Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

CPOY source?

I've been trying to build up New York Yankees seasons for a future FLC run, but have come across a problem. Dock Ellis won the Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award in 1976, back when The Sporting News gave it out. However, I can't find a good source for this. The only place I've seen this online beside here is Baseball LibraryAlmanac, but there have been reliability concerns regarding that site. None of my baseball books have a list of winners either. If anyone here can find a reliable web site or printed source that could be used to cite this fact, I would really appreciate it. Thanks for any help. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have access to the Sporting News archives, so I can dig up the appropriate issues and slap in a cite news tag no problem. Wizardman 02:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008, If you go to Paper of Record you can search the Sporting news archives. BTW the opening line of the article states: "This is a list of seasons completed by the New York Yankees baseball club" and yet 2008 is included. Obviously 2008 has not been completed. Either it needs to be removed or the opening line needs to be reworded. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I made a correction above after getting Baseball Almanac and Baseball Library confused. The lead is getting a full rewrite after I finish citing the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

After seeing that registration is required for Paper of Record, I took one more look around the Internet and found a Baseball Library page to use. In case there are any problems with that, the award is also mentioned on his Retrosheet page. Thanks again for the help though. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Registration is free for Paper of Record, and they have nearly a complete archive of the Sporting News from its beginning to the 2000s.DaClyde (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Cincinnati Kelly's Killers players

I have requested that Category:Cincinnati Kelly's Killers players be moved to Category:Cincinnati Porkers players to reflect the team's page name. Discussion can be found here. -Dewelar (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Per that discussion, we've moved the Cincinnati Porkers page to Cincinnati Kelly's Killers instead. -Dewelar (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew

Our first AID is currently a GA on hold. Let's try and get it over the hump and finish what's left. (In other news, our current one is Jackie Robinson. Didn't even realize we were on our second one) Wizardman 15:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look over the Robinson article or get a "To do" list made. But it looks better than Harmon's so it shouldn't take as long to get it to a GA. The biggest thing that needs done on the Killebrew GA review is the two ciations that are needed. I was hoping someone who did research for the article could remember if they've seen that info in a source. Blackngold29 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew has passed as a Good article. Congratulations to all who worked on it! Keep up the good work! Blackngold29 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help finding career putout leaders at shortstop

I'm currently trying to figure out where Ozzie Smith ranks on the list of most career putouts at shortstop in Major League Baseball, but I can't seem to find a reliable reference with that info. I know Rabbit Maranville and Luis Aparicio have more career putouts at short than "The Wizard", hence I need a list of the top five or ten guys in this specific category. Is there an online or printed reference material where I can find this info? Thanks, Monowi (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not find an online source yet, but the SABR Baseball List & Record Book has the top 40-plus in categories by position. Keep in mind this is SABR's research and is not necessarily official, but it should help. Leaders in putouts at shortstop are given as: 5139 - Maranville; 4856 - Bill Dahlen; 4623 - Dave Bancroft; 4576 - Honus Wagner; 4553 - Tommy Corcoran; 4548 - Luis Aparacio; 4398 - Luke Appling; 4249 - Ozzie Smith (8th). I think that book could still be in print. Check your local B&N or Borders. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help; I'll definitely try and check the SABR book out! Monowi (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

Following the nomination of the Nashville sound as a Featured article candidate, the uniforms have been changed to a GFDL compatiable format (Nashville_Sounds#Uniforms). I think this innovation should be adopted by this project, as the current use of non-free content for uniforms is a significant bar to any team artilces being rated good, or featured standard Fasach Nua (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'round the World

In reading Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), I noticed the following line: "the Giants won the game 5-4, defeating the Dodgers in their pennant playoff series, two games to one."

It was always my understanding of this three game series that it was simply a three game regular season series that happens to be between the first and second place teams, and was not a pennant playoff series.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The two teams finished their 154-game scheduled regular season tied at 96-58, and a best-2-of-3 pennant playoff series was held to determine the pennant winner. See 1951 in baseball for further info on the season. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe you. Thanks.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

MLB draft: secondary phase

I added a comment on the Major League Baseball Draft page asking for the addition of information on the "secondary phase" that was part of the draft for a number of years. Perhaps it should even be its own page. Either way, there doesn't seem to be any information on that page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia that I can find. I suppose I could go scouring the web for the info and add it myself, but I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone had it at their fingertips. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions, redux

I've brought up an issue at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(baseball_players)#Naming_conventions.2C_redux, for any who are interested.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm presently trying to centralize the discussion at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt", since this goes beyond baseball specifically. Needs to get settled one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER

See Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER for a proposal about making Notable Player sections into official guidelines.  RGTraynor  17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Converged template

Hi, I've created a template to incorporate all the baseball wikiprojects/subproject/task forces, etc under one banner. This will reduce double-tagging, make less work, etc. It won't be hard to migrate if everyone agrees to use it.

