Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Silver Slugger Awards

So, I've been thinking. We have a lot of awards. There are a lot of winners' lists. I think this is a perfect opportunity for the community to increase its amount of featured content by quite a bit (I plan on starting work on this project soon). However, I feel that, to do this, we may have to combine NL and AL lists into one, in order to create complete data sets. I do realize that a lot of our information was drawn directly from Baseball Reference; no problem there. However, I think that we would have better success if we had, for example, 8 Silver Slugger lists instead of 18. I didn't want to drive through these lists making sweeping changes without discussing here first, but I do eventually envision this becoming a featured topic (i.e., Silver Slugger Award as a lead, which would turn into a comprehensive list of all winners, rather than a list of lists, as it is now; along with 8 featured lists, one for each fielding position, outfield of course being one, and one for the DHs). Please, everyone, talk it up. I could really use some validation here. Ready... set... discuss! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rlendog (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess this isn't as controversial of a topic as I thought it might be. I'll give it the rest of the workday today to see if any objections are raised and, if not, I will start working on the main Silver Slugger Award article tonight. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You can if you want, though we already have over 3x the FLs as FAs, i wouldn't mind us tackling the other side of the equation for once :P Wizardman 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, featured content is featured content. It's the ultimate goal of all articles, and I don't believe that we have any featured topics yet. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So consensus to merge both the NLs and ALs? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Fully professional"

What exactly is the definition of fully professional? I would say A and up, but am unaware if there is a previous agreed upon definition. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, I had these individuals in mind:

• Jim Fuller (pitcher)
• Pat Venditte
• Zach Putnam
• Ryan Lavarnway
• Jordan Lyles

Grsz¹¹ 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Although A and up (even Rookie and up) are fully professional, within Wikipedia the consensus is that merely playing at those levels does not warrant notability for an article. I may not have this memorized perfectly, but generally what is needed is any Major League appearance, a full season at AAA, or all-star or major award status at a lower minor league level. Rlendog (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, technically you would need an all-star appearance or a decent career at AAA. Wizardman 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with a minor league all-star apperance. Secret ^account 14:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I do. Minor leaguers are notable public figures, and whether they make an all-star appearance or not, as long as they pass WP:GNG the article is entitled to be kept. Borgarde (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well there has been heavy consensus, here and in AFD that minor league players aren't really notable, unless with special exceptions (like a highly regarded prospect) I merged two of them already, I'll keep Venditte, not sure about the last two. Secret ^account 14:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like the consensus has been that there's no consensus. The last time we got into a heavy discussion on it (last year?), I started out with the opinion that a MiLB All Star appearance would lead to enough WP:RS out there to show notability. I took several names at random from a recent all star game, and couldn't show notability on a single one of them. In a couple of AfDs this year on minor leaguers, some people took the term "fully professional" to include single A, some said AAA, and some were in between. (Can't remember any arguments for Rookie League, so that's something). The only thing I'm certain of at this spot is that fully professional really needs to be changed or better defined.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A kinda similar discussion last year resulted in Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. Although it's nice, it seems to have stalled where it is and isn't linked from anywhere. Someone care to pick up that ball? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It had been pretty much accepted as consensus, and listed on the front page of the project, before Blackngold29 redesigned the front page and pushed the notability guidelines onto a subpage. I'm going to re-link them on the front page, unless anybody objects? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball Players Born Outside of the United States

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 13. Enigma^msg 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One user is adding this category to tons of articles right now.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same user that created the category. Since it's redundant with several categories already present on most of these articles, I've reverted the ones on my watchlist. I'd drop a line at the CfD if you're concerned too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the user in question, Racingstripes, is a sockpuppet of Jackal4, who is currently under a 1-month block. I've made the appropriate report. See [1] I've found Jackal4 to be a highly disruptive editor of baseball articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The CU report came back as unrelated. Kingturtle (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Racingstripes is too much of a newbie... his style was much different than Jackal. Spanneraol (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging by Racingstripe's complaint against BaseballBugs on an obscure issue )see [2], in his fourth edit after being created, I don't think he is at all a newbie. Though he has not responded to my query as to what his former name was.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

More likely he was responding in kind to his first two usernames being reported as offensive by Bugs. I expect that since he objected, he learned a bit about that process. Given that his previous usernames show that he has the sense of humor of a ten-year-old (and, really, his latest username is only marginally better, and only offensive in certain contexts), playing a slightly more sophisticated game of "I'm rubber, you're glue" doesn't surprise me in the least. -Dewelar (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone else interested in commenting at the CfD should do so. Thanks, Enigma^msg 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to let folks know, in response to this discussion, I have begun populating Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin. Might as well have something useful come out of this, right? -Dewelar (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, we should standardize the list pages. Right now we have both "List of Major League Baseball players from X" and "List of players from X in Major League Baseball." Personally I favor the former, which also matches the current categorization scheme. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we need lists and categories, though? If we decide we do, I agree with Mackensen. -Dewelar (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the lists are unnecessary myself. Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the lists are fine, you can add more information than a category that just lists names. I think lists should be named like the categories with "List of Major League Baseball players from X". I do however believe lists are unnecessary for countries with a couple of players. Borgarde (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the redlinks in lists can be helpful for finding players for whom articles are needed. BRMo (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of freely licensed photos

Take a look at this photo stream from Flickr. There are almost 7,00 photos, all taken by a professional sports photographer (all of them his), and they're all licensed as CC-BY-SA. So if you have any need of a good MLB picture, I would advise you look through this treasure trove of images. Also, if you upload any new photos to the Commons, it would be great if you could add them to Category:MLB photos taken by Keith Allison. Thanks, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cobb records

Should the infobox say .367 and 4,191 (the official record) or .366 and 4,189 (the result of private, unofficial research)? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it should be the official record. Spanneraol (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is *not*, in fact, merely the subject of private unofficial research, but the number curently provided in Total Baseball, which was denoted years ago as the official encyclopedia of major league baseball starting in the 4th edition (source: Schwarz, Alan. The Numbers Game : Baseball's Lifelong Fascination with Statistics. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2004.)

DSZ (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Total Baseball went out of business, as I recall. Last I checked, the Elias Sports Bureau is the official statistician of MLB, and they show Cobb as .367 and 4,191. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The publishing company went out of business, but the data remains and is continually updated. Elias is hardly an independent source for data that they didn't research and they didn't develop (Elias started in 1976) DSZ (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated where, and by who? Also, Elias as a company began in 1913. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Badly worded (and missing a few words) - Seymour Siwoff bought it in 1976 (I think, I don't have a cite handy!) and changed the organization changed quite a bit. It's not really relevant, though, as we still wouldn't have any verifiable research other than Elias's word, but it's a moot point as this issue seems to be resolved for now. DSZ (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Really, this brings up a larger point. When I'm creating player pages, I use b-r or retrosheet for my Infobox numbers. Each of those sources list 4,189 and .366. If we use MLB's numbers for Cobb, does this mean all baseball infoboxes must also only use MLB's numbers? Would I have to, for instance, restore to Jim Donnelly the numbers that belong to James Donnelly, because MLB doesn't yet recognize Retrosheet's research? -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source examples says: "Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care." I believe that consideration must be given to each of these statements in this instance.

1. "Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training." - For us, this means that we should leave deciding what is correct and what is not to the experts.
2. "Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided." - Obviously, for us, this is near impossible, because so much of what we do is based on statistics.
3. "Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care." - for us, I believe that this means we should focus on primary sources. I know that in the baseball world, reading the last two statements together is contradictory, because it's telling us to both do the impossible and discount the value of secondary analysis. As it is, we can't synthesize our own conclusions, so I think that in the case where two obviously reliable sources such as these conflict, we need to defer to the primary source which is, in this case, Elias, as the official statistician of the governing body, rather than a source that is merely endorsed by the governing body. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The stats issue is fully explain in the Cobb page. The question is which numbers should appear in the infobox? Maybe the right answer is to include both numbers: ".366 or .367". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that both is the right answer; perhaps putting the Elias stat, since that is league-recognized, followed by a ?, which links to the section about the statistical debate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The way it is currently on the page is similar to what you suggest and I think works fine. Spanneraol (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a small <ref> would suffice. After all, the Schwartz reference above is more general and says the accuracy of almost everyone's stats can be questioned. Are we going to slap an ugly "(disputed)" tag on every number in every baseball bio infobox? WP:UNDUE needs to kick in at some point. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Spanneraol; the current marking method is perfectly fine. "Disputed" is even clearer than a question mark. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Alan Schwarz reference is for Total Baseball being baseball's official encyclopedia at the time, not the 4189 number. This is not some very quiet minority issue, but the number quoted by the encyclopedia named, ESPN, baseball-reference.com, and SABR research and many other sources. There's clearly a notoriety in usage that should be highlighted that isn't there for, say, some error-or-hit scoring error by Joe Schlabotnik. I feel highlighting the number with a simple link makes it clear that there's an issue involved without committing either side towards definitively saying that it's 4189 or 4191.DSZ (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Being baseball's encyclopedia and being baseball's statistician are two completely different things. I don't know that there's a difference between what's already being done and what you are describing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

@DSZ, I'm referring to the Schwarz book in general, which does not spend all its time on Ty Cobb alone - it generally discusses statistics and how numerous people's statistics can be brought into question. If you're going to put a big (disputed) tag on this one, you should put it on any statistic that is as disputed as this. Then we can bring back User:Ron liebman who has been driving us nuts with quibbles like this for years now. Personally, I'd prefer an article about the accuracy of baseball statistics in general - where the Schwarz book would be a key reference - and that can be linked to from wherever you'd like. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the pantheon of disputed statistics, Cobb's hit total is pretty high up there, especially with MLB finally recognizing Hack Wilson's 191 RBI count in recent years (I had assumed the Schwarz reference was referring to to my cite of his book earlier). I don't even remember how I got to making an edit, but I really only threw a fuss because I felt the verifiable evidence to the contrary of the Cobb stats was very strong. For most statistical errors, there's always going to be a veil of doubt - while I'm pretty confident that Cobb didn't have 4191 hits, I'm less so about any alternative for El Duque's birthdate (though I'm confident it sure isn't 1969). An accuracy about baseball stats article in general would be interesting, though I think I'd have too many issues of impartiality there for me to be all that useful. DSZ (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Created image

I took it upon myself to improve the Italy national baseball team page. Along the way, I created the following image:

I couldn't figure out all of the licensing, so I copied the licensing off a Major League Baseball uniform PNG file. If anyone out there who is more wiki-savvy than me can fix it for me, I'd appreciate it. I don't want anyone to think that I purposely put inaccurate licensing information on this image.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman fixed it for me. Nevermind--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Daugherty (baseball)

Just after St. Patty's day, they're baaaaack...

