address.) isaacl (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Recording the voices of baseball players

Congratulations on your feature in The Signpost. I think you might be interested in a project I started, the 'Voice Intro Project' (#WikiVIP), which records the speaking voices of people who demonstrate what tho are the subject of a Wikipedia biography. The aim is to demonstrate what they sound like, and how they pronounce their own names. Subjects can record in English, and/ or in any other language in which they are comfortable. Please contribute, by recording any baseball personalities you know or meet; or encouraging them to supply their own recordings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Outreach efforts: end-of-summer review

Back in March, some editors made various suggestions on improving WikiProject Baseball, which led to some discussion on welcoming new editors to the team. If anyone has welcomed new editors so far this season, could they post a brief message describing what they did and how successful it was? (For example, did you use {{WikiProject Baseball invitation}}, handcraft a greeting, or both? Did the editor subsequently increase their level of contribution to baseball-related articles?) Is there anything else you've done specifically related to outreach that everyone should know about? (The recently-created resource library could be considered as contributing to outreach, but I'm thinking of items with a bit more overt interaction with newcomers to baseball articles.) As the start of fall and the final push to the playoffs is upon us, bringing a larger audience, I'm thinking this is a good time to keep outreach in mind, and to learn from what has been done, good and bad.

If you are an editor who started editing baseball articles this season, perhaps you can share whether or not there was any specific actions by other editors that encouraged you to edit articles related to baseball, or Wikipedia in general? What has worked well, and what hasn't? What improvements can you suggest? isaacl (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : September 1, 2014

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

Thanks to everyone for their contributions! If you'd like to submit something to the newsletter, please put the newsletter desk page on your watchlist, and sign up for a section, add some blurbs to the showcase queue, or start a discussion on the talk page about your proposed submission. Your assistance is appreciated. isaacl (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Request

Can somebody please change the size parameters of Template:Infobox baseball biography so that it matches Template:Infobox MLB player?--Yankees10 04:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Miami Marlins' color for {{Baseball alternative primary color}}

{{{name}}}
Miami Marlins
Bats: {{{bats}}}Throws: {{{throws}}}

The color that is currently set for the Miami Marlins for {{Baseball alternative primary color}} is the team's blue. I disagree with this color choice - the color template is prominently used in several infoboxes, and the Marlins' blue is merely an accent color that barely shows up in their branding (about as often as yellow does). Outside of the logo/wordmark or the drop shadowing on the numbers for the orange jersey, the blue is not used anywhere on the team uniform. For example, Marlins players currently have an infobox that looks like the example to the right, which doesn't sit right with me. If anything, the blue color should be replaced with orange, as the team uses it about as much as the Baltimore Orioles or San Francisco Giants do. What does everyone think? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference, here are two alternatives that I think would better reflect the team's branding. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Giancarlo Stanton
Miami Marlins
Giancarlo Stanton
Miami Marlins
The blue does seem out of place. I like the second one better, but how about the player's name being white? NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
On a more general note, the legibility of the text on the colour backgrounds is poor; as was briefly discussed in the context of season articles, I think using colour borders instead of backgrounds would be a better way to incorporate the team colours without sacrificing readability. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, here's white text version for your consideration. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Giancarlo Stanton
Miami Marlins
I also find the black on orange difficult to read. The Marlins uniforms outline the black with white, which improves legibility. In addition, larger lettering improves visibility, as evidenced by how this colour combination passes the W3C WCAG 2.0 AAA contrast standards for text above 18 point but fails it for text below this size. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
OK then, how about all white text? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Giancarlo Stanton
Miami Marlins
All white looks the best to me and is the easiest to read. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What should be in a season article?