It is located at Template:WikiProject Baseball/sandbox, with the demonstration on Template:WikiProject Baseball/testcases. I have incorporated all the sub-projects and all the MLB team specific projects, this uses the WPBannerMeta template and can be updated easily to upgrade needs. Ignore the "|category=no" box on the one I created, because if it is moved to the current banners location it will go away. I have also put the naming of the categories all the same, so it uses "Boston Red Sox articles" "New York Yankees articles", etc.

I will notify individual projects to discuss, but I really do not see why our banners shouldn't be incorporated into one banner. —Borgarde^talk 12:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of this. I noticed you have one that simply lists all of them, and another that is nested; on most pages with multiple WPs listed, which one would preferably be used?   jj137 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The nested was just an example of nesting showing what the banner would look like nested, it would only use one banner displaying whatever projects are involved. So if it is in Boston Red Sox's scope, it would use {{WikiProject Baseball|redsox=yes|class=Stub|importance=Low|redsox-importance=High}}, and if it becomes nested, to indicated it is part of WP:BOSOX, it would say "Baseball / Red Sox". There won't be any page that really needs more than 3 or something, so the nesting was really an example of how it would work with other banners. The main banner now supports the new classes like category, template, project, etc, which can be used for the other projects as well. —Borgarde^talk 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested the code be updated at least, so we can move forward slowly if needed. —Borgarde^talk 12:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like we are taking a step toward discontinuing the team WikiProjects. What happened to all the team importances? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not discontinuing anything. It's merely grouping the banners into one. On an organisation view point it's more efficient. Other WikiProjects have done this with their subprojects since their inception and it works great. Some pages have around 4 seperate banners all linking to baseball projects. I think team projects are great, it's keeping it under one banner, and if anyone starts a new team project it's just several lines in the code to implement a change. The importances are gone? I've coded it so it's all there, you just need to add "nickname-importance=". —Borgarde^talk 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bud Selig

Does anyone else have a problem with this move? [1] I believe the article name should be the most common name, not the full name. —Borgarde^talk 15:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely believe it should be "Bud Selig". Per Naming convensions it's quite obvious that it should be his most common name. As a baseball fan I have never once heard him referred to as Allan Huber. Blackngold29 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree as well. He never goes by Allan Huber Selig, so why call him that? I'll try to find an example of a similar thing.   jj137 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it back to Bud Selig -- it clearly goes against the Common names guidelines here. Feel free to move it back if you have a better reason it should stay as "Allan Huber Selig", of course.   jj137 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid a couple other moves by the same user. If more occur, let me know and I will drop him/her a line. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Slightly off the track, I think I still have a T-shirt someplace, from the time he was trying to drop the Minnesota Twins, that reads, "He's not MY Bud!" Nor my Allan H. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

World Series Team Templates

Is there any project-related guidance regarding who should be in these templates, and what pages should have these templates on them? As I continue to create pages for some of the more obscure 70s and 80s players, I could use some guidance on this, among other issues. -Dewelar (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Do you mean the templates on the actual WS articles or the team that won it? Blackngold29 00:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the team templates, like the one in your example. -Dewelar (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any guidelines on this, but I'd say it should be on all of the player articles whose names are listed on it, that seasonal article relating to it, and the main team article. Just my opinion.   jj137 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I follow this logic, but that leads to the larger question: what players should be listed on it? This is where there seems to be some conflict in various places, which in turn led me to post here. -Dewelar (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd say any player that played in the postseason, as well as the manager. On the 2007 Red Sox banner, it has 28 players listed, and it seems most have 25-30 players listed, so maybe it would be best to ask the people who made those banners.   jj137 (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Venues

Is there an infobox template for ballparks? I was looking for one but couldn't find one. Might be a nice thing to have... Ensign beedrill (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Look in any of the ballpark articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've primarily used Template: Infobox Stadium. It's fine with me, it includes pretty much anything I could think of. Blackngold29 00:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I looked around some and found a lot of those Stadium infoboxes. Thanks for your help! Ensign beedrill (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