Anyone who can help keep an eye on this page would be appreciated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I added it to my watch list.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been on mine since the last battle. EdRooney and OddibeKerfeld are pretty much inveterate hoaxers, so if you get a chance you might want to review any edit they make to baseball pages for accuracy. I've reverted one already today. -Dewelar (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dipshit screwed with Norm Charlton's site also. I was unable to fix it. Can we just get these two assholes blocked?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He put some info back in again this morning, but even the factual part was utterly inaccurate. Like I said, if you see him editing a baseball page, check the edit. It will likely be bad in some way. -Dewelar (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Tigers minor league players (2nd nomination)

Someone is trying to get rid of the minor league baseball lists again. Spanneraol (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

How about having all the organizations a player has played for see example, and we put an asterik next to the teams where the player was only a member of the spring training team or just a minor leaguer for them. And then have a message saying something like "Offseason and/or minor leaguer only". See what the infobox looks like now to compare with what it might look like.--Giants27 ^T/C 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We already have gone over this in the past, and most people said they didnt like the idea, so I would say no to the idea.--Yankees10 19:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. The infobox is for important information, and teams for which a player didn't actually play don't belong. At most, they should get a mention in the article text. And absolutely, positively, no minor league teams (Somerset Patriots?). -Dewelar (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Season importance

I was planning on spending some time rating the unnassesd articles for both class and importance. It seems that most of the unassessed articles are team season articles (ie 2002 San Francisco Giants season) and I was wondering what the importance rating of said articles should be? I was thinking that World Series winning seasons could be High class while the rest would be Mid importance. Any thoughts on that? Thanks. blackngold29 19:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think World Series winners should get rated High, along with landmark or record-setting teams (say, the 1947 Dodgers, the 1906 Cubs, the 1899 Spiders). Playoff teams and other pennant winners (e.g., all first-place teams pre-1903), and maybe a few others like first-year expansion teams should be ranked Mid, but the majority should probably be ranked Low. -Dewelar (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All the ones I saw that were assessed were rated Mid, unless they were a world series winner or soemthing. So that's what i used when i assessed, though i don't exactly agree with it. Wizardman 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with that assessment project-wide, but I bet there's a bot that can do it for us. We should also make sure that team projects are included (i.e., if it's a Twins season, then we should have the parameter |twins=yes included. Also, World Series wins should probably be rated top-importance for team projects. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: [[Category:Autoassessment bots]] shows bots that can do this. I have always been impressed by AnomieBOT's work on other tasks and would recommend it highly. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I started going through the seasons tonight. A bot would be cool, but I don't think they could accurately rate for class (they can't base it off other WPs since most are only within this project) and I figure since I'm doing the importance already I might as well do class too. The vast majority are Stubs and I have been rating them as Mid importance for their respective subprojects as well. It's pretty mind numbing work, but obviously not challenging. If we worked at it, I think that rating all of the unassessed articles would be possible for the start of the 2010 season. It averages out to about 15 per day, and while there will always be new articles, I have already rated 60 tonight alone. blackngold29 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My reading is limited to the beginning of our time period. The articles on ballclubs desperately need a lot of work and they are important, perhaps what you call Mid. The articles on ballclub seasons seem designed to mimic the data tables presented by dedicated baseball encyclopedias (chiefly baseball-reference). Generally they have no importance and no quality.

For example see St. Louis Brown Stockings and its linked single-season pages (three, 1875 to 1877). --P64 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:MLBDesignatedHitters

A user has just created Template:MLBDesignatedHitters. Seems like a bit much to me, and that it will have to be updated frequently. Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only would they have to be updated, they would have to be removed/added to each old/new player's article anytime there is a position change. Seems like too much WP:RECENT to me. blackngold29 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

These now exist for every position as well. As long as they follow the depth charts, they should be fine, but I doubt they will. I think they should be proposed for deletion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The DH one should certainly be deleted. Some clubs will de facto not have a primary DH, which rather limits the template's usefulness, even vis-a-vis the ones for other positions. I don't really have a strong feeling about the others, I guess, although I don't see the need for them, and there was such a kerfuffle over the one for "Ace Starting Pitchers" not too long ago that I lean toward getting rid of them all. -Dewelar (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps a case of overtemplatization (yes, I did make that word up, thank you). I won't get too worked up about them, but I won't be at all sorry if they go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Related to all the "position" templates, can we make them smaller? They are a bit too big IMO and take up too much whitespace. What if we did something like this more "traditional" navbox? Also, I'd like to get rid of just using the players last names. There's no reason not to use the full names. I'm also not a fan of the bolding currently used.

I suppose that would be all right but it would likely get to be just as large as the current template, albeit with less whitespace. In any case, MLB should be expanded to "Major League Baseball" in all templates. I would rather see titles along the lines of "Current starting first basemen (or starters at first base) in Major League Baseball". Better use of adjectival phrasing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated the template to be "complete". — X96lee15 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks nice. I would support this format for all templates. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to FL criteria WRT length and content forking

See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to some of the discussion over this criteria, and looking at some FLs myself, I have proposed that List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame by date of induction and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame be merged under the latter title here. I also feel that the former list no longer meets the featured list criteria, however that should be an easy fix for someone with a couple good sources available. Resolute 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed on Stan Musial's infobox picture

I've recently started improvements to Stan Musial's article, and as part of the process uploaded and utilized a free-use image of Musial for the article's Infobox, which can be viewed on Commons here. The downside to the free-use image (the only free-use one I've found/had available) is that it was taken last year, when Musial was about 87 years old. Another editor has suggested various reasons on the article's Talk page as to why a copyrighted image from the Baseball Hall of Fame should continued to be used instead. After reading a quote from the Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues page which said, "Basically, fair use content should be replaced by free content whenever possible, because we want our content to be truly free," I feel compelled to persist in urging adoption of free-use image.

The question is, should the free-use image or copyrighted one be used for Stan Musial's infobox? As always, I'd love to hear opinions from any and all fellow WP:Baseball editors. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stan was a ballplayer, and in my opinion, that's how he should be presented in the infobox. It's unlikely he'd be well-known if he weren't a ballplayer. Even at that, though, Stan the Man looks pretty good for 87 years old - although he was unable to go to the Hall of Fame this past year and play "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" on his harmonica, as had become traditional. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Commons link has extra stuff on the end. This should work. Rklear (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel any free-use image should be used before a copyrighted one. If people can't read the article to understand that he was a baseball player, then they're missing the point of Wikipedia. blackngold29 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture from last year is labeled as being from "Stan Musial Day" in 2008 while the article talks about a "Stan the Man Day" in 2008. Did he have two days last year, or is one of these incorrect? Kinston eagle (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium

Someone went ahead and changed Yankee Stadium so it is an article about the new stadium and moved the old stadium to Yankee Stadium (1923). This causes a problem in that all the historical articles are now pointing to the wrong page. Does anyone have a bot that can repoint all the pages? Or should it be moved back? Thoughts? Spanneraol (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears there was a move discussion on the page early this month that resulted in no consensus. Given that, the article should not have been moved, or so it seems to me. Rklear (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All those changes should be reverted until we come to a consensus. Kingturtle (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What should have been done is keep both away from Yankee Stadium (kept new as New Yankee Stadium and move the old to Old Yankee Stadium) and allowed time to fix all Yankee Stadium links to the old page... now we have lots of pages that link to Yankee Stadium when they mean to go to the old and others for the new... which is all screwed up..... (btw - usage of 'Old' is definitely starting to fit WP:Common (as opposed to using (1923) - just take a look at a press release from today about selling memorabilia [3]) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JustSomeRandomGuy32. Seems confusing to have either simply classified as The Yankee Stadium, at least so close to the closing of the "Old Yankee Stadium". Maybe in ten years, but I don't think it's fitting just yet. blackngold29 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While that may be confusing, it's even more confusing to have links all over the place pointing to the wrong "Yankee Stadium" article. The article should not have been moved until a process to convert all those links to a new name was substantially complete, especially since there was no consensus to move it. Rklear (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First, decide what to call the article, once and for all. Second, auto-point everything that says "Yankee Stadium" to whatever you all decide to call the article. Third, hand-correct the few that were supposed to be pointing to the new stadium. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on what to call articles