Now that 2015's articles are already being created, I took a look through the 2014 articles, and most of them are to me very disappointing. Not necessarily for the lack of prose, but because it seems like it's table after table after table. For that matter, most of the articles have no sections to write about the season built in, so it's no wonder that users haven't been adding anything. Perhaps it's time now to brainstorm and get a good idea of what the 2015 shells should be like. If we get it on the right foot then we could have much better season articles. A few in 2014 are in good shape, but it's unfortunately the exception. Wizardman 23:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/MLB team season articles format, which has some basic ideas... The 2015 articles should not be started until 2014 is over... I agree that some people go over board on tables... I prefer mostly prose with a few basic tables, stats, roster, standings..... though I really hate the record vs. opponent tables that have popped up the last few years as I dont feel they give much useful info... certainly dont understand all the tables that are used on the Cardinals page. Spanneraol (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I know I have been doing a lot of work on the Phillies' 2014 season article ... I am going to eventually need to do some pruning, especially on the preseason stuff, but I think it has a decent shell. Generally, I like the page Spanner linked above. Go Phightins! 23:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Man, that Cardinals article tries to be the entire media guide, doesn't it? Overall, I think a fair number of tables are unavoidable in a complete season article. These are really almanac pages and a considerable amount of a team's season is easily condensible into a table. From the perspective of a parallel project, here how I write in hockey: 2013–14 Calgary Flames season. In my view, there is seven key areas of interest: The season (prose), standings (table), player statistics (table), transactions, awards/milestones and draft (all three a mix of both, e.g. here), and minor league affiliates (prose - though this is one case where a table may be better for baseball). The draft may carry less weight from a baseball perspective than hockey, but otherwise, I would be looking for the same information. The Cardinals article loses me right off the bat with a bunch of minor hirings and firings that nobody cares about and doesn't get better by dedicating entire sections to events that don't require more than a couple sentences in this article. And completely agreed on the overbroad tables. There's TWO dedicated to head to head record (the matrix one is a horrible failure of WP:ACCESS with the colour-coded column headers, btw), percentage of runs due to HRs, Record when...? Oy. Can't blame you for wanting to get a set format down, Wizardman. Resolute 00:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Prose that discusses trends that occur during the season are what make an article encyclopedic. I don't like seeing a large amount of stats in prose that are handpicked from a stat site; that usually strikes me as WP:OR by an editor placing stats that they, not experts, are deciding is important. The other extreme is 162 game-by-game details, which are not a bad thing if they are eventually pared down when it is clearer what were the key points in the season.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The Cardinals pages have been primarily the domain of User:Katydidit who always resented changes... he seems to have been blocked for sockpuppetry.. so that might not be an issue now... As to the style things, we should set up the season pages based on the style guide i linked to above. Spanneraol (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Navbox questions

Looking for some input on the handling of some navbox issues below.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor league affiliate navboxes

Category:Minor league baseball affiliates navigational boxes has navboxes for each MLB team's minor league affiliates. However, a random sampling of MLB team navboxes at Category:Major League Baseball team navigational boxes shows that they too generally enumerate this information as well. Is there a need for such duplication? For an example see "Minors" at bottom of Template:Los Angeles Dodgers and Template:MLB Team Los Angeles Dodgers. I would propose that the affiliate navboxes can be deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As an editor that focuses on the minor leagues, I prefer the separate 'franchise' navbox. All but one team navbox has links to their farm clubs. The other 29 don't seem to follow any strict pattern of placement; some are at the bottom before season links, some are close to the bottom, some are spread around in the middle. The separate box of only MiLB teams is easier for me to find and use to navigate through a franchise. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't tell if you prefer the separate navbox solely because the team navboxes are inconsistent. If so, the ideal solution is to standardize the team navboxes, not to duplicate the information in a different set navbox with duplicated info. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I think fixing the inconsistent placement of minor league info would help. Still, even with a consistent location in the team navbox, I think MiLB teams are easier to locate and navigate in the separate box. When I'm looking through an organization, I use the minor-league-only franchise box instead of the main team navbox. Maybe I'm alone in that. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Team hall of fame members in navboxes

Are members of a team's hall of fame, such as those at Category:Major League Baseball museums and halls of fame, notable enough to be enumerated in a navbox? If so, should they be in a standalone navbox, or added to the general team navbox? For example, Template:San Diego Padres lists all their HOF members in the navbox. I recently created a dedicated article for the team's HOF, and added the article to the team navbox. I dont think the team navbox needs the clutter of listing each member, and would propose removing them. However, I'm leaning toward not creating a dedicated Padres HOF navbox, as it seems like we generally have too much navbox clutter in baseball.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Signpost report on WikiProject Baseball featured on Wikimedia blog

Hi all,

As you may be aware, WikiProject Baseball was recently featured in the Signpost's WikiProject report series. As an ongoing effort to attract more attention, new readers and new editors, the Wikimedia Blog has published a post summarizing the Signpost's report here. Thanks to all involved!