40-man rosters

Can we have some community consensus, please? Are players on the 40-man rosters but not active (especially during Sept. call-ups) considered to be "on the team" for the purpose of infobox dating? I believe that it should be "no" because they are not presently playing for the team. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It just seems like more work for players that aren't actually in the majors, and the info is easily avalible on various other sites if people want that info. WP should obviously cover a wide-range of stuff, but we're not about up to the second roster changes and stats. Blackngold29 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking here about the team specified within the template, or are we talking about the use of the "-present" qualifier in the team list? My answer would be different depending on which one you're proposing. -Dewelar (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am specifically referring to the use of present in this instance. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I agree with you. 40-man rosters are much too volatile. -Dewelar (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

timeline of major league baseball

I've been working on a timeline of different team's histories, similar to the Timeline of the National Hockey League, and here's what I've got so far. I thought this would be a good place to post this, to see how you guys like it and if there's anything you would add or change. I've still got a little bit of work to do, adding colors for all the teams, formatting some team names, and adding in links for everything, but all of the current teams (and I think all of the historical teams) in the national and american leauges should be there. Thanks in advance! shaggy (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kewl. I tried something like that once but my attention span wouldn't allow it. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was actually working on prose a replacement for the NHL one, Resolute was making timelines that I fell are a little clearer (ex of 1917-42). I believe he made them with PowerPoint. The article is certainly a good idea though. Blackngold29 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a graphical timeline like this one, while it might be a little messy and hard to read, illustrates the franchise history, as far as moves and name changes go, better than just about any other kind of graphic or giant block of text I've seen. That's why I spent so much time and effort making a version for the MLB. The nice thing about getting this all in one file like this, is it could be cut down to a few much simpler graphics, like the NABBP/NA/AA/NL from 1876-1901, the NL post-1901, and the AL. Cutting it apart would really help clear it up, since you would have more room for all the names and such. shaggy (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Phillies' two seasons as the Philadelphia Blue Jays are not on there. -Dewelar (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, the Phillies never officially changed their name (please see the team history). Thanks! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears they actually used both names. Baseball Reference uses the Blue Jays name as official in 1943 and 1944. Granted, the Phillies site says it was never an 'official' nickname, but the fact that the team's owner "tried to change" the nickname belies that. My guess is it's after-the-fact scrubbing of the matter. Either way, I'm sure this was the subject of much discussion somewhere that resulted in a consensus, so I won't belabor it. -Dewelar (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I'll look into it! stuff like that is easy to add, once you figure out how the timeline thing works. shaggy (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I might refrain from changes like that. user:Baseball Bugs can clarify but it seems like team nicknames changed often back in the day. Washington could be called Senators or Nationals depending on who you talked to. Etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You rang? Nifty-looking chart! Yes, the early nicknames were typically unofficial inventions of the media. Some clubs actually went to the media to look for advice on a name. See History of baseball team nicknames for an attempt at documenting this info. The Washington AL club was "officially" the Nationals as well as unofficially but de facto the Senators for nearly its entire existence before moving to Minnesota. The Highlanders and Yankees were both nicknames that first appeared in 1904, with Yankees eventually winning out. The Pirates were originally "Allegheny" before they were "Pittsburg(h)", or to put it another way, the "Alleghenys", not "Alleghenies". The Dodgers were pretty much always the Dodgers, but more often called Robins when Uncle Robby was managing. The Cubs were first called Cubs in 1902, but they were still mostly called Colts as late as 1905. The Phillies were "officially" the Blue Jays for a year or two, with a blue jay patch on their uniforms - which still said "Phillies" across the shirt front. The Tigers were always the Tigers, and officially so, at that. The Red Sox had no nickname until 1908. "Americans" was a frequently-used generic name. They were hardly ever called "Pilgrims". And so on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the colors of the 1882 teams to the colors of their stockings, as assigned by the NL. Neat side effect, the team I have listed as the providence grays now has a light blue bar! shaggy (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the 1940s count as "back in the day", though. -Dewelar (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I see "San Fransisco", "Philidelphia", and "Pittsburg" which are misspellings (unless Philly used to have a different spelling?). Also, I've never seen St. Louis written as "Saint Louis". —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what it is. I tried to use only official names for clubs, otherwise certain clubs would get really messy and difficult to read. It's already bad enough for some clubs (see the Braves or Angels for an example) that I have trouble getting all the names to be somewhat readable. Adding in every temporary unofficial nickname would make a total mess out of this.