Alright, it seems obvious to me from the above discussion that we need to agree on what to call the two articles. I guess I'll just make proposal number one: Call the first ballpark "Yankee Stadium" and the new/current ballpark "New Yankee Stadium". Yea or Nea? Comments? blackngold29 16:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• We could just have both stadiums mentioned in the same article... see Polo Grounds for example, more than one stadium had that name but it only has one article. I believe several of the stadium pages are similar to that. Spanneraol (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think there is (or will be) enough information on both of them to warrent their own articles. The original is arguably the most famous ballpark that was, I'm sure a ton more could be found about it. Also both articles are already pretty big, it would be quite difficult to pick what would be kept and what would have to be eliminated. blackngold29 17:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • In that case, I'd agree with your suggestion as to the naming.. original as "Yankee Stadium" and new one as "New Yankees Stadium" (which is what they were called till just recently). We should really stay away from "Yankee Stadium (1923)" because that implies the stadium was only around for that one year and is somewhat confusing. Spanneraol (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The current situation seems reasonable: the present-day stadium being under the name "Yankee Stadium", and the previous stadium under "Yankee Stadium (1923)". It uses the official names for both stadia and a clear disambiguating qualifier. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like "Yankee Stadium (1923)" for the old and just "Yankee Stadium" for the new, also. It squares with its "cousin", Wembley Stadium (1923) and Wembley Stadium. And remember this is just for disambiguation. There is very little likelihood someone will think the old was only around 1 year, and even if, they'll find out soon enough. A single article doesn't really work. Polo Grounds has very little about its older incarnations. That's not the case with the Stadium. Two articles are needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the WP:COMMONNAME for both stadia is "Yankee Stadium", then there needs to be a disambiguator or DAB page. If it's a huge issue to have Yankee Stadium (1923) and plain old Yankee Stadium (which I would support), then dab both: Yankee Stadium (1923) and Yankee Stadium (2009). This would work for a dab page too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I find "Yankee Stadium (1923)" confusing, and I would be surprised if most people know that it opened in 1923. I think the most common name for the original would be "Yankee Stadium" or "Old Yankee Stadium"; the new one could be "Yankee Stadium" or "New Yankee Stadium". If years are used then "Yankee Stadium (1923–2008)" seems less confusing. blackngold29 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, (1923) implies it was open only in the year 1923. Kingturtle (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a disambiguation is intended only to distinguish the topic from another similar topic, not to fully explain it. That misconception is what's bogged all of this discussion down, methinks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The title should get the people to the correct article in as short of time as possible. When I first saw "Yankee Stadium (1923)" it confused me greatly, I don't think it's much to ask to call it "Yankee Stadium (1923–2008)" instead. If we go by the the COMMONNAME then I personally hear "New/Old Yankee Stadium" the most. blackngold29 04:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The common name is Yankee Stadium. That's what people are going to think of. But there can only be one article about Yankee Stadium, so the logical thing is to direct that to the new and say "for the old, click this link". While the term "New Yankee Stadium" may be current right now, it will soon fade once the new one opens, just as with the similar setup in St. Louis and on the south side of Chicago... especially once the old one is knocked down. I guarantee you, in a surprisingly short time, the "New" part of the new "Yankee Stadium" will disappear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to be that we should name the old one as "Yankee Stadium (1923-2008)" as suggested by Blackngold above. Can anyone take care of renaming it and auto-pointing all the links?Spanneraol (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So is there any opposition to moving it to Yankee Stadium (1923–2008)? I'll move it if not. blackngold29 15:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is now, with just (1923) on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's confusing and that can be easily fixed. Do you specifically oppose the change? blackngold29 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I like (1923-2008) better. Spanneraol (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it confusing? And by the way, 2008 is not correct. It still stands. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium (1923) seems fine. It matches the Wembley Stadium precedent and others as well. Year of first service, for instance, is the common way to disambiguate ships with the same name. (Post-1920 U.S. Navy ships, which are disambiguated by hull number, are an exception.) I was going to suggest the same pattern as Madison Square Garden, but there's only one article for all four versions of that place, believe it or not. Rklear (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, per current conventions, using the opening year would be the proper way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1877 Brooklyn Hartford's season

The article, 1877 Brooklyn Hartfords season, needs a review of the team name. While it is true that the team played their home games in Brooklyn that season, it appears that they are still referred to as "Hartford Dark Blues" by all encyclopedias, including Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference. I think it needs to be changed back until Baseball recognizes this change.Neonblak ^talk - 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A contemporary New York Times article refers to the team in the heading as the Brooklyn Hartfords, then calls them Hartford or Hartford Blue Stockings throughout the article, even in the box score. Here's the link.Neonblak ^talk - 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a great little find. The MacMillan encyclopedias, starting in 1969, simply listed the 1877 club as "Brooklyn", because they played their home games at the field of the expelled Mutuals. They were officially "Hartford", but this was a way for the young National League to "save face" - to maintain the integrity of its rules while retaining the New York market, at least for one more season. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as the team nicknames are concerned, I've observed that Retrosheet tends to stick with the "conventional" nicknames even when research would suggest otherwise. Obviously, they were called the Blue Stockings. But somewhere, a century later, someone thought they were called the Dark Blues, and it stuck. People don't understand that nicknames had a different meaning at that time. One team might have several nicknames, none of them official, just whatever name the newspaper writers stuck them with. Often those puckish nicknames were eventually adopted. Hence the team with the peculiar name of "Dodgers". Meanwhile, I note that of the 60-or-so games that "Hartford" played in 1877, all but one were played in Brooklyn (over 100 miles from Hartford), and one was played in New Haven (some 75 miles from Brooklyn), and exactly NONE in Hartford. In addition to "Brooklyn Hartfords", I've also seen them referred to semi-formally as "Hartford of Brooklyn", an oxymoron that has never seen the like since. Unless you count "Los Angeles of Anaheim". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

World Series WikiBook!

I created a World Series book using the Create a book features. The PDF is 859 pages. And it only costs $58 (including shipping) to have it printed and mailed to you. Pretty neat. Kingturtle (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. How much did it cost to have stray "Hi Mom!"s and the like removed from the text? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a way to select particular versions of each article. I hope to do that eventually. But it will take time :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be perfect. You could make each article exactly the way you want it, and then even if it gets reverted or trashed, you've still got it: "World Series: The Kingturtle Edition. Appearing at a newstand near you." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's awesome. Now if we could get every article up to FA status we could go for a NY Times bestseller. If not, I would probably atleast order it. blackngold29 14:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rich Perez

Someone from here might want to look over the article on Rich Perez and comment at the afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Perez, it'd be useful for those of us with less of a clue to help voice an opinion. Ta. Hiding T 15:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Gjr rodriguez

User Gjr rodriguez (talk · contribs) has recently been creating minor league player articles mostly about players in the Double-A Texas League. (Players that don't stand up to notabily standards on their own, but could survive on the organizationl pages.) I first took the liberty of moving some of the articles that were up for speedy deletion or prod'd. I approached him about moving them to the "X minor league players" pages and about creating future pages there. He persisted, creating more articles, and I, again, suggested he move them. At some point, I think all the articles he created were redirected, but now he has reverted all the redirects. Other users have approached him about his practices, to no avail. This seems like a problem with ownership of articles and/or edit warring. Could an admin or someone with a better understanding of Wiki-policy look into this? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some of those guys may be notable... The articles are really sloppily written though... and don't conform to our typical formatting for player articles... The detailed minor league stats for one thing don't belong so I wouldn't include those in the merges. Spanneraol (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The only one I think is notable is Kyle Blanks, the rest were players that probably wont ever make the majors.--Yankees10 22:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

His edits, at this point, have gone from good faith to disruptive. He thinks all these people are very notable, but for the most part they're not. If he complied he'd be a fine editor, but he won't, which ends up being very troubling. Wizardman 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I was encouraged when he said a player met standards which he does not, then went on to be directly insulting. blackngold29 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

{{behavior|type=poor}}. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• He's even removing maintenance templates now. I'm very close to just blocking him and ending this fiasco, he's causing more harm than good now. Wizardman :  Chat  16:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• If what he's doing is disruptive and constitutes a block, I'd certainly say that the large amount of contribution and ignorance of the notices on his talk page indicate an unwillingness to act in good faith. Considering the breadth of the contributions, I think we've extended about as much good faith of our own as we can. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him about the civility issues and the maint templates; you can see his reply here. I just finished going through a boatload of articles he created. Some pass WP:BIO, and I've added the appropriate refs. Others are resting solely on whether AA meets WP:ATHLETE, which is controversial at best. Those have been sent to AfD. We'll see how he reacts when he next signs on.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there haven't been any civility problems (that I see), but he removed all the AfD templates and started creating more articles as fast as he can. Time for a fishy?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way to add to WP:ATHLETE "Those who have played atleast a single MLB game"? Plus whatever major Japanese leagues, etc. It seems that would solve a lot controversy to these A and AA players. I'm still on the line when it comes to AAA guys who have multiple awards. Now what constitutes a professional is being distorted. Unless I'm wrong to think that it's only players in the MLB and not minor league players signed by major league teams? blackngold29 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall a recent move to make Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability_guidelines a guideline instead of a draft. I don't think that would have deterred this editor, but it would make things clearer.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is now a posting in WP:ANI about this situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Boston Reds (1890–1891) all-time roster

Just finished doing the work on this list. Wanted to run this by the Baseball project before taking this to Featured List nom. Yes, there are two red-linked players, I will get to those shortly, or if anyone else wants to create those, they can.Neonblak ^talk - 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a nice list; I look forward to reviewing it at WP:FLC. I noticed a couple of things that need to be fixed, but I will save those for a review. You will probably be asked to expand the lead by another paragraph or so; FLC is becoming more and more prose-conscious. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, did some lead work, added refs, and it looks like Wizardman created the stubs for the two red-linked players already. I will nominate this List when I return home, thanks for help !Neonblak ^talk - 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, I may just be the first to weigh in on it! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

National Baseball Teams

I've taken it upon myself to fix the Italy national baseball team and United States national baseball team articles. I've also done a considerable amount of work on Netherlands national baseball team and Cuba national baseball team. Not to sound as if I am biased, but I am an Italian American, and that plays a large part in my bias toward the first two articles. I was wondering if I could appeal to the nationalism in anyone else out there to help me fix up some of the articles on some of these other national teams as some of them are pretty pathetic.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was supposed to be working on an infobox for these competitions. Unfortunately, I took a look at the code and it seems to be beyond my grasp. Fail. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The currently existing infoboxes ask for a lot of information (ie, World Baseball Classic, Olympics, Baseball World cup, etc.). In most cases, I've noticed that they either haven't been fully filled out, or the information is in need of updating. To a degree, I've taken it upon myself; I just wish I had some help. It's a bigger task than you might think.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Category:Major League Baseball players with retired numbers has been co-nominated for deletion, along with the similar categories for the NHL and NBA. Please respond at the discussion page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 7 in baseball and the like nominated for deletion

Please chime in with your opinions. Kingturtle (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This AfD has been extended to get more input. Please chime in if you wish. Kingturtle (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Contemplating making 2004 World Series a FAC

