Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Player Archives
1 2 3

Special projects page

Just checking, would there be interest if I were to set up a projects page? It'd be mainly used to set up possible Featured Topics, though it can be expanded for other things as well. I have a draft at User:Wizardman/a. Let me know if this is of any interest/if this is pointless. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm good with that. At very least makes it a nice central location to keep track of things. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yerp. Would have a talk page specifically for projects too. — KV5 • Talk • 02:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• We've gotta figure out a lead article for opening day starters. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  I went and created/added it; second row on the navbox. Do as you will with it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Great. I'll involve myself as time allows. Out of personal interest, maybe I can get the Bucky Fucking Dent game up to GA. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox subheadings (and headings)

Where subheadings are used in the Infobox, the hardspace " " --that is, "nbsp" between & and ;-- makes a big improvement at the left margin, and colons at the ends of subheadings are useless. See Satchel Paige for example, where I just inserted spaces and erased colons.

(At the same time I cut the hyphen from "* - MLB statistics" and call the list of teams "incomplete" instead of "partial". These points pertain to careers where we cover more than MLB.) --P64 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, the three cells which focus on Major League Baseball may be titled simply "MLB Debut", "MLB Finale", and "MLB Career". Beyond the general value of parallel structure and similar length, there will be no need for the asterisks and note now used at Satchel Paige. Those should be used for many other Infoboxes, but the suggested change will make that unnecessary. The list of "Teams" can be augmented as people make time for it, using subheadings as at Paige. --P64 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a fan of using the abbreviation MLB in a heading. While I like brevity, we want this to be accessible to the common reader. "Minor League career" or "Minors", and "Major League career" or "Majors", are in my opinion more user-friendly/appropriate for sub-headers.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Majors is not trivial to look up even at wikipedia but Major league is OK. Major league debut, Major league finale, and Major league career have the parallel structure and the clear contrast with unqualified Teams that I have recommended. (That recommendation concerns the titles of Infobox cells, not subheadings within them, so I have modified the name of this section. The cell titles seem to be standardized now.) --P64 (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion

I don't know how to go about recommending an article for deletion. I did my best to update Daniel Berg (baseball)'s article, but couldn't even find 2010 info on the guy. I couldn't find him on any independent league rosters, and I don't even think he is playing with Australia anymore. I'd originally written his article years ago; it was deleted for lack of notability, then someone rewrote it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Beside the main point: Australian minor league baseball player seems to mean Australian native (or national, or citizen*) who plays or played American minor league baseball. This usage is common here at wikipedia but I don't believe it is universal; overall usage is ambiguous. Wikipedia does prescribe identification of nativity (or some relation of persons with states). Granted that relation and its emphasis—Berg is "Australian" and we should say so at the start—why not do it by writing "an Australian baseball player in the American minor leagues"? --P64 (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Johnny, thanks for updating the 2009 season for the article, it was probably me who rewrote it. He still passes WP:ATHLETE and baseball specific notability guidelines due to his international representation. He was selected on the 2009 Baseball World Cup roster, which was the last international tournament, so probably still in the scheme of things internationally. If he is not with a club currently, he will probably be playing in the Australian Baseball League which starts in November. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 15:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

P64, it seems slightly redundant? In this case anyway, I believe Berg is currently a free agent (according to the Flintoff and Dunn website). JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 15:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Redundant? Any reader may suppose there are major and minor leagues in Australia?

However, if representing Australia in the world cup makes him notable, then "Australian minor league baseball player" is a poor lead regardless of how we combine with the "Australian" with the "minor league baseball"! This is a point for general attention. He should not be a minor league baseball player in the lead sentence, no more than Satchel Paige should be primarily identified with MLB.

BTW, how commonly do world cup and world classic players have pages here? If we will cover them generally, or even commonly, then a standard approach will be useful. Perhaps in the lead sentence identify nationality and professional status, where applicable: Australian professional baseball player. No later than the second sentence, mention the cup or the classic, if that is the notability. --P64 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions he was DFA'd at one point. That would mean he was on the Twins' 40 man roster at one point. That, by our definitions, makes him notable regardless of his international play, which also makes him notable regardless of being on a 40 man roster. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall him ever being on the Twins' 40 man roster.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

He is also notable simply because he has played Claxton Shield, the highest level of baseball in Australia. Also P64, sorry if I offended you. Perhaps the term "an Australian born player who plays within Major League Baseball's minor league baseball system" would be more appropriate? I just don't see many readers supposing there are minor and major leagues in Australia. Or Hungary. Or wherever. Maybe I've completely missed your point. All my articles follow the basic structure of WP:MOS and WP:LEAD. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 16:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it you are Australian? I did my best to organize that article; it did a lot of jumping around, back and forth from Australia to the U.S. (then again, so did Berg). It would help if someone who knows something about Australian baseball added to the article.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Many players do and it's quite hard to write a cohesive article sometimes with patchy information from each summer they play in each country. Although I'm from a different state to Berg, I know he was quite successful over here and on the international scene, but he did not play in the 2010 Claxton Shield and can't seem to find him playing baseball professionally at the moment. I'm sure he'll pop up here in November. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If he wasn't on the 40 man, then it's an error that should be corrected. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/JRA that he is notable, and with Muboshgu that if there is an error it should be corrected.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the error? I don't see anywhere in the article it claims he was ever a member of the 40 man roster.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say he was on a 40 man roster, but it says he was designated for assignment, which only happens to players on 40 man rosters. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor League Categories

If we have the Arizona League team categories and the Gulf Coast League team categories which are both rookie leagues, then how come we don't have the Venezuelan League team categories and the Dominican League team categories? That doesn't make sense. I think we should create those. – Michael (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, by all means go ahead and create them. I think the GCL categories are a recent addition, maybe the AZL categories are too. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't think I should. Unlike the AZL and GCL, the foriegn rookie leagues are like, Major League Baseball's academy leagues. So I was trying to figure out why we didn't have the cats, so I would just lay off on creating them. – Michael (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

John Rogers

Hey, folks, I'm back (for now, anyway). I've just completed a substantial expansion of John Rogers's article. Rogers was the original co-owner of the Phillies (with Al Reach) and was a really interesting fellow. Anyway, I was wondering if someone who's better at doing book references (a lot of the stuff I added came from Google Books) might fix up my ham-fisted attempts at them, and perhaps do some more work on the article. I'd like to submit it for a DYK, but I know it needs some cleaning up first. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

References done. I'll take a look at it for a possible expansion. — KV5 • Talk • 11:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1 year, 2,000 article assessment backlog.

Hi all, I'm a new member to Wikiproject Baseball. I noticed that we have over 2,000 unassessed articles. The backlog dates back to June 2009. I noticed this after requests from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or reassessment had requests for reassessment that were almost a year old and not addressed. I don't intend to fix this problem all by myself, but I have rated 200 baseball articles today just to get the ball rolling.