CMonterrey (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

World Series name

I found a source which explains the origin of the name. I'd be interested if anyone here has any better sourcing. Thanks. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

See the references here, including this Snopes article, for evidence against the "New York World" conjecture. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Also see this previous discussion on the World Series talk page. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I just saw the snopes part so I self reverted. It would be nice to explain the origin in the name, if only to help the unenlightened :) Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 00:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Backwards k

Dear baseball experts: Backwards k redirects to [Strikeout#Jargon and slang]]. However, this section doesn't have any information about backwards k, whatever that may be. If this is an actual slang term, could someone who knows what it is please make an addition to the article? Or is this an inappropriate redirect? I have no idea, myself. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anne. Generally, a backwards k refers to a looking/called strikeout, whereas a "forward k" refers to a swinging strikeout. I will try to update that article as such, or perhaps a colleague here can. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. God bless. Go Phightins! 10:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I fixed it. The term is explained under the Rules section of the Strikeout page, so I just changed the redirect. InTheAM 15:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Bot help in converting infobox template

I have merged Template:Infobox Defunct Minor League Baseball into Template:Infobox Minor League Baseball. Does anyone know about how to get a bot (or some other tool?) to help with the conversion from one to the other on the 400+ pages that use the defunct infobox? It would require renaming the template, removing some fields, renaming some fields, and moving team data from one field to another. Thanks. NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Split notification for Minor League Baseball to Minor league baseball

There is a proposal to split off part of Minor League Baseball into a new article to cover the general concept of minor league baseball, to be titled Minor league baseball. Your input at Talk:Minor League Baseball#Split would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Rosen and the Florida Gators

Hey, guys. I have a problem of which I have been aware for some time, but have not known quite what to do about it. Al Rosen was a big-time MLB player of the 1950s, and was later the managing partner of the New York Yankees. By all accounts, he attended the University of Florida for a year (1940–41) before the United States' entry into World War II, but left to play minor league ball the spring/summer before Pearl Harbor. What is unclear is whether Rosen ever actually played for the Florida Gators baseball team. Although various sources briefly mention Rosen playing for the Gators baseball team, the Florida Baseball Media Guide does not list Rosen among its all-time baseball lettermen nor does it include any stats for Rosen. The Wikipedia article says he played for the Gators, but provides no sourced footnote. Given Rosen's MLB prominence, it seems odd that the university did not claim him. The various baseball stats sites all list Rosen's college as the University of Florida, but, of course, there is a material difference between having attended the university and having played for one of its varsity sports teams. Do any WP Baseball editors have a biography of Rosen that could shed some light on this issue, or does anyone have access to a baseball reference that can provide a definitive answer? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If he played games but didn't remain with the team for the majority of the season he would not have earned a letter, which could explain why he isn't in the media guide. I recently encountered this when I create Ray Steiner, a basketball player who left the Univerity of Missouri over playing time after first semester his sophomore year. I suspect he played games for Mizzou, but since I can't prove it yet I left it out of the article. I'd suggest looking at game articles from the period on newspapers.com (if you can find them) to see if he shows up in a boxscore. Feels like if this can't be proven by reliable sources then it should probably come out of the article til it can be sourced. Rikster2 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
At my request, Cbl62 has reviewed the University of Florida's 1940, 1941 and 1942 Seminole yearbooks online through his Ancestry.com subscription service. Al Rosen was not listed as a member of the Gators varsity baseball team in any of those years, so I'm taking the "played for the Gators" reference out. There is still a possibility that Rosen played for a Gators freshmen squad in those years, and we are checking into that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what other sports use as a standard, but at WP:CBBALL playing for a freshman/JV team does not count as being a player for that univeristy (ie - the category is not applied). This is expressly declared in the text of Category:College men's basketball players in the United States. Whenever I create a school-specific basketball category I specifically write that it is for notable varsity players for that school. Rikster2 (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The NCAA's "no freshmen" eligibility rule was in effect from the 1920s until the early 1970s (1972, I think), but it was suspended for several years during World War II and for a year or two after so more colleges could field football teams. Notwithstanding that, a lot of large universities did not field varsity teams in 1943-44 for lack of players and also because of gasoline rationing. I believe Rosen's freshmen year (apparently 1941-42) was before the "no freshmen" rule was suspended. Of course, pre-1970, virtually zero student-athletes left college early to play any professional sport other than baseball, so college football and basketball players usually used their full three years of NCAA eligibility. Unless they failed out of school as freshmen, they were sophomore members of the varsity. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Template merger