But I was hoping you guys could take a look at it first and tell me if there is anything that needs to be fixed. I also set up I Peer review. BUC (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review will definitely help. I will give the article a thorough copyedit within the next few days (I am going without the Internet after today until Sunday afternoon but will try to catch up then). Someone should run the dablinks and deadlinks checkers and such on this article too, to head off those issues first. I honestly might suggest doing a GA first rather than straight to FA. Apologies, I misread the year, GA is done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No harm into trying to make it a featured article, it's just that this was not a particularly exciting Series, following on the heels of the Red Sox stunning comeback against the Yanks in the ALCS. It was a little like when the USA beat the USSR in 1980, and oh by the way had to also beat Finland or somebody like that in order to actually clinch the gold. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I might give the ALCS article a look too since that pretty poor at the moment. But lets work on one article at a time. BUC (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One of my favorite moments of the 2004 Series was when first baseman David Ortiz, who probably hadn't played in the field all year, nonetheless fired a bullet to the third baseman to nail the Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, who had probably not been to third base all year, and had rounded it a little too far. Both players were in unexplored territory on that play, and the fates were all on the side of the Beantowners. Incidentally, that play is not explained too well in the article, as it leaves out the crucial fact that Ortiz threw the ball to Mueller to put the tag on Suppan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Reworded BUC (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. And I want to point out that I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the 2004 Series. Far from it. It was an event in the history of the Red Sox and of baseball which had great importance. It's just that the Series itself... well, as a fan, you begin to see the signs of how things are going. For example, in the very first game of the 2005 World Series, when they took Clemens out in the third inning, I said, "It's over." The Astros had thrown the best they had out there, and he was done after 2 innings. And so were the Astros. In 2004, I had that feeling after the first game. The Cardinals battled but lost, and it was clear to me that they were done. They were the helpless victim of a Red Sox team that was on a mission, a freight train that was not going to be stopped, and that's just how it was. After losing the first 3 to the Yankees, the Red Sox shifted into high gear and won 8 straight games. The team of destiny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Reference redesigned

Just to give you all a heads up, Baseball Reference has just undergone a redesign. The Baseballstats template will still work, at least for now, as the player pages still exist, but they redirect to the pages' new locations (a new directory level has been added) so it should probably be updated ASAP. I'm not sure yet what other things have changed, but keep an eye out. -Dewelar (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

At least they do still work. Gives us time to make a bot, if anyone's good at that stuff (we still need one to convert template:baseball-reference to the baseballstats one so we can always add the layer while doing that conversion) Wizardman :  Chat  16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Baseballstats works correctly if it corrects it like this. --KANESUE 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.baseball-reference.com/{{{id|}}}{{{br|}}}.shtml Baseball-Reference] ⇒ [http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/{{{id|}}}{{{br|}}}.shtml Baseball-Reference]

Minor Leaguers are 'technically' Pros

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course minor league players are professional ballplayers. That goes back 120-odd or 130-odd years, much longer than contracts with major league clubs who "stored [them] in lower class teams". That doesn't mean there should be a stub for every minor league player!

(quote) These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts.

Certainly it is a losing game to compete with the websites of active minor league teams for ballpark-based internet traffic, those fans in the seats who would like to look up more data than a local club provides by public address, printed program, and electronic scoreboard. --P64 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability - Gjr rodriguez

What happened to the detailed Notability that this Project had?? I can't seem to find it right now, but Gjr rodriguez is COMPLETELY going against it, and making a huge mess out of dozens of pages he's created and adding ridiculous detail to (minor league stat tables). This is getting ugly fast and I hope people are around to help clean this up before it gets any worse. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And he's also throwing this template on player pages, and his explanation to me on why makes no sense.... and he's adding the stub category to pages and removing stub templates.... HELP! JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Some one needs to block this guy and delete all of the articles he has created. Can some admin please just step up and do something--Yankees10 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK found the notability section - I guess there is some discussion to change/update it? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I now have a personal insult from this guy on my talk page along with a vow to engage in edit warring. Is there an admin around? Rklear (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Several of us here who are admins are involved, either through the AfDs or having been insulted, so we can't block. Might be a case for AN/I, though.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I just issued him a final warning on the incivility.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with adding of MiLB franchises template on player articles, but for creating Minor league baseball player articles you can't yell at him for doing that. He's going by the project-wide (encyclopedia, not wikiproject) consensus of WP:ATHLETE definition of "fully professional" so he's not breaking any "rules" with his article creation. He just trying to build the encyclopedia which he is most welcome to do. If any articles really don't belong, well that's what WP:AFD is for. Borgarde (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that AA players are not "fully professional". He's saying that because their stats are mentiioned on one page of TheBaseballCube.com that they meet WP:N. If he is allowed to continue that precedent, every high school player who has their stats on the internet is notable. We have tens of thousands of players in the majors and only around 20 are GAs. I obviously preach quality over quantity, but have no problem with all major leaguers having an article. What I don't like is more and more minor leaguers getting articles that will never make the majors and will never be more than a stub, I don't see articles like that as helpful to the encyclopedia as a whole. blackngold29 14:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia-wide consensus (as reflected by dozens of AfD discussions, which include many participants from outside the baseball WikiProject) has never considered all minor league players as notable based on the "fully professional" criterion of WP:ATHLETE. Other policies, including WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:BLP, are also relevant. The last time we discussed the WikiProject's notability guidelines in depth (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines) I think we reached a consensus. We couldn't get agreement on any standards based on level of play, awards, or the like. But then we started a discussion of sourcing, and there was agreement that to be considered notable an article needs to have good sources—more than just statistics or a trivial or passing reference in a news article. That consensus was reported back to the Wikiproject (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 7#Minor league notability - draft now available) and the revised guidelines were later posted on the WikiProject page. They then disappeared with a page redesign. Of course, any "consensus" is only relative to the editors who took part in the discussion and isn't permanent, so it may be time to re-open the discussion. BRMo (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the simplest way to do it is to go by level, if we can get it. As the internet grows, more and more coverage of lower level (college, high school, little league) will find its way onto it. What if TheBaseballCube.com or another site expands to include leagues like that? do those players become notable under WP:N or WP:BIO? Obviously there are people who will argue that they are. The simplest thing would be to say "played in one MLB game. Period. The end.", but I might be willing to compromise on some AAA players. blackngold29 17:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll only say that when we discussed it before (see link in my comment above), we couldn't get consensus for any criteria for minor leaguers other than the general notability criteria—i.e., significant coverage from reliable sources. I also want to mention that I would argue against treating The Baseball Cube as a reliable source for non-statistical (biographical information). You'll notice that they have a link for "Edit Player Data" on each player's page. In other words, they are accepting data of unknown validity from Internet users, and I don't see any citations of sources of the information. On the other hand, my understanding is that their statistical data does come from reliable sources, such as official league statistics. BRMo (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My issue with him is not the article creation, but the incivility, the refusal to acknowledge that consensus has a place on Wikipedia, and the "I'm gonna do what I damn well please" attitude. Of the three, I personally would only block for the incivility (but I'm an involved admin, so I can't). However, the other two deserve a WP:TROUT if nothing else.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anyway someone could show him to use info boxes instead of all those darn ugly stats tables he is using?Spanneraol (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New category problem

An editor has recently created Category:Purposed Continental League franchise locations. One, shouldn't this be "Proposed", not "Purposed"? and two, he is placing the cats on franchise articles, such as Buffalo Bisons and Colorado Rockies, rather than on pages about the cities. I don't think these need to go on the main city pages either, but perhaps an article on sports in those cities (and if they don't have that, then perhaps the main city page.) Any thoughts/comments on how this should be handled? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Without any articles on proposed Continental League franchise locations, a list rather than a category is appropriate. --P64 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Purposed"??? That's a good one. Although the CL did serve a "purpose" - it forced the majors to expand, and specifically to put an NL team back in New York. I would argue that the CL itself was "vaporware" - merely a threat to MLB, which disbanded once it forced the majors to do what it wanted. The CL article itself covers the situation. Attaching the category to those ball clubs is an interesting idea, but I'm not convinced it has real merit. The creation of the Mets was the turning point of the whole process, and I would argue that they are the only club that really merits membership in that category - which makes for kind of a small category. Meanwhile, the Mets article already links to the CL, so again I'm not sure what the point of the category is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the category from all franchise pages, and also removed this from the parent category "defunct teams" - there were never any teams, so they can't be defunct. -Dewelar (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The category now contains only itself. And as you indicate, the teams were vaporware. Presumably the now-empty and typoed category could be nominated for deletion, unless its creator can pose a good argument in its favor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If the category remains empty for more than four days, we can use {{db-catempty}} to request speedy deletion. BRMo (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Hall of Fame balloting re Negro Leagues

At Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1971, I revised the preface to do a couple of things, one substantial. That year a committee to elect people from the Negro Leagues was appointed and it selected Satchel Paige, the first of nine players elected in seven years 1971-77 before the committee disbanded.

I did not add a section on the Negro Leagues to the body of the article. Nor is there any section on the Veterans election; the people it elected are not named, although I inserted their number in the preface (seven). Except in its preface this article covers only the BBWAA voting for recent major league players.

The same is true for all of 1971 to 1977, the seven-year duration of that special committee. The articles cover BBWAA elections only.

[A few months ago I read the New York Times coverage of 1971 to 1977 elections by internet, free of charge. Perhaps I was at a library. Using google from home I find that the price tag $3.95 on each article. I have identified two of the February 1971 articles at Talk:Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1971. It seems that I do not have similar notes on the later 1971 or the 1972-77 articles.]