Oh, I know about the misspellings. This is in a mostly raw state. If you had to type out all that code, you'd mess up here and there too. Also, I know the Brooklyn team names are goofy. They changed names 5 times in the first 15 years they were around, and it gets to be a mess trying to fit all that in there. They should be correct after 1890 when they joined the NL, though. shaggy (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got the worst of the misspellings. shaggy (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was alluding to. To Dewelar, I would count 1940s as "back in the day", but I was more specifically referring to the 19th century. I believe teams wouldn't even use nicknames that far back, instead being referred to as just the Philadelphias or the Bostons, etc. Even in the early 20th century, names were changed pretty haphazardly, like the Boston N.L. team and a few teams in the A.L. - Cleveland for one. I've always preferred to steer clear of documenting such things without numerous sources. Maybe it's just me being anal though... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My sources are primarily Marc Okkonen's book about uniforms; old baseball guides; and selected individual team histories where the authors have actually researched the matter instead of parroting secondary sources. I'm not saying I've got the last word on it. There are gaps, especially in the 19th century where nicknames were almost always media inventions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's actually at a point where, barring massive error, I would feel comfortable putting it up somewhere, if you guys thought it would be useful. I made up most of the colors for the teams before logos and everything got big back in the 20's or 30's, unless it was obvious (for teams like the Dark Blues, Grays, Browns, Reds). shaggy (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added links to all the current teams and threw it up at Timeline of Major League Baseball. shaggy (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Kingston Indians roster

I have asked for a deletion review of Template:Kinston Indians roster. This is because these 4 templates were deleted when we have these templates appearing all over the baseball team articles. Some of the discussions were talking about too many redlinks, etc. I think they should be recreated, and then if the problem still exists we can discuss it further. —Borgarde^talk 08:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Test for new notability guidelines

My first test of the new notability guidelines is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hissey. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see! AdjustShift (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mini-articles for minor league players

One suggestion brought up during the recent baseball player notability guideline discussions and a discussion about external links in roster templates was creating list-like mini-articles for minor leaguers. I've put together a sample of such an article and a template for easy linking to players from roster templates. Each MLB org would have a page for minor league players who have not played in the majors.

• Sample page: Milwaukee Brewers minor league players
• Easy-link template: Template:MiLBplayer
• Usage in roster templates: Template:Nashville Sounds roster and Template:Huntsville Stars roster

What do you think? Questions? Comments? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the general prospect; however, I believe that A) minor league rosters are too often in a great state of flux; and B) each team's minor league system is a minimum of six or seven teams, which is a huge number of players. In addition, where is the line drawn for inclusion? Then, if this happens, what about independent teams? The level of play would seem to indicate that perhaps leagues like the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball would have players who are more notable than a player on a rookie-league team or a short-season A club. My two cents only. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In regard to point "A", we already have minor league rosters. This only helps replace red links or non-links with blue links that provide some basic info about players. That being said, I don't see how roster moves would cause a problem. Which leads me to "B"... I neglected to mention that these pages could be created for independent teams as well. We'd also need to decide where to draw the line for inclusion—by class level, awards received, etc. I tend to think that we would only include Double-A and above. Even then, every player would't necessarily make the list. (For the example, I only made entries for Triple-A players and Doulble-A guys that have been named to Double-A mid or post-season all-star teams.) -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) See WP:NNC - the line of inclusion is generally lower within an article as opposed to having a separate article. I'd say you could include any players you want in an article like you've proposed. Maybe you could keep lists of players within the individual minor league team articles (as opposed to the entire Milwaukee Brewers system). Also, we usually have no shortage of people willing to maintain such articles - or any articles related to baseball for that matter. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about making each article about a team rather that the major league organization, but keeping them grouped by orgs will eliminate the need to move a player everytime they are sent up/down. This way, there can be 30 articles instead of hundreds. It also makes for good use of Template:MiLBplayer. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the scope is kept clear, and if the guidelines are clear, and are followed and patrolled by project members, I would have very few concerns in supporting this measure, and none which I could think to articulate at this time. Leads should clearly establish criteria for inclusion, and these should likely be List-class articles. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. Great job in doing something about it. I would like to see them kept between franchise as well, if someone ever moves franchise then the player section can be moved easily, and if a player ever becomes more notable and well written, it can get broken off into an article. —Borgarde^talk 07:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone think of a good name for a category for pages like Milwaukee Brewers minor league players? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um...Why not just put them under Category:Minor league baseball players? -Dewelar (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's technicall a "list" of players so should probably go in a list category. I start to get a headache when I think about such things, hence why I just slapped an {{uncat}} tag on and walked away. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh...well then, I guess Category:Lists of baseball players will do temporarily, since I think it's the only one we've got. -Dewelar (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I created Category:Lists of minor league baseball players as a sub-category of Category:Lists of baseball players -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussions! This place seems to be perfect for people like me. AdjustShift (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I created this navbox for future use, because if the one is accepted I'm sure more will follow. —Borgarde^talk 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very interesting idea and well worth pursuing. If the capsule bios are properly referenced from the get-go then we have good proto articles if and when said players make their major league debut or otherwise independently satisfy inclusion guidelines. Per Natureboy roster moves aren't an issue; the text can just move from article to article as need be. If someone's career ends in Double-A, then the section is simply deleted. One concern I do have is that when roster moves take place, it may not be obvious which articles linked to a player's section. I would prefer to use redirects--tracking is easier, as is updating. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask and ye shallreceive. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Those redirects are so much better. I can't beleive I didn't think of it. And to think, I spent all that time trying to put together those intricate templates. Brilliant. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the rosters to not use the template. Mind if I delete it now? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Please delete it. Dont' forget Template:MiLBswitch too. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