Template:Infobox MLB player and Template:Infobox baseball biography were determined to be merged in a MfD that closed in late-February. We should get on this. Who wants to volunteer? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Muboshgu, what needs to be "merged?" It looks like "Template:Infobox baseball biography" already incorporates all of the options of "Infobox MLB player". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd have to check! I just remember that it was decided we only need one of these templates, with all parameters included. Nobody has done it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox guidelines

Is there a consensus on what statistics can be included in the MLB Player infobox? I have sometimes come across infoboxes with stats such as OPS, doubles and walks. I am curious to know if there has been a discussion on this somewhere. - Hoops gza (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on this. The consensus is only to include triple crown stats unless someone is known for something in particular, such as saves or steals. I believe someone wrote up a proper style guide that had all that but I can't seem to find it right now.Spanneraol (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussions I've seen weren't sufficiently broad in scope to establish a clear consensus; if anyone can point to a consensus on this topic, or if we can just reach one now, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice (linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice) can be updated accordingly. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : September 28, 2014

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

Thanks to this issue's contributors, and to everyone for their work on baseball-related articles!

Are you interested in writing something for The Inside Corner—perhaps a playoff recap, a season retrospective of your favourite team, or an account of a day at the ballpark? Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk, put it on your watchlist, and drop a note on the newsletter desk discussion page to let us know what you're interested in writing about. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Template merger

Template:Infobox MLB player and Template:Infobox baseball biography were determined to be merged in a MfD that closed in late-February. We should get on this. Who wants to volunteer? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Muboshgu, what needs to be "merged?" It looks like "Template:Infobox baseball biography" already incorporates all of the options of "Infobox MLB player". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd have to check! I just remember that it was decided we only need one of these templates, with all parameters included. Nobody has done it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox guidelines

Is there a consensus on what statistics can be included in the MLB Player infobox? I have sometimes come across infoboxes with stats such as OPS, doubles and walks. I am curious to know if there has been a discussion on this somewhere. - Hoops gza (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on this. The consensus is only to include triple crown stats unless someone is known for something in particular, such as saves or steals. I believe someone wrote up a proper style guide that had all that but I can't seem to find it right now.Spanneraol (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussions I've seen weren't sufficiently broad in scope to establish a clear consensus; if anyone can point to a consensus on this topic, or if we can just reach one now, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice (linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice) can be updated accordingly. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : September 28, 2014

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

Thanks to this issue's contributors, and to everyone for their work on baseball-related articles!

Are you interested in writing something for The Inside Corner—perhaps a playoff recap, a season retrospective of your favourite team, or an account of a day at the ballpark? Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk, put it on your watchlist, and drop a note on the newsletter desk discussion page to let us know what you're interested in writing about. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Template merger

Template:Infobox MLB player and Template:Infobox baseball biography were determined to be merged in a MfD that closed in late-February. We should get on this. Who wants to volunteer? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Muboshgu, what needs to be "merged?" It looks like "Template:Infobox baseball biography" already incorporates all of the options of "Infobox MLB player". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd have to check! I just remember that it was decided we only need one of these templates, with all parameters included. Nobody has done it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox guidelines

Is there a consensus on what statistics can be included in the MLB Player infobox? I have sometimes come across infoboxes with stats such as OPS, doubles and walks. I am curious to know if there has been a discussion on this somewhere. - Hoops gza (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on this. The consensus is only to include triple crown stats unless someone is known for something in particular, such as saves or steals. I believe someone wrote up a proper style guide that had all that but I can't seem to find it right now.Spanneraol (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussions I've seen weren't sufficiently broad in scope to establish a clear consensus; if anyone can point to a consensus on this topic, or if we can just reach one now, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice (linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice) can be updated accordingly. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : September 28, 2014

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

Thanks to this issue's contributors, and to everyone for their work on baseball-related articles!

Are you interested in writing something for The Inside Corner—perhaps a playoff recap, a season retrospective of your favourite team, or an account of a day at the ballpark? Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk, put it on your watchlist, and drop a note on the newsletter desk discussion page to let us know what you're interested in writing about. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_38&oldid=1140107373"