... The same is true for 1995 when the Hall of Fame resumed special consideration for the Negro Leagues, this time as a category under the auspices of the Veterans Committee (1995 to 2001). The articles begin to cover the Veterans Committee elections including the Negro Leagues ballots in 1999. --P64 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I may be dense here. Your change sounds good and you just need to attach proper sources to make it even better. Are you asking for help finding the source? Something else? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Game updates

Please help out with updating game results for the upcoming season! Only a few teams are accounted for so far. Also the division standings and records vs. opponents templates need cared for. I'll do the NL central, unless someone wants to simply edit them all, sometimes that's easier. We've got a lot of games, but if everyone helps out I have no doubt we can keep everything up to date. Also, throw some prose on your favorite team's article, it makes them look much nicer. Last season we had one season get to GA (thanks to KV5) hopefully we can get two or three this season. Thanks! blackngold29 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we weren't doing game logs any more. -Dewelar (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When did that happen? We don't have the templates, if that what you mean. There was a script in the works for NHL game logs, I would bet the same could be done for baseball. blackngold29 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that page existed, otherwise I would have signed up before now. Obviously I'll handle the Phillies, and the NL East as well. As to game logs, I think they are valuable info to have. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like game logs myself.. They take up lots of space in the articles that could be better used and the format is kinda unappealing... but if others want them I can live with em. Spanneraol (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to discuss format changes the biggest one that I use is that when I spend a lot of time working on an article, I usually make sure that the game log defaults to "hidden", which helps a lot with reading the article. See 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on game logs was here. -Dewelar (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I took that week off for Christmas. Perhaps we could make it an optional thing, because I like them and I'm willing to keep the Pirates' updated. I think that it can show the ebb and flow of the season well (winning and losing streaks, etc.) and like KV said, they can be collapsed so they don't really take up that much space. blackngold29 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, and I concur with my opinion there. They're still a bad idea. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are external sources that provide daily game logs, and rather than copying that info to here, simply linking to those sources from the respective teams' year pages would seem to be sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't anyone say anything? Now that every team has a game log for the upcoming season, it's kind of late. I guess not doing a log would save a lot of time, but then again I don't mind it. Like I said above, it would be possible to write a script that would use the info from another site. Is it really the look that everyone doesn't like or the time spent updating it? blackngold29 03:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Game logs are fine. Do you know how to make a script to update them or know of someone who could? That could ensure they are updated and accurate. Borgarde (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a script can be made that is accurate, fine, but I have a feeling that scripts are what fills up these game logs with bad links (links without proper disambiguation, links without diacritics, etc.). I gave up on fixing them after a while because every game log would have literally dozens of such errors. Doing it correctly definitely is more work than it's worth. Bugs has the right idea - link to a page that contains the log. Baseball Reference, Baseball Almanac, Retrosheet all have them. -Dewelar (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about NHL game log script is here, I don't know a lot about it, but it would appear if it can be done for hockey it could be done for baseball. If it was written for BaseballReference it could go back quite a while. If we were to eliminate game logs because other sites have the same info, then wouldn't we eliminate stats as well? seems like a slippery slope. blackngold29 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Very true on the stats front. To be frank with all of you, I actually enjoy doing game logs and would take all of the articles on if I had the time. To be even more frank, I have no time at all, but I make the time to care for my Phillies. Ask BnG29; I actually have to schedule my work time on the Wiki. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about the stat tables in the team-season articles, then I can certainly see an argument for removing them, yes, or perhaps even combining them with the roster box. If we're talking about stat tables within a player article, I'd actually agree that they don't need to be there. With those, a summary in the prose and/or infobox is sufficient.

Regarding game logs themselves, in addition to the accuracy issue, there's also the matter of size. A completely filled-out game log is around 40K by itself. For the 2008 Minnesota Twins season, for instance, that's nearly 2/3 of the entire article dedicated to this concept. For the 2008 Colorado Rockies season, it was nearly the entire article (39K out of 46K) before being (inappropriately) moved to a template.

We'd be better served by having actual season summaries. Several Tigers seasons such as 1976 Detroit Tigers season have these, which are far more useful than a game log in that they highlight the important events during the season rather than just drop a big honkin' table into the middle of the article without providing context.

I have some other issues with game logs, but I'll leave it there for now. I will say, however, that if they were all done with the care of KV5, I'd feel better. I am even now shuddering to think of what kind of havoc chiefwahoo (who has badly botched the Indians' game logs in the past) will wreak on my beloved Twins this season. :( -Dewelar (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just don't like the argument that "other places have it, we're just repeating" because that is true for this entire website. Everything here is (or should) be someplace else. As for the size of game logs, I'm all for not linking pitchers and teams for every game; first mention or not at all is fine; that takes away a lot of size. I definately agree that prose is the way to go, even for short summaries (2008 Pittsburgh Pirates season) but definately for longer ones (2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, the aformentioned GA) which I even used as a model for 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season. But we shouldn't go prose at the expense of making the article incomplete coverage of the topic. blackngold29 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping the links available per WP:BUILD, but we could definitely go to first mention only to save space. That just means that we all have to be vigilant in making sure that there aren't duplications. We also should set ground rules whether it's first mention in the article, first mention in the log, or first mention in the month, since all of these could be possible interpretations. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can try to ride herd on the Twins article too (honestly, I was going to take that one too but it was already taken). I am secondarily a Twins fan, after all, and I don't mind cleaning up mistakes here and there; it's a chance to teach too. Hell, the Twins were my Little League team, I owe a little respect! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at a few of the season articles (I'm thinking of taking on the Orioles and maybe the Nationals) and I noticed that the team navboxes have a hard-coded pixel width which doesn't align with the season navboxes. Is there a particular reason for this? It looks a bit strange to have a navbox that doesn't span the page. Rklear (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I hadn't noticed but I think they should span the page too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I always wondered about this myself, and also why, in some team-season articles, the width of the navbox is hardcoded to 53m. Anyone know why this is done? -Dewelar (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Whlie I am not a member of WP:Baseball, I will try to keep the Rockies as updated as possible. Thanks  Stormin' Foreman ^{Got something to say?} 05:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In season stats

Another thing, I think that we should have stats in the articles, but because of daily games it is extremely difficult to keep those up-to-date. Can we reach some kind of consensus that they shouldn't be added until after the season? It seems sloppy to update them once or twice a week/month (something I was guilty of last season) because they're usually out-of-date and not too helpful to anyone. This is a case where I agree that we can link them, but only until the season is done. blackngold29 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's a good idea, or perhaps, to look like we are keeping up, to add them at the All-Star break and then update at the end of the season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Salaries

Hello! Should MLB players' articles make note of their current salaries? USA Today recently published the salaries of many players from all over the league. Should this be included as part of the ID box? Or in a specific section of the article? Just wanted to get some feedback, and I could help enter the information if we agree it's relevent. Thanks--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 03:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the ID box?--Yankees10 04:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he means infobox. blackngold29 04:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember a formal discussion, but general practice has been that unless there's something particularly notable about the salary (Joe Pitcher signed the biggest contract ever, etc), it isn't mentioned in the article. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, unneeeded. Secret ^account 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All ballplayers now notable?

Since Jose Diaz (baseball), a ballplayer who has never played above AA, has been kept does that mean that anyone who has ever been paid is notable? This stems back to a misinturpretation of WP:ATHLETE. It states the player should have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which is MLB, Japanese Pro League, etc. not farm teams who pay players. Anything below MLB is professional, but NOT "the fully professional level" of baseball required under WP:ATHLETE. As I stated in an earlier discussion, as the intenet continues to grow more and more teams (including college and little leagues) have websites. Therefore if a ten year old has five differnt articles about him in the local paper and league website is he notable under WP:N? I think that it should somehow be established that a ballplayer worthy of an article must meet WP:ATHLETE (i.e. played in the MLB) before WP:N. Because if something isn't changed, we should all start creating articles that will never be more than a stub for everyone we know that has ever picked up a bat. blackngold29 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that was a poor close. I'll talk to the admin, with deletion review being likely. Talked to the admin and he undid it. Wizardman 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