...and someone's taking these to AfD. Already. Centralized discussion here. Mackensen (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Season pages

Can anyone tell me how to make the game logs by month on the team season pages default to being hidden or collapsed, rather than expanded? Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, in the first line of the game log, change the class="toccolours" to class="toccolours collapsible collapsed". That should do the trick.   jj137 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And to make it collapsible month-by-month, you would just change the class for each month, I think.   jj137 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem.   jj137 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniforms up for deletion

I have posted a request for all major league baseball uniforms to be deleted here Fasach Nua (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to increase the amateurish look of wikipedia, to decrease the chance of it being mistaken for a real encyclopedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I put up an argument against deletion by saying the current non-free use rationales are valid, and that the uniform images are useful in differentiating uniforms too. Let's really put up a good fight here to make sure these don't needlessly get deleted. Monowi (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MLB

Nominated Major League Baseball for GA. Cheers.--LAAFan^sign _review 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers

For anyone interested, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers has been nominated for FL status. Any help is appreciated. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

More Featured Topic noms

List of Tampa Bay Rays Opening Day starting pitchers and List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers have been nominated --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Baseball

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fall Classic approaches

The Regular season is now winding down (unless you’re a Bucs fan like me, and it wound down about three years ago) and the 2008 World Series is approaching. I was hoping to put together a temporary “task force” of sorts to keep the article updated and hopefully up to a Good article at some point. If anyone is interested, please feel free to join us. I have done some searching, but have been unable to confirm the dates that the article claims are the start and end of the series. If anyone can cite anything, please do so. Thanks! Blackngold29 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[2] Hope that helps. It's tentative because those schedules are always subject to change. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll add it to the article. I seached "2008 Wold Series" on Google and got twice the amount of hits for the World Series of Poker; there should be more articles as it approaches. Thanks. Blackngold29 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub sorting

There is a proposal at WP:WSS/P for a change in the way that the stub articles on pitchers are sorted. Any input from those in the know would be much appreciated. In essence the stub sorters would normally split a large category like Category:Baseball pitcher stubs by decade of birth where as this one appears to have been split by era of play, alot harder for those of us who sort stubs but don't necessarily have an interest in baseball to sort by.Waacstats (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Negro League vs. Negro league