My main goal with the project is to expand articles of players from the 1950s and 1960s. (ex. Stan Lopata from 3KB to 33KB just last week) It's 99% likely I won't fix all 2,000+ articles, so I'd greatly appreciate help from any other reviewer rights users with expertise on this subject. Thanks! Vodello (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost 10000 articles have been classified and assessed as low-importance stubs. Can anyone characterize the unclassified and unassessed simply? For example, are they primarily minor player articles where the 10000 are primarily the short major league careers? The vast majority of both must be player articles, right? --P64 (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a good deal of articles in the 2000 who are players who played 2-3 years where the articles are 2 sentences long. Those are easy to assess, and I could probably do a chunk today. Others are more difficult, and I would leave the 2010 season articles alone for now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been avoiding all 2010 team season articles for now. I thought almost all of the unassessed articles would be stubs as well, but since it's a yearlong backlog, it's more like 60/40 Stub/Start articles with a few C's. Vodello (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We're down to under 2,000 now, so let's see if we can get the rest assessed by month's end, or at least bring it to 1,000 by then. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. ;) These categories never remain cleared for long. We went through this at the hockey project a year or two ago and wiped them all out and within a few months the categories were full again. Every so often I try to give a go at them. But its just such boring work no one ever wants to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

600 down, 1700 to go.. :( Vodello (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're under 1500 now, another couple weeks and we may be done at this rate. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Danny Valencia

I have a feeling I am on the verge of an edit war on Danny Valencia. I wrote the article back when he was a prospect with the Fort Myers Miracle; I don't have any "ownership" issues or anything like that, so please, no such accusations. The article had been edited several times since I first wrote it, and it was turned into an absolute mess. I basically reverted it back to an early edit I did and updated it. The person responsible for these edits reverted it back. I leave Danny Valencia's fate in the hands of the baseball gods.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From just a quick precursory look (I haven't had my morning coffee yet), I imagine there's probably a middle ground. There is sourcing in what you removed, so assuming at least some of it is worthwhile, it could stay. It seems very long though and probably needs to be tightened up, if anything you removed goes back in. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. Some of what Epeefleche has added to the article (and, yes, I know why that particular editor is particularly interested in this page, and will likely fight tooth-and-claw for everything to stay in) is useful, but a good portion of it is unnecessary. I mean, seriously, is information on Valencia's T-ball career notable in any way at all? -Dewelar (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Spasm removed RS-supported material. He did so without any coherent explanation. And just left me a note that it was crap, and I should be thankful. I see from his talk page history that he has a history of contentious baseball edits and reactions thereto, so would have thought he would not be so cavalier in massive deletions of RS-supported material. I've had my morning coffee, and reverted him.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Besides his T-ball "career," there was unnecessary information about his Jewish ancestry and family anecdotes. I didn't really feel like going through it all and seeing how much, if any, of this information was useful. However, I'm not opposed to anything useful being readded.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

To avoid having to decide if Spasm's POV is one others are required to follow, we look to whether material is covered in RSs. If it is, Spasm's IDONTLIKEIT per my POV is not reason for massive, edit-commmentary-less, deletions. That's precisely why we have a vandal warning geared towards deletion of RS-supported material. If there is any non-RS supported material that Spasm wishes to discuss, I'm eager to hear what it is. Otherwise, I'm happy to follow wiki policy and let the fact that an RS thought it noteworthy sufficient to trump his personal viewpoint.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please put Epeefleche over their knee. I'm not interested in fighting with him, or anyone else for that matter. I'm stunned by the "I will block you" thread I just received on my talk page from him. He has the power to do that? Really? Who gave him this power, and if he is so willing to haphazardly use it with little or no provocation, do you think maybe this power should be taken away from him? This is ridiculous.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to get in the middle of it, but I think the use of the vandalism templates is a little overboard. Johnny Spasm isn't an anonymous IP screwing around for the fun of it. Agree or disagree with his edits, he's doing it in good faith. This should be talked out here or on the article's talk page. Can't we all just get along? --Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Spasm continues to edit war, deleting the bulk (over 83%) of the article, RS-supported material, in a manner wholly consistent with what wikipedia's guidelines without question construe as vandalism. Note: the guidelines focus on the editor's actions, not on whether he is an anonymous IP (or, as in Spasm's case, a non-IP who was blocked four times this past year). This isn't the string in which to discuss his behavior, however, so I suggest that we leave this aspect of the discussion for other fora. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, without getting too specific on the details yet, some of the stuff being removed should remain. I don't know if it's important that he played T-ball, hell I played T-ball. But some of the other early life stuff, like the MLB player who was a family friend and the Babe Ruth League should stay. The rest I haven't gone through yet. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche is acting like a spoiled child. I'm trying to phrase my opinion of his work on Danny Valencia's article as politely as possible. Wanna know what I really think of it? If I wrote it, I would be accused of incivility. The fact of the matter is that uncivil words best describe it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a crack at it (with Dewelar cleaning up some of the mess I left in my wake). Johnny, can you give a reason for why you want to cut so much more than this out? I don't think I've seen a reasoning from you. My apologies if you have and I just didn't see it or don't remember seeing it. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's probably still too much fluff in there (especially generic prospect-y quotes from various Twins personnel), but it will probably be further weeded in due course. -Dewelar (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche made a good point on my talk page about reviewers liking human interest info that breaks up the text. I'm more of a "just the facts, ma'am" sort of editor myself, so maybe it should stay? But then again, scouts usually say positive things about players who continue to climb the ranks, so is it so much more useful for this player than others? It's a discussion to have. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A little of that is fine, but this article was going a bit overboard. When I think about what "weeding" will take place, I picture one of two things happening: either Valencia will have a long career and such details will be naturally scaled back to reflect their importance to that career, or he will have a short career and people will wonder why so much trivia is needed for an insignificant article. Either way, I'm fine with leaving it as is -- I left the intricate details of his hazing in, didn't I :-D ? -Dewelar (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I did my best to reedit it to something that includes a reasonable amount of the nonsense he added.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Spasm has continued to gut the article (I believe five or six times today, at this point), without appropriate explanation. Just now -- yet again, reverting a sysop most recently.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I did my best to compromise. As long as Epeefleche wants to discuss my character flaws, I feel this whole debate has raised serious question as to whether or not Epeefleche should have editor powers. It is my opinion that he shouldn't and they should be taken away from him.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As the sysop mentioned above, I feel that I should point out that anybody - and that means absolutely anybody - can edit here. And the question as to what should remain in the article is not as yet resolved. Personal coments as from one editor to the other are not going to be helpful.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• All of the editors in this string have edited this article today. Yet Spasm is the only one who continue to insist on gutting it, as he did in his most recent revert of Anthony.Bradbury, from a version that all of the rest of us had touched but which only he feels need by mostly deleted. Without any coherent rationale as to why.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to shed some light on why a certain editor is interested in keeping quotes in the article. It's hard to get credit for a DYK when your DYK quote has been deleted. "if you know what I mean" Kinston eagle (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You're making this out as if it's some sort of conspiracy. The article is worthy of a DYK, as long as worthy information isn't removed for reasons unknown to the rest of us. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kinston. No --- I'm happy to have you receive the credit on the DYK, in my stead. Please feel free to link to DYK page, to receive your credit in lieu of mine. It is additionally disruptive, however, for the DYK page for Spasm to gut the page without adequate rationale during as it is being promoted. Improvements to the article would not in any case of course adversely affect the DYK process. It is only disruptive improper deletions of 83% of the article that will do so. But please -- I mean it -- kindly accept my offer to get credit for the DYK. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm not really into self-aggrandizement. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my offer to forego the DYK credit, and give it to you, struck you as evidencing that my goal here is self-aggrandizement.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnny has been blocked for 3 months as a result of this. What I'd like to know is, why is there nothing on the article talk page? This is essentially a content dispute, and the first place to discuss content disputes is supposed to be the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, three months. Then again, removing 75-80% of an article over and over again was very disruptive. Blank edit summary to start the mess in the first place. Simply put, no article writer that spends hours expanding an article with reliable sources likes being shit on by someone that takes 2 seconds to chop it up. Removal of early career achievements and reliable sources to back up statements while constantly using baiting edit summaries was unjustified. He's been blocked several times in the past for edit warring, so I support the three month block which is sure to be overturned. Vodello (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected, Epeefleche has gone into "tooth-and-claw" mode with this article and re-inserted several bits of fluff that were reasonably deleted by other uninvested editors (i.e., not Johnny Spasm) as unencyclopedic. Since I really don't have time to keep fighting with him/her, I have tagged the article as containing fancruft and am moving on. -Dewelar (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I made some edits to improve conciseness and to remove some information I believe is not notable, but the changes were reverted. I would appreciate any comments on these edits – edit 1, edit 2 – to try to achieve a consensus on them; please comment on the talk page. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that there are two editors with ownership issues. Both Spasm and Epeefleche seem equally intolerant of anyone's edits but their own. It seems unbelievable to me that such a ruckus could come from an article about a player with 3 career RBIs. There are plenty of other baseball articles to edit.Orsoni (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone would like to constructively contribute to discussion at the talk page, please do. Isaac Lin has assembled a nice list at Talk:Danny Valencia#Do you know information... which we are using as a starting point. Wknight94 ^talk 14:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RIP Bob Sheppard