@Blackngold29, there is a large minor league baseball following here and some of them will fight to keep minor league baseball content - no matter how poorly sourced or insignificant - to the bitter end. I don't claim to understand it, especially when so many major league baseball articles could use a lot of work... but the fact remains. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we'd resolved the minor league issue by creating the List pages for the top prospects... Spanneraol (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly why should we change this because of one user. We need to do something about this, the user is creating hundreds of minor leaguers that are not notable enough to have articles--Yankees10 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that sentence didn't make sense; "at the fully professional level". Should be "at a fully professional level", or "at the top fully professional level" at least. It looks as if there is a word missing.Neonblak ^talk - 00:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, a fully professional level probably won't cut it. Minor league players play for money; it's their job. They are professionals, but we're looking for the uppermost echelons here, as previously stated: minor leaguers with significant non-statistical coverage or major leaguers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, a thanks to Wizardman. Also, I agree KV, I left this comment on the WP:ATHLETE discussion. blackngold29 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here (unusual, I know) - with just a few exceptions, minor leaguers are NOT notable. How much coverage do they get on ESPN, for example? Virtually nada. The majors, and getting to the majors, is what it's all about. The only reason I can think of for having articles about minor leaguers is if they've done something extraordinary (like hit 72 home runs or run through an outfield fence), or for the hope of having a "finished" article already there, if they make it to the majors. But if they don't make it to the majors, and don't do something extraordinary in the minors, the individual player articles should eventually be rubbed out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I just got back from watching Matt Wieters play an exhibition against a college team. Nothing notable there at all. :-) Rklear (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, Bugs. I was just kind of venting there. I hope the discussion will bring some kind of change. blackngold29 01:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a relative who pitched in the Brooklyn Dodgers organization in the late 30s. He could also hit pretty well. Then WWII came along, and that was that. Maybe he deserves an article? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats his name?Kinston eagle (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Confidential. :) In any case, the only info on him would be in old-old baseball guides. He was far better accomplished as a high school football coach later on. Yet he still doesn't qualify as notable, despite being one of my favorite relatives. :) Here's the thing: Moonlight Graham is famous for being a figure in Field of Dreams. But he's notable for having played 1 day in the majors. You'll find a single line for him in the encyclopedias for that achievement. There's a reason minor league stuff is typically left out of those books. The majors are what it's about. The minors, if you don't get to the majors some way or another, are nothing more than a pleasant diversion before taking up a real career, like selling insurance or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you should be able to find info on him here:[4]. Look him up. Feel free to write an article about him on the Bullpen. We love minor league articles there. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On a wiki that specializes in baseball, it would be reasonable to consider all minor leaguers to be notable. Not in a general encyclopedia like wikipedia, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have any estimates on how many minor leaguers there are? Now howabout dating back to the 1910s? I seem to recall estimating that with a GA per week it would take over 500 years to complete the MLB players and by then there would of course be thousands more. Now square that... four times. blackngold29 02:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's consider the 1950s. At a given point in time, 400 players in the majors (25 x 16). Each club had at least 5 farm teams. So that's roughly 2,000 minor leagues. If you assume that proportion holds throughout history, at the point where there were 10,000 major leaguers there would have been at least 50,000 minor leaguers. And probably a lot more than that. SABR has published a book or two on stars of the minor leagues. Maybe a couple hundred names, just guessing. Of all those 50,000 minor leaguers, those are the ones that are notable. And a fair number of them spent at least some time in the majors, so they were already "notable" by wikipedia standards. The minors are nothing more than an assembly line. And if you don't make it to the end of that assembly line, you're notable to your friends and family, but not likely to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, good stuff. I don't think that many people, especially those who want every minor league player to be "notable", understand exactly how many minor leaguers there really have been. With 50,000 as a minimum that would more than double the scope of this WP. Keep in mind that currently over half are stubs, and by creating that many more stubs we aren't really helping the number of people we could with more MLB player start-classes. blackngold29 02:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a little speech in Bull Durham, in which Crash Davis talks about his 3 weeks in the majors as being the greatest 3 weeks of his life. The gulf between the minors and the majors is huge. Every ballplayer knows they're nothing unless they make the bigs. I should mention that I did find my relative. His one year in the minors was undistinguished, but he was just getting started, so who knows how things might have gone? They also don't have his death date. But I'm not getting involved over there, at least not yet. It's an interesting source, though. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't want us to overreact here and make things even more restrictive. I've written some minor league bios in the past... though I've recently moved most of them to the list pages... which I think are great for keeping the top prospects listed... I don't think all the AA players that user is making pages for are really worth having though... I wish he would at least make his articles fit the proper style better.. use info boxes and not the ugly stat tables... I'd just keep an eye on him and see if he does anything that can get him banned. Spanneraol (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything to get him banned, he's been following a 'guideline' which states every professional player is notable, simple as that. I would be strongly opposed to any rationale to get it to say "Major League Baseball". You can compare it to Football as well, there are hundreds of Top-Level leagues around the world, each of those leagues have leagues under them in a divisional structure. In England alone there are at least 5 levels which are Fully professional, they even note this on their wikiproject. Then you have the heavyweight in Europe which would have the same kind of structure. You can't knock out players simply because it "enlarges our scope", that's when you'll end up getting more contributers because their articles will stop getting deleted, which is why editors from here have moved to the Baseball-Reference Bullpen to stop getting crucified by baseball project members. Borgarde (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an appropriate venue, if there is one, for every professional ballplayer in history. Wikipedia is not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. Even the founder of Wikipedia supports obscure articles like railway stations that are never visited. I wonder what his opinion would be on this topic. "The Sum of all Knowledge" is not "The Sum of all Knowledge - Limited to Major League Baseball" Borgarde (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If that philosophy were literally true, the concepts of Articles for Deletion and No Non-Free Images wouldn't exist here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:ATHLETE is being misiturpreted. Minor leaguers are professional, but only MLB players are "fully professional", fully as in the highest level, and that's what WP:ATHLETE says. blackngold29 03:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say 'fully as in the highest level'. I don't see that at all. Borgarde (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think "fully" means? One cannot be "kind of professional", you either are or you aren't. Nobody is saying minor leaguers are not professional, but by including the word "fully" it changes the meaning from "all pros" to the "top pros". I place some blame on the wording, which should probably speciffically adress each sport, but for now that's what I see it as meaning and that seems to be the majority view. blackngold29 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, fully does not mean top-level, I can't support that interpretation of it at all. Otherwise the guideline would state "Players who have competed the top professional level of their sport". I like this page at WP:FOOTY to have some stance of "Top-Level". Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, but I also think this would include a lot of Minor League Baseball. Borgarde (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Until salaries went through the roof in the 70s, major league ballplayers often supplemented their incomes with regular jobs in the off-season. Were they "fully" professional ballplayers? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that list a few days ago. It points to the much higher importance of semipro leagues in soccer, which is why "fully professional" makes sense there but not in baseball. If you look over the list, you'll only see 3-4 countries where "fully professional" goes down to the second division (Double-A) level. Rklear (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the wording is too vague, it could literally mean any person who is paid to play a sport. Correct me if I am wrong, and you guys usually do, but in baseball, under the current definition, a semi-professional player is "notable" because they play in a "fully professional league", while amateurs either play in a "semi-pro" league (backed by corporate sponsers), or play in a entirely amateur league. I think the range of semi-pro to major leaguer is entire too large of scope when defining notability.Neonblak ^talk - 04:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The College World Series gets a lot more visibility than the minors do, and that's amateur. I don't get what the point is of creating 50,000 biographical stubs, essentially replicating what's already being developed on baseball-reference.com. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How does it hurt you or the encyclopedia at all if someone is creating these articles on minor leaguers? Answer, it doesn't - see WP:PAPER. We are not baseball-reference, and if someone wants to create an article on a professional player to edit their area of interest they should. That's why arguments like above by Wknight saying we already have all these articles on Major Leaguers needing improvement, not everyone is interested in editing only about the Major Leagues. Borgarde (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how personal intrest has anything to do with notability. If I wanted to make an article about myself, I can't because I don't meet the guidelines. Even if I'm only interested in myself, that means nothing. But then again, if all these ballplayers are notable because they were drafted 50th overall by the Pirates in 1984, played for one summer in a rookie league, and then got hit by a bus are notable, then I might be as well. (Disclaimer: I don't know who was drafted 50th overall by the Bucs in 1984, if you were my appolgies.) blackngold29 14:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

50th overall was actually in the 2nd round by the Yankees, who drafted Al Leiter.. If you mean 50th round.. the Pirates last pick was atually in round 45, when they took Spencer Wilkinson with the 818th pick in the draft. Wilkinson chose to go to college instead, signing with the Rangers in 1987 after being picked in the 14th round, he played three seasons finishing in "A" ball.  :) Spanneraol (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that personal interest has anything to do with notability at all. I'm saying there are arguments above against minor leaguers because they would prefer to get the Major League articles up to scratch - which is concerning their personal interest. The guidelines state that editors like rodriguez here can create these articles about minor leaguers, and I'm saying they should be able to, and just because someone doesn't like it is not a reason to not let them edit them. Borgarde (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That argument hinges on a guy who has played a single game at AA being fully professional, and we should all know by now that's a bit controversial. :) Don't get me wrong, I do think that a certain number of MiLB players should have articles, especially the ones that have enough WP:RS to pass WP:BIO without invoking WP:ATHLETE. But that leads me to the harm that is caused by saying every MiLB player should have an article, whether otherwise notable or not. It's the thin edge of the wedge. If you say that a Rookie League guy who's played a single game is fully professional even when there's no sources other than the team page and stat pages, then why restrict it to baseball. Why not say that a garage band that played in a bar for $50 deserves an article. Heck, someone wants to read about them, even if it's just their grandmas. I've sold a couple of photographs for pocket money, so I must be a professional photographer -- where's my Wikipedia article? Obviously a line must be drawn somewhere. The question comes down to where.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well personally, I liked the previous guidelines where we had minor league all-stars and full season AAA players... that kept out the low minors and most of the scrubs while allowing top prospects articles... I was out voted in that last notability arguments and it got changed to the current guidelines which are more subjective about what constitutes reliable sources... Spanneraol (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I feel that I have to comment on the reference to WP:PAPER. Just because Wikipedia is not paper, "articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars" which means that this discussion can't be discounted using PAPER as a policy. It even says specificially "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion" (emphasis not mine). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But in the end there is WP:GNG, which basically says that any subject that can be sourced generally qualifies. The subject guidelines create an easier standard for those subjects that meet them, but they do not override this standard. Minor leaguers can have articles as long as there are sufficient sources. The only question is whether the "fully professional league" part of WP:ATHLETE allows those articles to stand with less than adequate sourcing. Rklear (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(After E/C)If there is no reliable source coverage about the players (which if they had reliable source coverage they would pass the general notability guidelines, thereby not having to pass WP:ATHLETE or any baseball specific policy) and they only thing that makes them notable enough to have a Wikipedia page is passing a policy than the only content on the page will be something like:

"Joe Smith is a baseball player in the insert major league team organization who plays for insert minor league team, he graduated from to insert school name and was drafted in some round (something overall)."

Since we have to follow specific policies of biographies of living people and anything else would be original research and unverifiable, two things that are not permitted on Wikipedia, but are particularly prohibited for living people. While I admire Gjr rodriguez's dedication, the only material on most of the pages is a sentence like the one above, a statistics table, and maybe a couple of awards (usually a player of the week). Statistics tables are generally not included on any baseball players article (at least none of the ones that I have been looking at) since Wikipedia is not a statistics site, and one of Gjr's main argument for keeping the articles is they would be helpful for scouts and fans in the stands using Blackberries

"These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts." (from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player)

This is another thing that Wikipedia is not, a baseball guide. It was commented by one editor in an AfD, that if a scout is using Wikipedia to pick his players, he is probably not a very good scout to being with.