Some bot program is changing anything in the category "Negro League baseball" to "Negro league baseball". This is not appropriate. It would be like changing "Major League" to "Major league". "Negro League" or "Negro Leagues" is a title and should be properly capitalized. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've been confused by that too. Look how Negro league baseball starts with "The Negro Leagues"... What gives? —Wknight94 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed three years ago and the consensus was to keep it the way it is: Talk:Negro_league_baseball#Proposed_move. 69.68.238.142 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a category renaming, not an article, but you'd think it should be consistent. There are these robot edits [3] that refer back to a CFD that has virtually no discussion, so I don't get who authorized this. I'm tempted to start renaming them back, but I'd like to find out where it came from first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was even some apparent confusion in the article move request. Wahkeenah (talk · contribs) - whoever that is - appeared to be supporting the move to "Negro League" but marked his support with Oppose. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, whoever that was - must be an idiot. I hope he doesn't take that personally. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with leaving it as "Negro league", and that the moves are therefore appropriate. As noted in the discussion cited above, the only time "Major League" should be capitalized (apart from the movie) is in the official term "Major League Baseball", which is the proper name of an organization, which "Negro League" is not. Otherwise, it's "major league". If anything, the article text should be changed to "The Negro leagues were American professional baseball leagues..." (although I'm unclear on whether "Negro" is a proper noun needing capitalization). -Dewelar (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is that they are typically called the Negro Leagues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, grammar is dead and all that :) . Seriously, though, *are* they typically called "Negro Leagues" with both words capitalized? I admit I haven't made a mental note of that in the past, so I don't know the answer to that question. It wouldn't surprise me, though. -Dewelar (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't capitalize "League", you can make a pretty good case that any current major leaguer who's black is a Negro leaguer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So, does that mean that when Joe Nuxhall played for the Reds in 1944, was he both a major leaguer and a minor leaguer? :-D

Here's my thinking: The American League is a major league. Anyone who plays in the American League is a major leaguer (not Major Leaguer, right?). Similarly, the Negro American League was a Negro league (or perhaps a negro league -- still not clear on that). Anyone who played in the Negro American League was a Negro leaguer. That's the logical path, anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the rename of Category:Negro League baseball to Category:Negro league baseball is currently underway at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 17. Members of this WikiProject are invited to participate. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the evolution of the term, or possibly evolving political correctness, as "Negro" was a common term into the early 60s and is now almost never heard except opposite other technical terms like Caucasian... and in connection with black baseball, which is inescapable because "Negro" and "Colored" were part of the names of those leagues. Robert W. Peterson, in his pioneering work, Only the Ball Was White, simply uses the term "Negro baseball". In Satchel Paige's book, Maybe I'll Pitch Forever, he uses the term "Negro leagues". Both of those books are from the 60s. Phil Lowry, in Green Cathedrals, says "Negro leagues". His first edition was in the 80s. A mid-80s book by Janet Bruce, The Kansas City Monarchs, also says "Negro leagues". The 90s SABR publication, The Negro Leagues Book, of course capitalizes all the words in title as per normal titling rules. However, in the text they also routinely spell it "Negro Leagues". But another 90s book called The Negro Baseball Leagues: A Photographic History, by Phil Dixon and Patrick J. Hannigan, primarily uses the term "Negro leagues" routinely. The trump card might be the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, which says "Negro Leagues" on its history pages. [4][5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a trump. Perhaps it's a four or five of trumps, but certainly not an honor ;-) . For one thing, "Negro Leagues" as a catch-all term is different from using the term "Negro league baseball", just as using "Major Leagues" is different from using "major league baseball" as a descriptive term pre-copyright. For another, it could (not should, but could) be passed off as a bit of self-aggrandizement by the museum. I'd be more convinced by the historical record. What terms were used by the press reports of the day, especially by the newspapers of the African-American community? If "Negro Leagues" was used with some regularity at the time, then I'd buy it as a name we can use. If not, and it's instead a term of recent invention to describe a collective phenomenon that, at the time, wasn't viewed as such, then it's a bit stickier, and I'd still lean toward the lower case 'l'. -Dewelar (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you bring it up in the edit summary... I recall David Frye doing an impression of Gov. George Wallace, saying, "The time has come to call a spade a spade!" Those were less politically correct times. Jenkinson says "Negro League teams" and the like in his recent book, The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs. You're right that the ideal situation would be to see what they were called generically in the 1920s-30s-40s. I'm thinking that we have one or two experts on the subject here that we should have weigh in. I'll see if I can get their attention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, Paul Dickson, 1989 edition, says "Negro Leagues", and it is not given to capitalizing things unless they are proper nouns. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The companion book to Ken Burn's 1994 documentary mostly refers to "black baseball", but in the index, which does not capitalize unless it's a proper noun, says "Negro Leagues". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All good references, but still all too recent to be convincing to me. I know a few of the folks over at Baseball Think Factory who probably could answer the question as well. I'll see what I can drum up for contemporary accounts. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a suspicion that this is all a red herring, and that Peterson probably had it right - it probably should be called simply "Negro baseball". However, it's not really called that any more. And it's possible that the black newspapers didn't call it that because it would be redundant, like the French using the term French fries. They just call them "fries". I'm still waiting for user Couillaud to get back to me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been my experience as a Negro Leagues researcher (and one who reads a great deal of literature on the subject) that the term "Negro Leagues" has almost always been capitalized by writers and researchers. Articles submitted for publication to the Society for American Baseball Research use that capitalization convention as well. This may not have always been the case, but it is generally the standard today, as best as I can tell. -- Couillaud (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to study the black newspapers of that era? Did they use any special terminology, or did they just call it "baseball"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The black (or "race") media of its day referred to the different leagues by their names ("American Negro League" or "Eastern Colored League") and rarely spoke of Negro baseball as an institution, except as Negro (or colored) baseball.

IOW, the term "Negro Leagues" was not actually contemporaneous with the formal existence of the Negro Leagues. It is a term coined retroactively to encompass and describe the phenomenom and to distinguish it from Organized Ball, which is what the majors and affiliated minors were collectively called before we had MLB. My guess is that the act of formal capitalization has evolved that way and is an informal and possibly unconscious sign of respect to those who played.--Couillaud (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is how I understood it as well: that "Negro Leagues" was, as you say, "coined retroactively". If anything, your confirmation firms up my opinion that we should use the lower-case "l".

For reference, I spoke with John Murphy, who helped run the Hall of Merit project at BBTF, earlier today, and he agreed with me about the lower-case "l". He also said of my taking this side "While I agree with you, I think you may be paddling upstream without a paddle on this one." It wouldn't be the first time :) . -Dewelar (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I spoke to Larry Lester, one of the co-founders of the Negro Leagues Museum and an author of several books on the subject (and a full-disclosure disclaimer here: he's a personal friend of mine, so I can't guarantee that his opinion is completely unbiased). He stated that his opinion is nothing more than an opinion, but he's always felt that the phrase should be capitalized, that "Negro leagues" is making a direct reference to specific leagues that happened to be segregated, while "Negro Leagues" refers to the overarching concept and organization of segregated black baseball as played from 1920 through 1962. -- Couillaud (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much crystallizes the discussion for me, and explains a lot of the inconsistency in the source material. However, I'm not sure it answers the question of how to name the articles. I'd still lean toward lower-case for the player categories (since they played in actual leagues, and didn't play for a concept), but the main article could be named one or the other and I'd be fine with it. Given that there should be internal consistency here, though, it would probably still wind up lower-case for all. -Dewelar (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"they played in actual leagues, and didn't play for a concept" -- I would disagree with that statement. Many of them did not play in a league (the Kansas City Monarchs barnstormed from 1932 to 1936 between the demise of the first Negro National League and the formation of the Negro American League. They and their players were not involved with any Negro league, but they were most certainly involved in the Negro Leagues. It is my feeling that being part of any specific Negro league did not remove a player's association with the Negro Leagues, and my personal definition of "Negro Leagues" actually goes back to the original barnstorming teams of the turn of the 19th century, which encompasses a lot of teams and players who never were part of any league. Anyway, I was asked to comment by Baseball Bugs, and I've done more of that than I had planned, which is no surprise to anyone who knows me. :-) -- Couillaud (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We appreciate your input very much, especially as I think it answers the question, except a little differently than planned. Now I'm going to go a little outside the (batter's) box here, and propose a different solution:

1. "The black media of its day ... rarely spoke of Negro baseball as an institution, except as Negro (or colored) baseball."
2. The pioneering work on the subject, Peterson's book, also uses the term "Negro baseball", which is consistent with the black media of the old days.

Therefore, I say we should retitle the articles and categories to Negro baseball, and redirect from "Negro Leagues", "Negro leagues", and also other possible terms like "colored baseball" in case someone looks it up that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with this, especially if the pages/categories in question include non-league teams and players. -Dewelar (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hall of Fame issues

There is a redlink user [6] whose sole purpose is to remove Bill James' comments putting down the 1930s Cardinals and Giants who were slipped into the Hall thanks to having buddies on the Veterans Committee. Maybe James' comments amount to POV-pushing, maybe they don't, but I would just as soon hear from some other interested parties before accelerating an edit war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retired Number Template

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