As a Yankee fan, it was always a pleasure to hear his voice throughout a home game. It was a big part of the Yankee Stadium experience. Even Yankee haters couldn't think of a bad word to say about the Voice of God. With his passing this morning, I think we should make this page a project, make it top notch. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Generations-long impact.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he did the exact same job that every other PA announcer in professional baseball has done since the invention of PA systems - he read players names and positions. The only difference with him is that he did it for a very long time and he did it in Yankee Stadium. As with everything associated with the Yankees, the fans inflate the importance of everything associated with the team. The article itself states that he didn't hold his PA job in high regard: "Sheppard maintains that his work as a professor of speech is far more important than his work as an announcer" Kinston eagle (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume you never attended a game at Yankee Stadium during Sheppard's career. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course he held his work as a PA announcer in high regard. People can do more than one thing in life, and really this is just a game, while his work as a speech professor was more applicable to real life. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Many years ago the Cubs had a P.A. guy, Pat Pieper (pronounced Piper), who was as much an institution at Wrigley Field as Sheppard was at Yankee Stadium. These are not just guys reading names; they have a distinctive style that adds to the character of the venue. Sheppard, in particular, was a connection to the "Old Yankees" and the old Stadium. With the old Stadium now in the Heavenly Hall of Fame, it seems that they needed its P.A. announcer. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Attention! Attention please! Have your pencil... and scorecard ready... and I'll give you... the correct lineup for today's ball game... The batt'ries: Warneke... and Harnett... Jenkins... and Hundley..." [or whoever] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball PA announcers are not notable by the standards of this WikiProject's notability guidelines. Despite this, the Baseball WikiProject considers Bob Sheppard to be of mid-importance. There are hundreds of actual major league players, some with over ten years of experience, who are considered low-importance. How does someone who announced names and positions at games rate higher than the men who participated in those games? Kinston eagle (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Gee, I think Sheppard has achieved this. And I think he's more important than some players, based on their comparable impact. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kinston eagle didn't say that Sheppard doesn't meet the guidelines. He's questioning why a PA announcer, who this project does not consider inherently notable, though this one is because he meets GNG, is rated at a higher importance than many MLB players. I agree with his concern in that I don't see Sheppard's impact on the game as a whole as being as important as players with 10+-year career. — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I misinterpreted his comment. I'd say that it depends on the player. Those guys who get a cup of coffee and nothing else? Less important. A player with 10+ years and low importance rating? That doesn't sound right. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd kind of like to see some corroboration for that statement, if he can provide it. I agree with you on the cup of coffee, FWIW. — KV5 • Talk • 22:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly, Derek Jeter liked to have a replay of Bob Sheppard's voice announcing his plate appearance, on days when Sheppard was not working. With the Twins, Kirby Puckett was so fond of his standard introduction by Metrodome P.A. announcer Bob Casey that he had him come to his Hall of Fame induction and do his call. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not supposed. Jeter said he felt weird hearing anyone else, and he arranged it so that a recording of Sheppard announcing him plays every time he comes up to bat, while the new announcer does everyone else. The YES network broadcasters said that in honor of Sheppard, Jeter will come up to that recording at the All-Star game. I didn't know that about Puckett, though. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Jeter will continue with it, or if that would be too weird. Here's a writeup about Bob Casey, preceding his visit to Cooperstown. Both Puckett and Casey have since gone to the Heavenly Hall of Fame.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he'll stop using the clip. He's said he wants to use it for the rest of his Yankee career, and surely he figured Sheppard wouldn't outlive his days in pinstripes. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'd kind of like to see some corroboration for that statement, if he can provide it": A few examples of guys with 10+ years of service who are considered Low importance Talk:Dave Magadan, Talk:Paul Bako, Talk:Stan Lopata, Talk:Gabe Kapler, Talk:Bill Pulsipher. There are many more. I switched Rick Ankiel to mid from low earlier today. Some notable non-10 year players that probably should be reassessed are Talk:Bob Addy (the first slider), and all star Talk:Jon Lester. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lester and Lopata are definitely mid-importance, as is Magadan. Bako and Pulsipher were only backup/relief players who didn't play that much, so low-importance is right. The others (Kapler and Addy) I'll defer to another opinion. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Bako being Low-importance, since I wrote the vast majority of that article. I agree with Wizardman's reassessment's above. Kinston eagle, if you think these articles are wrongly/poorly assessed, there's nothing to stop you from raising or lowering them and leaving comments on the talk as to why. — KV5 • Talk • 00:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the way the players are assessed. I have a problem with someone who isn't even notable by the WikiProject's own standards being graded higher. Even guys who only played a few games did more to directly affect the game on the field than a guy who read names into a microphone regardless of how long he did it or where he did it. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're telling me that you believe, using the Phillies as an example, Paul Hoover is more important than Harry Kalas? That's just flat-out disrespectful to the team who utilized the man's skills. Keep in mind that our notability "guidelines" are just an essay at this point and are not binding in any respect. The general notability guideline still overrides anything that WP:BASE/N or WP:NSPORT might say. — KV5 • Talk • 02:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Strawman! A radio announcer in the Hall of Fame is infinitely more important than a PA announcer. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheppard didn't have an impact on the outcomes of games he announced, but he had a bigger impact in the culture of baseball than even some 10+ year players. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not a straw man; it's the same principle. Assuming Kalas is not in the Hall of Fame (because Frick Award winners are not HOF inductees), sportscasters are also not considered inherently notable under the guidelines of BASE/N or NSPORT. — KV5 • Talk • 02:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask, what influence does a radio announcer have vs. a public address announcer? The players hear the P.A. guy all the time. They seldom hear the radio or TV guys, at least not "live". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That is something legit. A lot of the former players who are current broadcasters of games I tuned into today were talking about it. John Flaherty talked about it. Ron Darling said he stopped warming up to listen to Sheppard say his name in the introductions. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Sheppard didn't have an impact on the outcomes of games he announced, but he had a bigger impact in the culture of baseball than even some 10+ year players." There's nothing about people who have impacted the culture of baseball in the notability guidelines. By establishing the guidelines, the project established who the most important people in baseball were in its eyes. "These people, these people, these people and these people are inherently notable to us." The implication is that people not mentioned (PA announcers, play-by-play guys, batboys, clubhouse guys, etc...) are not as important and not inherently notable. If you disagree, change the guidelines to include such people. Of course, many members would like to have "These people, these people, these people and these people are inherently notable to us, and, of course, everyone remotely connected to the New York Yankees." Kinston eagle (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously, what is with the arbitrary harshness on this? Bob Uecker is unrated, but would anyone be surprised if he earned mid importance? Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Stax, and here's a more realistic challenge. Find me another PA announcer who's microphone is enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame, and maybe we can see changing it to low importance. But yeah, this is a really random thing to be complaining about when push comes to shove. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bob Uecker actually played the game and was not a PA announcer. Great comparison. Having something "enshrined" in Cooperstown makes you mid importance? The Hall has an enormous collection which includes items from even little league players. Should they be given articles and be made more important than guys who made it to the majors? Kinston eagle (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Since the comparison went to your claim that guys who play are always more important than those who just read names. I don't think anyone on Earth can legitimately claim Uecker's notability or fame or importance comes from his playing days. He read names (over the radio/TV, not the PA), did so well and famously, and with a unique style, and he came to be famous for that. Just like Sheppard. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone on Earth can legitimately claim Uecker's notability or fame or importance comes from his playing days." actually, this wikiproject thinks he is inherently notable due to his playing days and most members of this wikiproject are on Earth. This wikiproject does not consider Sheppard to be inherently notable at all meaning he is less important than Uecker for its purposes. Don't you think it's about time to rethink the notability guidelines. It would also be very useful to have some guidelines concerning importance. What exactly makes one player low and another mid? Kinston eagle (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a link handy I will have to look for it, but there is a wiki wide guideline for what falls into each importance category. That being said I suppose there is still room for debate as to what player/person falls into which category. -DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:ATH is merely a sub-guideline. WP:GNG is, ultimately, the only notability line that matters. And again, notability and importance are two wildly different things. Bob Uecker as a player was a nothing young player who hung around for a few years and was gone. What gave him greatness was a voice that drew attention. And I don't think it's that crazy why the man called the Voice of God who was the announcer for 50 years at one of the (and you can claim Yankee bias or whatever) heavy hitter franchises in MLB history might maybe warrant mid importance. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:ATH and WP:GNG are not what I am addressing. I am talking about the notability guidelines of the baseball wikiproject. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kinston eagle makes a valid, if pedantic, point. This is a flaw in the project notability guidelines, in that there are no exceptions carved out for baseball personnel that do not fit any of the categories specifically mentioned, as Mr. Sheppard does not. -Dewelar (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The baseball notability page is just an essay anyways, and has no official status since it is trumped by WP:ATH and WP:GNG anyways. These people fall under GNG so there really isn't an issue here. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For something that is just an essay with no official status, it sure gets used a lot in afd discussions and used successfully. If it really is something that is superfluous, can we just get rid of it? I'd be all for that. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used in afd discussions to be honest. But unfortunately it does get used there. People often lose sight of the fact that its just an essay about what this project feels is notable and that members of this project should confine their article building to topics that meet it. However, its not binding at all on anyone inside or outside the project. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• The idea of any argument about notability is simply stupid. He satisfies WP:GNG with such absolute flying colors it's not even a question. As for our own WP importance rating I could see a case for either one, but we rather clearly have not set out a strict and binding standard that some like the MilHist project have, so why so much vitriol? It's fighting a battle in a war that doesn't even exist. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Obituary reprints – broken links to thedeadballera

I have corrected one two-year-old link to "The Obit for Jimmy Hallinan", which is actually a reprint of two newspaper obituaries for him. The correction was to specify in the URL the directory "Obits/Obits_H/" rather than simply "Obits/".

Simple search returns 550 hits for "thedeadballera" and 446 hits for "thedeadballera.com/Obits". A spot check suggests that wikipedia may need about 446 corrections such as mine. For the first 20 hits as displayed for me now, the filename begins with the lastname of the obituary subject, and the last initial is the only variable part of what's needed in the new URL. So replacement may be automated, or semi-automated with a manual check to follow. --P64 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

C. B. White

I was looking through the Baseball-Reference bullpen, and decided to look up one of the players i've made, C. B. White. Now, the bullpen says that C. B. White was the same player as Bill White (shortstop). Is the bullpen a reliable source? Or should these two Whites just be merged. Link: Bullpen Adam Penale (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BR Bullpen is not a reliable source as determined by the project some time ago. I highly suggest checking out Retrosheet before proceeding with any action. -Dewelar (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bullepn may not be considered a reliable source, but it's not like the claim was uncited. Official Source from the Society for American Baseball Research. Vodello (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Retrosheet has updated this information, Bill White, and these two pages may need merging: C. B. White and Bill White (shortstop).Neonblak ^talk - 22:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I answered the question posed without following through on checking things myself. -Dewelar (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Dew and Vod.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Without any objections, I'll go ahead and clean that up, maybe expand it if I can.Neonblak ^talk - 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox statistics

I know we've been over this several times before, but is the project still of the general idea that the infobox should contain Triple Crown statistics only unless there is a valid reason to include another statistic (i.e., franchise or major league record) or to exclude one of them (i.e., a player hit no career home runs or had no career decisions)? — KV5 • Talk • 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Prior discussion here. — KV5 • Talk • 13:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess. Most of the baseball world still thinks AVG, HR and RBI are the ways to evaluate a hitter, which is a damn shame. I'd love to teach them about OPS, but I have neither the time nor the patience. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then again, maybe speedsters like Michael Bourn and Willy Taveras should be judged by AVG, R and SB, as that's more appropriate for their playing styles than HR and RBI. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO it should be at least triple-crown...then additional stats if it's appropriate to the player. Let's not set a "rule" though. —

Hence the prior suggestions that we use common sense to figure out whether it's appropriate for a player to have other statistics shown in his infobox. Obviously our infobox has the ability to show six statistics for a reason, but that doesn't mean that players need to have all six filled in without a good reason (showing doubles, for example). As to Muboshgu's concern about ways of evaluating players, I agree, but I don't think this is the place to start bucking trends. — KV5 • Talk • 14:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with pretty much everything here. The Triple Crown stats are still the most familiar and should be the norm, but there are some players for whom other stats should be added, as well as a few where they might be replaced by others. I think XLee96 is right, though, that a hard-and-fast rule is probably not a good idea. -Dewelar (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Might I ask why? Bright-line rules are a lot easier to follow and then discuss exceptions, instead of wrangling over who gets what because some editors think that either they all need to be filled in or that certain players deserve special treatment. — KV5 • Talk • 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If we have a "bright-line rule" that permits exceptions (as you seem to accept in your first post), then the inevitable arguments will be over the exceptions unless the exception line is just as bright. I don't see that being a particularly easy line to draw. -Dewelar (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's fairly clear to me, but that's likely just from my perspective. I can see how others might prefer to discuss deletions than additions. — KV5 • Talk • 16:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are similar to KV5, and I support a "bright-line" rule when it comes to Triple Crown stats. The discussion should be whether or not additional stat fields should be used, not whether a different stat should be substituted for a Triple Crown stat. I don't see any good reason to substitute a Triple Crown stat, especially when there are three other fields available to add any applicable stats. I think sometimes editors get in the habit of putting in the infobox only stats that reflect favorably on the player, but it's not our job to push a particular POV. It should say in Michael Bourn's infobox that he only has 10 career home runs. His lack of power is just as relevant to him as a player as Ryan Howard's abundance of power. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The instances in which I can see substitutions are limited. The largest one is 19th-century players, for whom RBI are occasionally incomplete or missing. Also, short-career players might have zeros across the board, which wouldn't necessarily be as useful as having stats where they did compile totals. -Dewelar (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with both the statements above by Masonpatriot and Dewelar, especially on the players with short careers. I have encountered this many times on my current project, and it's certainly more helpful to note that a hypothetical player who appeared in 4 games had 1 double and 2 runs scored than no home runs and no RBI. — KV5 • Talk • 16:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the 19th century baseball players I have tried to stick with the "triple crown", but as stated above, RBIs are incomplete, maybe runs scored would be better to use in those instances, as it was a more valued stat back then.Neonblak ^talk - 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion on infobox career statistics points out seeming the lack of tangible evidence to best describe the career contributions of light-hitting defensive specialists, such as Jim Sundberg. While their batting statistics were relatively low, they were valuable to their teams in ways that's difficult to show in an infobox. However, I realize that that's the way baseball has always been and offensive statistics rule the roost.Orsoni (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's anything against showing fielding percentage or something like that as an exception for a player who specifically warrants such a piece of information, but you are right in that offensive statistics do always seem to be the word of the day, so to speak. — KV5 • Talk • 11:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a .995 career fielding percentage just isn't as tangible as 600 home runs. It's a shame that there isn't a way to highlight defensive contributions, but baseball has always been driven by offensive numbers, batting .400, hitting 60 home runs, etc. That's just the way it is.Orsoni (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Playing time is the most important major league career category. For MLB careers, every team season is listed in the Infobox so the number of seasons is redundant. It isn't so informative as games anyway.

About 5% of "major leaguers" played one game; about 20% played less than 1/20 full season (3200 of 16600 as of a few years ago); about 50% played less than 1/2 full season (8200 players). For this class I suggest Games (or Games played) as the first career statistic.

For many players it may be reasonable to specify Games pitched rather than Games. For some it may be reasonable to specify both. For players such as John McMullin and Bobby Wallace, with significant subcareers as pitchers, I would end their listings with Games pitched (37 and 57). --P64

• IMHO, the template allows for up to six stats, and at editors' discretion they should be used. That's why the template affords that flexibility. The idea that triple crown stats are even the most significant ones is a somewhat pre-SABR dated notion. True, there was a time that the major newspapers would not reflect OBP and SP. That has changed, some years ago. That we would move backwards makes no sense to me. And, unlike newspapers, as is said in many wp discussions, we do not have the same size limitations. Not that anyone could seriously protest that reflect two or three additional numbers would weigh down an article onerously. So -- in accord with what I believe were other discussions on this over the year -- I feel strongly that we should allow editor discretion in this regard (at bare minimum). Anyone militating to delete OBP must be from the pre-Moneyball generation, and might well enjoy the book as summer reading.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The template allows for up to six stats for special circumstances. For instance, players like Bob Caruthers, who spent substantial time as both a hitter and pitcher, or Rickey Henderson, whose records in several non-TC categories are particularly defining. While OBP and SLG might be more reflective of a player's value (while simultaneously not being as reflective of that value as, say, win shares, total average, or WARP, depending on your flavor preference), the TC stats for both hitters and pitchers are still the most used and most familiar to the casual reader. They provide the snapshot of a player that is, at least for the time being, the most approachable, which is one of the goals of an infobox.

As far as Moneyball goes, that was about something bigger than just OBP. Beane (at the time, anyway) saw OBP as something that was being undervalued by other teams at the time, and therefore something he could exploit using limited resources. Not to say that it isn't valuable, but it wasn't the be-all, end-all, even to Beane. After the book came out, and perhaps indeed even before that, OBP became more highly prized and therefore more expensive, meaning that Beane needed a new "market inefficiency" to exploit. These days, defensive metrics might be considered the "new OBP" from that perspective. -Dewelar (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on all points. While I'd love to shove sabermetrics down the throats of the "old baseball people" (especially Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan...), we can't. It's meaningless to the casual reader. In fact, OPS (which I've seen on some of these pages) is an artificial stat, which assumes that OBP and SLG are equal, which even Moneyball points out is not the case. From a readability aspect, I don't think it makes sense for pages like Ike Davis and Danny Valencia, two examples of players with not all that much playing time (as of this point) under their belts to have all six stat lines filled, just because we can. That should be reserved for those who would benefit from them, such as those who hit and pitched or have records in non-triple crown stats, as Dewelar mentioned. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlike some editors have inferred in their edits on articles, we have not come to a consensus of, "triple crown stats only". If a player has 9 home runs and 1000 hits, I'm not going to leave the hits stat out. Vodello (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Players subproject

I've been thinking of late about this group, and looking through everything, I'm struggling to find the exact purpose of it. Here we have a task force which encompasses a good 80% of our articles, using importance ratings identical in pretty much every case to what the player has for the main project. I'm not trying to attack anything, I'm just thinking that perhaps we should close that group and focus that attention elsewhere. If it was focused on a smaller amount of articles like other task forces are then I would be alright with it, but the sheer number to me defeats the purpose. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree. Personally I look at players to be the main focus of any sport project (since they usually make up the vast majority of articles). If there were going to be task forces it would make more sense for them to be things like for teams or stadiums etc etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps another answer might be to refocus the subproject on some particular player-related purpose, like ensuring there are pages for every former MLB player. -Dewelar (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the task force page, that is one of the task force's goals (and indeed one of the tasks you have signed up for on this page). The goals seem reasonable, and don't include categorizing each player with a "player"-specific importance, so perhaps the task force can just concentrate on evaluating the importance from an overall baseball perspective. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Yes, I know (and you can see the work I've done in that regard on my user page). It was just an example. Other examples of possible player-centric projects might be the completion of the MLB player list tables, or ensuring that all existing player pages have infoboxes. However, if the task force gets dissolved, that's fine as well. There is plenty of other work that needs doing. -Dewelar (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The other four tasks have been handled though, which goes back to my point. The creation of the other articles can be a project-wide thing rather than having a task force just for that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure why that isn't just a project wide goal. Usually task forces are for a very specific subset of articles. "Players" isn't all that specific since it encompases the majority of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually work directly with the taskforce either, indirectly I do of course due to the reasons stated above. Players are the default, however everything else could fall into their own taskforce, like managers, umpires, executives, etc. I would support just removing the taskforce entirely.Neonblak ^talk - 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

At some point this week I'll remove the player tags from the assessments, since that at least has consensus of not being useful. As for the future of it, I still think and player-based tasks would be project-wide tasks anyway. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with suspending/disbanding the players subproject. Everything they do is covered by Wikiproject Baseball, and we need to focus resources on WP:Baseball. Monowi (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Pirates owners

Hello folks, Masonpatriot pointed me over here.

I've been handling correspondence with family of Bill Benswanger about an issue we have with our information on Pittsburg Pirates owners. According to the family, who provided credible background, Benswanger was not the owner of the Pirates from '32-'46. He ran the club and the front of the house, but Dreyfess's widow, Florence, remained the principle owner with Benswanger never having a stake in the club, merely serving as its president.

Now, MLB's website does not verify this and names Benswanger. However, we have evidence that they are wrong, This interview with Benswanger, from January of '47, identifies that he was not the owner but Mrs. Dreyfess was. Additionally, just typing in "Florence Dreyfess" into google will turn up other links identifying her as the owner. Thoughts? Keegan (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Eventually Major League Baseball should include a good section on ownership which explains the sense in which MLB requires one personal owner of each club, and thereby how the term "owner" is used regarding the major leagues. Articles on clubs and people would say less and refer to that section.

Research suggestions: Read the constitutional documents (beginning with the contemporary NL constitution re Benswanger and Dreyfuss). Visit the Business of Baseball Committee at sabr.org (select "Research", then BoB) and check whether they have covered this, perhaps in preface to a list of owners.

John Harrington was the Boston "owner" for almost ten years as trustee for JRY, the Yawkey trust. (Example news coverage, Harrington now BoSox only owner (AP) He was personally a small minority owner IIRC but he was the newsworthy "owner" as the person invited to closed-door ownership meetings, empowered to vote, expected to serve on ownership committees, things like that. --P64 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Stan Musial currently at FAC

I recently nominated Stan Musial's article as a Featured Article Candidate, and would welcome any additional comments or suggestions by WP:Baseball members about the article as it undergoes the nomination process. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTS

Just thought those of you involved might like to know the RFC on WP:NSPORTS was officially closed with it being promoted to guideline replacing WP:ATH. WP:NSPORTS includes your essay on baseball notability standards. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw that... I was actually surprised it passed considering how much opposition there was. Spanneraol (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Switch or Both

I see an edit trend is picking up steam regarding player infoboxes. Instead of leaving the "Batted: Both" the way it reads, they are being changed to "Batted: Switch". To a life-long baseball fanatic like myself, it doesn't make sense. Imagine the following sentences if you're like me: "Jorge Pasada bats switch" or "Mickey Mantle batted switch for his entire career". A "switch-hitter" is said to bat both in the baseball universe. Besides, the reliable resources used for baseball information, Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference, both use "Batted: Both" or "Bats: Both". Might as well come to the project to get a ruling on this.Neonblak ^talk - 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Neonblak here. "Both" is the more correct usage here. -Dewelar (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The standard is "both". Hopefully they haven't messed up to many articles with this change. Vodello (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Standard? I dont remember there being an agreement that it should say Both, but I could be wrong. Personally I dont mind either way, but most infoboxes say Switch, so I dont know if it is a standard.--Yankees10 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no standard.... MLB.com uses 'S' for Switch.... ESPN and Baseball-Reference use 'B' or Both... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we don't use single-letter abbreviations. If we did, "S" would be OK. -Dewelar (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much to read here, but this is the small bit of discussion that occurred in April when I asked the same question. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe there should be a standard, a non-sports fan might be confused between the difference of "Both" and "Switch". I'll go whichever way it is agreed. I officially throw my vote to "Both".Neonblak ^talk - 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Switch, but am indifferent and will follow whatever the consensus happens to be. — KV5 • Talk • 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Killervogel5--Yankees10 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the "both" camp. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Both" has been the standard in print for many decades. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

L-R-B vs. L-R-S, the latter reminds me of the old joke, "He hits three ways: Left, Right, and Seldom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, I wonder if the use of "S" might be a result of the possibility of confusing "B" for "R" in print. -Dewelar (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's possible. The problem with "switch" is it becomes a mixed metaphor. "Switch-hitter" means "bats both", i.e. "both left-handed and right-handed". You don't say "left-hitter" or "right-hitter", you say "left-hand hitter" or "right-hand hitter". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, either that or it means the person hits people with a switch ;-) . But yes, that's what I meant above by saying "both" is better usage. -Dewelar (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen 'Both' used outside of America. Not here anyway, always switch. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 04:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of Players

Example

Detroit Tigers roster
Active roster				Inactive roster		Coaches/Other
Pitchers Starting rotation 38 Jeremy Bonderman 58 Armando Galarraga 48 Rick Porcello 37 Max Scherzer 35 Justin Verlander Bullpen 49 Eddie Bonine 40 Phil Coke 21 Enrique González 45 Ryan Perry 36 (Australia) Brad Thomas 34 Robbie Weinhardt Closer(s) 46 José Valverde		Catchers 13 Alex Avila 12 Gerald Laird Infielders 24 Miguel Cabrera  9 Carlos Guillén 39 Ramón Santiago 20 Scott Sizemore 29 Danny Worth Outfielders 26 Brennan Boesch 14 Austin Jackson 32 Don Kelly 30 Magglio Ordóñez 25 Ryan Raburn Designated hitters 18 Johnny Damon		Pitchers -- Billy Buckner 53 Casey Fien 43 Alfredo Fígaro 59 Fu-Te Ni 41 Andrew Oliver 56 Jay Sborz 55 Daniel Schlereth 50 Jacob Turner Infielders -- Audy Ciriaco 27 Brent Dlugach 15 Brandon Inge † 33 Ryan Strieby Outfielders 60 Wilkin Ramírez 34 Clete Thomas 57 Casper Wells		Manager 10 Jim Leyland Coaches 17 Rafael Belliard (coach) 61 Tom Brookens (first base) 51 Jeff Jones (bullpen) 52 Rick Knapp (pitching) 22 Gene Lamont (third base) 19 Lloyd McClendon (hitting) 7-, 10-, or 15-day injured list # Personal leave Roster and coaches updated July 21, 2010 Transactions • Depth chart → All MLB rosters

Proposal

(Fixed, because Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion)

All baseball team-season pages should include flag icons for all entries in their respective roster infoboxes.

Support for consistency across all international sports pages and for general inclusion of beneficial encyclopedic content -yuristache

Oppose per MOS:FLAG among other reasons -Dewelar (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Per yuristache Kingjeff (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per MOS:FLAG and the many arguments below. Spanneraol (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per MOS:FLAG. It's pretty straightforward I think. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea. There are several countries just within the same region as the United States that play baseball. The only issue is which country to place next to the player. Kingjeff (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a rather uncommon issue. Most players have one nationality, which was typically the country in which they were born. Difficult scenarios arise with players like Alex Rodriguez, who was born in the United States but claims Dominican ancestry, or Manny Ramirez, who was born in the Dominican Republic but was raised his entire life in the United States. However, these exceptions should not swallow the project. yuristache (talk) 02:05, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

As baseball becomes more international, it will become more of an issue. The choices are either country of birth or go with what the International Baseball Federation. Kingjeff (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before several times. The decision has been repeatedly that the flags dont belong on our roster pages. The MLB teams arent playing in international competition. Spanneraol (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This came to my attention at List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame‎. I could see some usefulness to adding flags to that page, though I'm currently leaning against it. I am completely opposed to adding flags to MLB roster pages and templates per Spanneraol. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both Spanneraol and Muboshgu. Use of flags in such a manner would be a clear violation of the Sportspersons subsection of MOS:FLAG. -Dewelar (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Spanneraol, Muboshgu and Dewelar. Nationality is best left to the text of the player's article, where special situations, such as a player born in one country but a citizen of another, can be explained. Flag icons should be limited to articles on international competitions. BRMo (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think there is a violation. Several football clubs use flags. Just look at Bayern Munich, Manchester United, Werder Bremen, Celtic F.C. Rangers F.C. and Schalke as examples. Secondly, if this is brought up several times before, doesn't this mean that there is some merit behind the idea? Spanneraol, it's the International rosters that wouldn't need flags. They would already be listed by the country they are representing. Kingjeff (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly from the last time this came up, it's a violation because MLB does not recognize the IBF as an international governing body. Also, because MLB is the highest level of the sport, all the players would de facto have to use flags of either the US or Canada, because that would be their "representative nationality". -Dewelar (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be tantamount to saying that every player on Manchester United is de facto English because the Premiership is the highest level of the sport? I don't think that logic is dispositive at all. Like soccer, haven't there been international competitions in baseball? The World Baseball Classic has occurred in 2006 and 2009, with MLB players having representative nationalities other than the US or Canada. Also, baseball was an Olympic sport for 16 years. And MLB teams have played countless exhibitions in Japan, Cuba, etc., against non-U.S. teams (much like a soccer friendly) and also have played regular season games outside the United States/Canada. I will admit that I am not an expert on formatting etiquette on Wikipedia, as most of my edits are substantive, but it seems to me that formatting for baseball shouldn't be behind the times of other sports with diverse rosters. yuristache (talk) 14:00, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Again, recalling previous discussions...

There is a significant difference in status between the WBC and the soccer World Cup. Nearly every fan of soccer accepts (or at least it is my impression that they do) that the World Cup is the signature event of the soccer universe. To most fans of MLB, it is the World Series that holds that position rather than the WBC. Therefore that particular comparison is inapt. For better or worse, international competition is considered below MLB (and probably even below the Japan Series) -- if anything, the WBC ranks as an afterthought to most baseball fans.

Also, there is a difference in that the Premiership is viewed (outside the UK, at any rate) pretty much only as the equal to the championships of other soccer-playing nations, serving only as a qualifier to the UEFA Championship. The same is not true of the World Series, which is considered a step (or more) above the Japan Series and other national championships. -Dewelar (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ETA) Also, note that Olympic baseball was played almost exclusively by amateurs or low-level professionals (which is part of what led to its removal as an Olympic sport) because it interfered with the MLB season. That should serve as sufficient proof of which is primary. -Dewelar (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they belong on ANY sports related list/template unless the player actually represents that country in that competition. It looks ridiculous over at basketball related award lists showing just player names and their nationality.... what does that have to do with the award? And nobody seems to agree over there whether the nationality should represent country of birth or country the player represents in international play..... of course many players don't represent a country in international play, making the flags even more useless.... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be distracted from the key issue, which is the MOS guidelines themselves, and how they relate to the Baseball Project and the use of flag icons. Whether or not the soccer pages are in violation of the guidelines, their use of flags is not relevant here. For those who support using the flag icons, you need to address the relevant MOS guidelines, and show how your proposals don't violte them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but what's important here is how the project views the guidelines, and how we implement them. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

BilCat, I disagree about soccer club articles not being relevant. In a bigger scope, soccer club articles and baseball club articles are the same thing. The only difference is the sports. Both soccer club and baseball club articles will show a history section, a template about te club, aroster section and so on. If it is a violation for baseball club articles then it would be a violation for soccer club articles and a violation for any other sports club article. Kingjeff (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's ny point: The soccer pages do appear to be in violation of the MOS, but since these are guidelines, not policies, local consensus, at either the project or page level, can override guideliens. But this is the baseball project, and if the consensus is, as it has been, to follow the guidelienes, than that is the standard. There are those editors who don't think local consensus can override global guidelins, in which case the soccer club article are in violation of the guidelines. I don't edit those pages, so making an issue out if it is not really something I'm interested in. But that is no reason not to follow the guidelines here, and so far that is the consensus here. - BilCat (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) As Blahblah points out below. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What about basketball or ice hockey as comparisons? The international competitions in those sports are better established than the World Baseball Classic, admittedly, but are still secondary to the NBA and NHL. And we do list nationalities on NBA and NHL team pages. I don't see why baseball is so overwhelmingly different from these. At any rate, I think it's a useful piece of information that can be imparted very concisely. The only issue would be the question of how you determine nationality, which is indeed a serious problem. I think you'd have to go with the team represented in international competition when applicable, and if not, the country of birth. That being said, that still leaves problems with, say, A Rod, who played for the USA in the 2006 WBC, but then was going to play for the DR in the 2009 one. john k (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

john k, maybe country of birth might be the better option. Kingjeff (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But that would be a clear violation of MOS:FLAG - flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality. Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. Also, Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent.

Also, from earlier in the section: Accompany flags with country names - The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, although first appearances in different sections, tables or lists in a long article may warrant a repetition of the name, especially if the occurrences are likely to be independently reached by in-article links rather than read sequentially. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size. That isn't happening in the roster templates, and clearly wouldn't. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that an actual rule or is it a guideline? If it is a rule, where is it listed? Who are you to say this isn't happening? Last time I checked, consensus requires a collective decision. And again, this topic has been brought up numerous times. It obviously an issue if it's ben brought up numerous times. Kingjeff (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh?? It doesn't matter to consesnus how many times an issue is brought up if the consensus doens't support the issue. Consensus is not unanimous, so it follows that people can still disagree with it, thus it remins an issue. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you are going to say the next time this is brought up? Every time that this topic is brought up, adding flags to the rosters becomes more valid. Kingjeff (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• It only means it's still an issue, but as long as the consunsus is against adding flags in baseball articles as suggested, they aren't going to be added. - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. All it means is that there continues to be a small subset of the group that disagree. It could even mean that the same people are bringing it up over and over again in the hope that they're the squeaky wheel that will get greased. Obviously, the people in favor of the status quo aren't going to be talking about it, right?

In any case, if you want to see if consensus has changed, we can do that. So far, of those who've chimed in on the discussion, there are two in favor of adding flags (three if we count john k) and six against. Anyone else care to contribute? -Dewelar (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that country of birth would not be in direct violation. The guidelines prohibit using the flag in an inappropriate manner, such as in an info box on the player's personal page when simply to indicate place of birth (like the Bruce Willis example); not in a list format (as is seen on other team pages). While it is true that not every MLB player is involved in international competition, it is also true that not every player in the Premiership or the NBA or the NHL is a participant in international competition; nonetheless, we indicate their nationality because it conveys (in a simplistic manner) a noteworthy piece of encyclopedic information about the team, its roster and the sport at large (namely, that it involves players from diverse nationalistic backgrounds and in what capacity they are represented in the sport at large).

In response to the squeaky wheel comment, this is the first time I have made this an issue. If people have raised it before me, that I was unaware. If they are individuals separate and distinct from those raising the argument here, then their votes should be counted, as it is presumed their intent has not changed. In fact, it may be the majority of those who closely monitor this board that are consistently voting it down despite a majority from those that don't check the Wikiproject regularly. This is a counterargument that is equally plausible, even if not necessarily a statement of absolute accuracy.

As it stands, I am still firmly of the opinion that it imparts a piece of noteworthy encyclopedic information to include on the page, and this format (tried and true for other sports) does not unduly clutter the page in doing so. It also maintains uniformity across sports, which is a benefit, especially on a website that maintains uniform formatting across other pages with comparable content. yuristache (talk) 18:51, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'll see about responding to those who commented below at a later time, unless someone beats me to it...

1) Birth country directly violates the first section of the sportspeople subsection, namely: "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense."

2) I am not going to argue your "diversity" point, as that would be self-defeating. However, note the implication of the argument, given that it could apply to any endeavor, which limits its usefulness as an argument.

3) Regarding your consensus counter-argument, I do not disagree with you. Rather, I was simply responding to Kingjeff's claim that the fact of it being brought up repeatedly in and of itself gives it more weight. Your counter-argument does nothing to refute what I said, it simply supports the potential for seeing if consensus has changed.

4) I am generally in favor of consistency, and so am sympathetic to your argument regarding uniformity among all sports. However, I also believe that, of all sports, the baseball pages are the only ones following MOS:FLAG, and quite frankly the fact that we're drawing heat for doing so seems to fall more under WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. -Dewelar (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm for having the flags shown, and I'm going to try to argue the points made against. User:Spanneraol said MLB teams aren't in international competition... It might be a technicality, but aren't the Blue Jays in a different country to the other 29 teams? User:Dewelar said it would be a "clear violation" of the sports people section of WP:MOSFLAG#Use of flags for sportspeople... I honestly don't see how, as it only discourages their use in personal infoboxes, and talks about the flag being for sporting nationality rather than legal. (And as far as I'm aware, no country has a special baseball-style national flag.) The only issue I can see from this section is the one-off cases like Alex Rodriguez where dual representation is possible, but that's something that can be worked out and even have a specific guideline to handle those cases while (hopefully) avoiding big arguments.

Which leads me to User:BRMo's comment about those situations. The rosters all have - or should have - player's names wiki-linked to their articles. If a reader comes to Alex Rodriguez in a roster and wonders "Why does he have the DOM/USA flag next to his name? Shouldn't he have the USA/DOM flag?" then the link to find out about the situation is right there, because the player's article should have that sort of info somewhere. And if they don't wonder about that, I think it would be reasonable to assume that they wouldn't have noticed any difference between the two (or potentially more for other players) possible flags.

I've run out of time before I have to go, but Dewelar said a couple other things here I wanted to address. I'm not sure how true "MLB doesn't recognise IBAF" is, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion either. The IBAF is the international governing body of baseball, and MLB is a baseball competition, and both MLB and IBAF were involved/sanctioned/approved of the World Baseball Classic.

I'd have a tough time arguing that MLB doesn't showcase the highest standard of baseball played in the world on average, but I don't think that it's the highest level of the sport, at least not as viewed everywhere around the world. The impression I get - and though I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong on this, and I don't think I will be - is that except in the US, the World Baseball Classic is seen as the top level. I won't pretend about the World Cup or the Olympics as it was held previously, though if it ever is reintroduced some of the changes to the process might bring it more into line with the WBC. There's a similar thing in Rugby League, in that the State of Origin in Australia (roughly equivalent to the All Star Game in MLB), contested between two states, is generally considered a higher standard of play than of international play. But international selection is the highest level of representation, as is the case with baseball. Until alien, baseball-playing life is discovered (or more likely we colonise other moons and planets) and we come up with an Earth flag, events like the WBC, and various international junior tournaments are the top level of representation in baseball.

The last part is that using the flags based on the MLB teams, so USA for all except players for the Blue Jays who'd get CAN, doesn't fit the guideline. It talks about representative nationality. If a player is selected from the minor leagues to move up to the big league ball club (or is signed directly to the majors from say the Japanese, Korean, or leagues from elsewhere round the world) they aren't ever considered to be "representing" that last team they played for.

I think the flags should be used.  Afaber012  (talk)  23:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued

(Two edit cnflicts later) I'll weigh in on this. I am in favor of including flags.

Firstly, because, while competitions featuring national teams aren't as important as in basketball, hockey and (especially) soccer, baseball does have them, and what national team a player has played for or is eligible to play for is an important piece of information that can easily be represented. Where there's potential conflict, such as A-Rod, we can figure it out on a case-by-case discussion.

Secondly, I find the arguement that such competitions are secondary to MLB unpersuasive. Because it is an apples-and-oranges comparison when dealing with national teams and domestic league clubs, and the WBC has been co-organized with the IBF. And because the same is true of most international competitions and the NBA and NHL, for which team pages include flags.

Which brings me to my third point. I do not believe the sportsperson portion of MOSFLAG is valid. I know what it says, but if just about every article (such as basketball, hockey and soccer) to which it should apply ignores it, it's pretty obvious it does not have a community-wide consensus.

In short, the guideline sits on a subpage of the MOS, where it likely has few eyes on it (and even fewer hands writing it). Meanwhile, these sports articles have many more editors watching them. To me, the actual practice on these thousands of articles far outweighs what might be said on an obscure subpage. It is not the sports articles that need to change to reflect the guideline, it's MOSFLAG that needs to change to reflect the reality of what editors really do. oknazevad (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what you really should be doing, then, is propose a clarification (or removal) of the offending MOS:FLAG section in question, and see what the feeling is more globally. That would probably be more productive than simply arguing about it here. -Dewelar (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the majority of sports pages don't follow the guideline, then it does need to be changed, or at least addressed/qualified, on the relevant MOS talk page. ZDo that, get it changed, then come back here and discuss what to do then. For now, the consensus here is still for following the MOS as it is currently written. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's really two seperate but related discussions. The first is whether the guideline truly reflects broad consensus, the second whether this project should adhere closely to that guideline or engage in a project-wide case of WP:IAR. Still, I left a note linking to this discussion at WT:MOSICON.oknazevad (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that it's getting closer to an even split on this whole issue. Creating a procedural obstacle course is just a means of avoiding the issue at hand, and it is becoming more and more apparent through the discussion on this board that the status quo is clinging to either: 1) it violates the MOS policy, of which there is evidence to the contrary in other sports (and which might not be entirely true in the first place, since MOS rationale is to avoid use in infoboxes and overuse such in a body of text), or 2) that baseball is just special from all other sports (for various reasons) and that's why we treat it differently, which is kinda like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I think its a valid point that the MOS policy is infrequently revised and that it has not been adjusted to reflect this specific purpose. I also think its unnecessary to engage in a second bout of verbal warfare to change the policy in MOS just to come back and seek consensus on this board when we can simply seek consensus now. The MOS is a set of guidelines which are helpful when seeking general edits; with consensus, I think we can override a set of guidelines which have not been crafted for this specific usage (and which have been overridden by numerous other pages with substantially similar content), as per WP:IAR. yuristache (talk) 21:44, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to continuing to seek consensus here while still pursuing changes at WP:MOSICON. I'd like to see more of the people who are active within WP:BASEBALL weigh in with their opinions as well. There's no need to forum-shop on the issue. The reason I suggested it is that if MOS:FLAG does get changed, it will render a lot of the arguing here is moot, and thus it's kind of redundant to discuss things twice. We can certainly override the guidelines if that's what consensus determines we should do, but we're far from making a determination one way or the other on that count.

Part of my problem is that you and Kingjeff came in here aggressively and essentially tried to railroad us into accepting your point of view. You obviously discount any and all arguments against you, as demonstrated by your post immediately above. Wikipedia is not about winning, it's about building consensus. That's what we're trying to do, and your insistence that things must be your way just because other projects do it that way and you think it's wrong is counter-productive. -Dewelar (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a substantive element and a procedural element to this. The "go away and come back when this is different" statement by BilCat only addressed the procedural element. Procedurally, I can see proceeding with the change if the policy is changed and it is adopted in MOS as the standard formatting. However, substantively, the MOS are guidelines and not absolutely binding, and if consensus finds against MOS, then we can also proceed with the change. We didn't come in here intending to "railroad" anyone; just trying to improve the content through the appropriate channels by which the content is routinely improved. yuristache (talk) 22:25, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

This is what I have been saying all along (well, except the railroading bit, of course). I think some of the folks here are simply tired of rehashing this every 6-12 months, with the same result every time -- things stay the same because either consensus is to remain as it is or there is no consensus for change, which amounts to the same result. Perhaps you are right and the consensus will be to make the change, but if it is not you need to abide by it just as I will abide if consensus supports adding flags. -Dewelar (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to not include flags, in accordance with the sentence at the start of MOS:FLAG stating that Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. In addition, MOS:FLAG states that the use of a flag should be accompanied with the country's name for accessibility, and this would make roster lists less compact. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

100% agree with the "text accompanying flag" point. IMO, the rosters would look even more ridiculous than they do with the flags next to the names. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As to organize a consensus opinion, I am adding a vote section (not for discussion; simply for tallying) below the "Example" header. We can see how it develops and proceed from there. yuristache (talk) 21:44, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't apreciate my suggestions being discribed as "go away . . ." As noted above, it's better to focus your efforts on getting the guidelines changed or clarified first. You don't seem inclined to do that, and that's why some have expressed the sentiment that they feel they are being "railroaded" into accepting something they don't want. ANyway, I'm moving on - I'm tired of having my comments miscontrued to say what I didn't mean - I've have enough of that already today. - BilCat (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:MOSFLAG, specifically "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", "Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death" (which I read above was a way to disambiguate citizenship) and "Accompany flags with country names". There is absolutely no reason to include the flags since MLB players are not representing their countries, they are representing their teams. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Player and managerial statistics

It seems that player and managerial statistics is lacking in baseball player and manager articles. There is currently only is batting average, home runs and runs batted in and these are showing only as career stats. It would be good to show notable statistics on a season-by-season for selected statistics. Kingjeff (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that managerial record could be added as a fourth stat on these pages. I often add it myself when I come across such a page. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "season-by-season". -Dewelar (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)