I think the players should be mentioned in the teams article in a roster list, and maybe (so that once a player retires there is still a record of him here, and there will also be a "paper trail" of where he has played) an article would be appropriate for each season per team listing their roster and their record (similar to the way MLB lists a teams season e.g. 2002 Toronto Blue Jays season), the teams season is (in my opinion) more notable than the individual players. That would reduce the number of pages that would be created, keep all the players per team together (which would be a more comprehensive list), and would not result in 50,000 perma-stubs (estimated number from reading above). Note I am not a member of WP:Baseball, I got involved by patrolling new pages. --kelapstick (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just merge them if they are a decent prospect, unless they are a top prospect, like Matt Winters or Dexter Fowler for example, if they are a garbage prospect, delete them. If Rodriquez reverts the merge, he'll likely be blocked for revert warning so, it's a decent compromise. Also I have a feeling he's a sock trying to cause problems here, using our most controversal subject and creating them in mass, ignoring ppl and so fourth, his early edits aren't really newbie per say Secret ^account 16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me about non-MLB players that pass WP:N is that the internet is so big now (and obviously it's growing) that it would not surprise me in the slightest that somewhere out there some ten year old little leaguer passes WP:N; and that kid has no business being on WP. Personally I would say only MLB players are notable. Period. But because so many people feel that minor leaguers are notable, I would be willing to agree to Spanneraol's "full season and all-star AAA players", but that should probably be sepcifically put into WP:ATHLETE so we have a quick, simple guideline. blackngold29 19:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments by BnG29, but perhaps a caveat could be included that other top prospects could be included (like David Price when he came out of college, since he was so fast to the majors) IF AND ONLY IF consensus is reached at a specified location (namely, here). If no attempt at consensus is made... summary deletion. Obviously we're looking for consensus and proper treatment of the issue here, and sometimes a chisel is a more appropriate tool than a sledgehammer. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll respectfully disagree a bit here. We just need to be thoughtful about what type of sources really are independent, reliable, and show notability. Grandma's blog is not going to make little Billy the Little Leaguer notable. If the New York Times, the Miami Herald and Baseball America all decide to devote several articles to little Billy, we might consider having one, too.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course, all of the guidelines of WP:V, WP:RS, etc., have to apply here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I was thinking of smaller daily newspapers, of which an increasing number have websites. blackngold29 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Small daily papers are still WP:RSes, the fact the articles now show up on the web doesn't make a difference, those same articles would have been written 30 years ago and still would have made X person notable. But mind you the requirement is multiple independant RSes so just one local newspaper isn't going to cut it anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And all a player has to do is go from Bluefield to Aberdeen to Delmarva, have the local sportswriter do a profile on him in each town, and *poof!* you have three reliable sources on a player who hasn't made it to high-A. So much for keeping the minor leaguers out. Rklear (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS all trump WP:ATHLETE, even if we do manage to slide most minor leaguers into deletion because most people don't care to keep them, those voting to delete (assuming the sources existed) are actually be voting against policy. -Djsasso (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The reliable, non-statistical sources didn't exist; I'm sure that we wouldn't vote to delete when reliable sources clearly exist. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:gjr_rodriguez=

Though ALL minor league stubs don't usually meet WP:notabilty.they ALL meet the WP:Baseball wikiproject criteria..allow me to explain what my goal of this whole ordeal is...I am a baseball stats fan, and I wanted to go to Wikipedia to look up stats on some AA and AAA players, ABSOLUTELY desolate, when it comes to available information. .rather than put in 'Requests', I took it upon myself to construct a table and a routine to creating the stubs. Thanx to helpful additions some supporters, I now use a 'wiki-friendly' table. As well, I reference, external, and stub the pages correctly. I've made good faith efforts to meet criteria, and according to WP:baseball, and the wikiproject:baseball, the minor league stubs are valid and should remain, the word "generally", does not give specifics on team sites.....Now, I'm planning on only creating pages for those in AA and AAA baseball, the highest of competition in the Minor leagues, which is affilated with Major League Baseball. -I'm not creating pages for former MLB players that are now on AAA rosters, they have tasted the big leagues, thats notable enough WITHOUT any help-. Players that are in Class A ball or Rookie Leagues, dont even meet MY criteria of notability, so they will not receive a stub until they've reached Class AA. ....I plan on constantly updating the rosters of ALL leagues, so as to help ticket-holders or casual Wikipedia readers, incidentally, those are also the people I'm creating the stubs for.

You've seen my work, you can't say I'm not helping the encyclopedia. Nor am I libeling anyone, or overstepping boundaries that WP:baseball hasn't outlined clearly. Thats ALL the criteria I have to meet, if you don't believe that minor leagues are professional, I'm sorry but your DEAD WRONG. If they get paid to play, its professional, at AA and AAA, its high competition. This is my goal, this is my contribution...because YOUR not gonna do it, so why not me. Gjr rodriguez (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To what WP:BASEBALL criteria are you referring to? It isn't up to WikiProjects to decide what is notable and what is not (anyone could come up with a ridiculous WikiProject of their own), and WikiProject guidelines woud have to follow Wikipedia's main notability standards first. If you are referring to these guidelines, then none of your articles meet them because the first point of criteria is that the person must first pass WP:BIO which, by your own admission, they do not. Also see the point: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable..." Nobody has denied that minor leaguers are not professional, simply that they are not the highest professional level (MLB) which is my, and it seems most others', interpretation of WP:ATHLETE. The info that is being added (poetentially anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 articles) would be more appropriate in a place like the Baseball Wiki or the Bullpen wiki. If it is truly your goal to spread the knowledge of these players, I feel that they would have more exposure on those sites rather than here. blackngold29 05:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gjr has been blocked for 48 hours due to all of this. [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dodgers and Giants

I am nonplussed. Some redlink has decided that somehow the L.A Dodgers and the S.F. Giants are "different clubs" than the Brooklyn Dodgers and N.Y. Giants. There has been some talk on their pages about splitting out the histories. But he did this unilaterally, and when I reverted him, he reverted back claiming there is "no evidence, just POV" that they're the same club. I'm assuming he's either a troll or an idiot, or both; and in any case, reverting again would be a waste of time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I am neither a troll nor an idiot. I am a British baseball, cricket, football (i.e. soccer) and rugby league fan. I think the divide in transatlantic sports culture is to blame here. I can accept that the NY/SF Giants and Brooklyn/LA Dodgers operated under the same franchises awarded by the NL who also sanctioned their relocations. But to say they are the same team/club implies a shared history, record, fanbase etc that clearly does not exist. You might want to check out the AFC Wimbledon and Milton Keynes Dons pages for a similar debate in English football to see where I'm coming from here. Haldraper (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things. First, there is no consensus whatsoever for this change. There has been discussion of splitting the articles due to size. That is not consensus. Second, there is endless evidence, in the articles themselves and anywhere else you look in baseball history, that there is a continuum for each of these clubs. They only switched cities. They did not disband and then magically reappear as some totally new entities. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for calling you a troll and/or idiot. I have never seen anyone try to claim that these are 4 different clubs, and never, ever that their widely known continuum was somehow "POV". So I'll assume it's just innocent ignorance of the subject, rather than malice. And just so you'll know, the official websites of the Giants [6] and the Dodgers [7] include their New York City years in their own histories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are the same club. Look at the team roster the year before the move and the roster the year after.. most of the same players, same manager, same owner, etc... Plenty of sources that they are the same club.. The teams do have shared history/records etc... Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he's working from the pseudo-precedent of the Expos/Nationals, which we really need to eliminate one of these days :-D . -Dewelar (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm working from the model of European football (and indeed any professional sport). No sports fan here would accept that teams moving three thousand miles were the same, they would be viewed as totally new entities and any attempt to assert continuity would be laughed at. Have a look at the pages on AFC Wimbledon and Milton Keynes I mentioned before (English football club who relocated about eighty miles) and you'll see what I mean. Spanneraol's reasoning here doesn't stand up: if your team traded its entire roster (unlikely but possible) would you then start supporting the team they were traded to? It's location - and the associated history - that counts, not the name (Brooklyn went through about a dozen I think)or the owner or the players or the uniform which can all change. Are the LA Dodgers and SF Giants the same teams that played at Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds? I would say no although I accept the American consensus would say yes. If anything, it is the Mets as the current New York NL team who have the right to claim that heritage. Haldraper (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The European and American sports franchising systems are completely different. Team records, heritage, traditions, names, etc. transfer with the owner and the franchise when it moves, unless there is a reason for it not to do so (owner choice or team/state contractual issues). This page may explain it better. Suffice it to say that the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers are the same team, as are the NY/SF Giants, and the Expos/Nationals, and the Florida/Miami Marlins (when they move to the new stadium), and the Washington Senators I/Minnesota Twins, and the Washington Senators II/Texas Rangers. I could go on... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a sports fan that accepts that they are the same franchise. The people in Brooklyn were angry at the time (likely some still are), but for the numerous reasons outlined above (official team records, etc.) they are the same franchise. Perhaps football/soccer franchises in Europe are different, but sports franchises move all the time in the US and the vast majority, if not all, are considered to be the same franchise. Unless there is a WP:RS somewhere that specifically states they are different, I see no reason to continue this. blackngold29 14:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts) Add: If you'd like an external, third-party, reliable source to indicate the truth of the matter, see the franchise encyclopedias for the Giants and the Dodgers from Baseball-Reference. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not just baseball, either. In the National Basketball Association, the Sacramento Kings have played in five different cities (two at the same time) and still consider themselves the heirs of the original Rochester Royals. Rklear (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This season it's debatable if the Kings are actually playing. ;-P--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a few exceptions in American sports, done for marketing reasons. The NHL tends to downplay teams' origins in other cities. In the NFL, the expansion Cleveland Browns were allowed to pretend they were the "old" Cleveland Browns, although in reality the old Browns are now the Baltimore Ravens. I noticed on the MLB pages that the Minnesota Twins and the Baltimore Orioles do NOT list their predecessor teams in their history. That doesn't make it false to list the facts, though. Most sources will list them together. In the cases where the teams retained their original nickname, though, it was a conscious attempt to retain the continuum. The Dodgers, Giants, Braves, and Athletics come to mind. I recall the S.F. Giants even used to have N.Y. Giants retired numbers posted on the fence at Candlestick Park in S.F. However, in general, the reliable sources will show the continuum of each team. There is no "POV" about it. Reliable sources drive it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Giants still have retired non-numbers for Christy Mathewson and John McGraw, who were around before players wore numbers. Then again, the Nationals had one for Walter Johnson at RFK. I haven't been to the new park yet, so I'm not really sure what's there. Rklear (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Twins downplay their ancestry as the Senators. Their gallery of retired numbers is only Twins. However, probably the greatest player in their history, Walter Johnson, played before numbers were used. And during the bobblehead craze a few years ago, the Twins actually gave out a Walter Johnson bobblehead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because of the fact that the Senators were immediately replaced by... the Senators. Fans likely just forgot about the fact that Clark Griffith just decided to walk off with the team. Not that I'm bitter, I love the Twins too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In the early 1960s MLB maintained the fiction that the new Senators were a continuation of the old Senators, as with the Cleveland Browns situation, but that faded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that the team name (Senators, Browns) was the same was a factor; the continuity was pushed for marketing purposes. The fact that both Senators franchises dropped the team name reflects a lack of tradition too. On the other hand, Walter O'Malley had owned the Dodgers for over a decade before their move, and had a substantial investment in the Dodger brand, which he wasn't about to throw away. Rklear (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing any of what you say, I accept that the American consensus is different on this issue. I'm interested to know: did New York and Brooklyn fans start rooting for the new West Coast teams and Washington Senators fans for the Twins or Rangers? You really should read the page on AFC Wimbledon to understand how counterintuitive all this is for European sports fans: their entire fanbase responded to the team relocating to a stadium eighty miles away by starting a new semi-professional team from scratch themselves. Haldraper (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to that is: it depends. Many Brooklyn fans still followed the team after it moved to LA; it was really their kids who adopted the Mets. The Farrelly brothers have talked about how their father kept his loyalty to the Boston Braves through their moves to Milwaukee and then Atlanta, even though the Red Sox were close at hand. On the other hand, I personally never made the shift when my Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers, though I continued to follow the players who had been in Washington. Perhaps it's because I came from a mixed Reds-Pirates heritage, and they were both much better teams at the time. :) Rklear (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fans have nothing do do with it. Just like review sections for albums, it's only the professional's opinions that matter on WP. For the record I think they were upset for the most part, but there's no way to gauge how many thought what. blackngold29 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the AFC Wimbledon page myself, they 'only' moved 56 miles. That would be just down the street in the US wouldn't it :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haldraper (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If enough fans felt they were different teams, the professionals would at least be conceding that there's a dispute about it. :) In the case of the Dodgers and Giants, even the fans who are still bitter 50+ years later say it's the same team. They just can't forgive the owners of said teams.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the statement made by Wimbledon fans when they set up the new club in response to a 56 mile relocation: "The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, 'our' club, in our community." Just shows that it isn't only the Atlantic Ocean that divides us. Haldraper (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have actually tried to think about this as objectively as I can. What would the theshold be for a continuum regarding a franchise move. You'd have to prove that it is the same franchise regardless of owners/players/mascots/groundskeepers, etc. Owners buy teams then move them (Washington Nationals), teams disband and then re-appear somewhere else with all new players (Chicago Browns/Pittsburgh Stogies), teams disappear and re-appear two years later with all new players (Chicago White Stockings), teams play in a different city for an entire year (Hartford Dark Blues), and other teams move/change their nickname several times (Atlanta Braves). Obviously, continuum couldn't be contingent on anything other than the contempory knowledge that it is the same team. Ownership, players, city, etc are all factors that can change and it can still be the same team. It is also proved conversely; Just because a city has multiple teams over the course of 120 years and the fans root for them, doesn't mean they are all extentions of the same franchise (Washington, D.C.).

Baseball fans are also much more concerned with history and tradition than are fans of many other sports. Tracing the history of the franchise through different cities and nicknames is part of being a baseball fan. Spanneraol (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well-stated. The continuity of teams is a subset of "Terrence Mann's" speech near the end of Field of Dreams about how America is constantly changing and how "baseball has marked the time". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• For me, the bright line has always been whether they changed the name of the team in the new city or not. As such, the NY Giants/SF Giants are the same team, but the Expos/Nats and Senators/Twins and such are not. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• That doesn't make sense. If the franchise continues, it continues, whether the name changes or not. The name "Senators" doesn't mean anything to a team in Minnesota. The name "Twins" doesn't mean anything to a team in Washington. However, those names hold large significances for their respective cities. So, you really can't use a name change as a viable criterion. The Philadelphia Phillies and Philadelphia Quakers are the same team. The California Angels, Anaheim Angels, and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are the same team. I know neither of those teams moved, but the concept is the same. You really do have to look at the rosters and etc. See List of Minnesota Twins managers; there is a bunch of referenced info in the lead about the move from city to city and how Washington ended up getting Minnesota's expansion franchise. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. Otherwise, we'd be bickering over whether the Rays and Devil Rays are different teams. Rklear (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the name is relevant in that it determines whether the franchise is looking to assert continuity with the previous club, hence LA Dodgers and SF Giants but not Baltimore Browns or Milwaukee Pilots. Haldraper (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Twins' media guide focuses largely on Minnesota, but in its stats records section it includes all of the Washington history. As you would expect, Walter Johnson's name appears prominently in the list of franchise record holders. Also not surprisingly, most of the batting records belong to Twins, but old Senators like Rice, Goslin and Manush appear in the list. The book also has a chapter on Minnesota baseball, and maybe this speaks to the confusion. There are two "sets", if you will, of professional baseball. One is the set of leagues and franchises therein. The other is the set of teams in a given city. Prior to the 1950s-60s, with its growth of TV coverage and franchises shifts, fans in places without major league ball identified strongly with the local minor league clubs: L.A. Angels, S.F. Seals, Milwaukee Brewers, Kansas City Blues, etc. By retaining their names, the Dodgers, Giants, Braves and A's were establishing themselves as something unique. The Browns took the opposite approach, of connecting themselves to the glorious past of Baltimore baseball vs. the mostly-miserable past of St. Louis Browns baseball. The Twins are kind of a special case, as they displaced two teams, the Millers and the Saints, which were fierce rivals, and adopted a theme of unity, hence the logo showing a Miller and a Saint shaking hands. Later, expansion teams like the Angels and the Brewers decided to reconnect with their minor league antecedents. I would say the Toronto Blue Jays are also a special case, because although the minor league baseball club was called the Maple Leafs decades before the hockey team adopted that name, the new MLB club couldn't use that name, so it selected a new name unconnected to Toronto before. Likewise, the Montreal Expos went with a different name, especially as Kansas City's expansion team had gone with "Royals". I could go on, but it's getting early. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC) and Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

To show that this marketing approach is nothing new, keep in mind that teams such as the Chicago White Sox, Boston Red Sox, Philadelphia Athletics and St. Louis Browns, when they began in the American League in the early 1900s, deliberately chose names that had been abandoned by their respective cities' National League and/or American Association counterparts and which they figured were still current in the public consciousness. But unlike the NFL's officially endorsed shenanigan with the Browns and Ravens, that does not mean that those clubs somehow magically inherited the NL or AA clubs' histories. Nicknames are a significant part of a team's identity, but the franchise itself is the real entity. In the Braves article recently, someone tried to ascribe some artificial significance to the year 1912 in terms of the team's records. No. The predominent view in baseball is that a franchise is a franchise, and it has an historical continuum, whether it changes its nickname/identity or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point about new teams appropriating the names of previous ones in the same city, I'd forgotten that. New York, Washington and Cincinnati are all examples: in Cincinnati's case, the hoopla every opening day about it being oldest club is clearly false (and I say this as a Reds fan). There have been three Cincinnati clubs with the Reds (Stockings/Legs) name: the original Red Stockings of the 1860's, the NL charter members of 1876 expelled in 1880 (for selling beer and playing on Sundays iirc) and the current franchise who joined the AA in 1882 and transferred to the NL in 1890. Haldraper (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You hit that one on the head, or the cap. This is a professional sport, and more to the point, it's part of the entertainment industry, so marketing plays a strong role in everything. I find this subject to be an endless source of fascination, which is why I run off at the keyboard so much about it. I think there is no overstating the impact that the Cincinnati Red Stockings tour of 1869-70 had upon the game. It established the professional game as being legitimate (i.e. capable of bringing money in), and in the narrower context of nicknames, it inspired, directly or indirectly, several other nicknames: Boston Red Stockings (now the Braves), Cincinnati Reds, Boston Red Sox, and every team that has ever had a color attached to its name, including White, Brown, Blue, Gray, and probably many others. Here's something to ponder, totally original research: Would the Cincinnati club's impact have been as strong if their stockings were blue or brown or some other subdued color? Maybe, maybe not - but that crimson just jumps out at you, and adopting red as their color certainly didn't hurt their marketed identity - other than during the "red scare" of the 1950s, but that's another story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Christy Mathewson2.jpg

Up for FPC. If you know about images, you may want to drop by Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Christy Mathewson and give your yea or nay. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Season list article titles

Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions, lists' titles should start out as "List of..." The MLB season articles (e.g. Philadelphia Phillies seasons) currently do not follow this convention; these lists need to be moved to comply with this guideline. WikiProject NBA and WikiProject NFL supported these moves unanimously. In the interest of consistency, especially with our featured lists, I will move these lists soon (within the next few days). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, as long as they're all the same; go for it. blackngold29 03:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am moving the lists now. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done all except for Boston Red Sox seasons; I could not move that list because it can only be done by an administrator. Please !vote there. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Eastern League South Standings Template problem

I am seeming to have a slight problem on the 2009 Harrisburg Senators season page. I have created a template to set up the 2009 standings on the page, and somehow, when I go to edit the template on the page, it takes me to the 2008 standings page to edit. I pretty much dont know what is going on, so if someone can check up on it, and tell me what to do so I dont have that problem again when I go to edit the template on the Senators season page. Thanks Whammies Were Here 10:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem; it was misnamed in the code. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize we were doing season pages for minor league teams... is that a new thing?Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a scattershot thing. Akron and Harrisburg in the Eastern League have them; so does Columbus in the International League. I haven't checked any others. Rklear (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know either; I could probably be contributing to the Eastern League doing Reading. I'm certainly close enough... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If AA players aren't notable (or are they, lol) then I don't think they should have season articles either. There were a few minor league hockey seasons and I believe they were deleted. blackngold29 15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's an important question. The players likely aren't notable, but the teams certainly are. It's a team season. Yes, the team is made up of players, but just because the players don't have articles doesn't mean that there's not coverage of the teams during the season. Honestly, if there was a 2009 Reading Phillies season (or any other team), and there was coverage of the games, and we ended up with a GA that just didn't have player names linked... I wouldn't complain. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see this as big of a deal as the players because there aren't tens of thousands of them, but then again are the 1985 Las Vegas 51s really that notable? They have an awesome nickname though, I'll give them that. :) blackngold29 17:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The 51s didn't exist in 85, that would be the 1985 Las Vegas Stars season.. The teams are certainly notable.. but I'm really not sure individual seasons are... Spanneraol (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Randy Johnson - Planecrash111

Could someone please explain to Planecrash111 that he is adding way too much insignificant detail to Randy Johnson's article.... game-by-game descriptions are meaningless.... Thank You. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, it was his Giants debut. It was a game of meaning. Please pay attention.(Planecrash111 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC))