Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Special projects talk Resource Library talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (61) talk  → Featured lists (210) talk  → Good articles (545) talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Style advice talk  → Naming conventions talk  → Player style advice talk  → Season article format talk Handling transactions talk Popular pages talk Active editors
Project organization Participants talk Large userbox talk Project userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball Team specific Atlanta Braves talk Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Mets talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk Negro league baseball talk Hall of Fame talk Umpires talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Player Archives
1 2 3

A proposal for a change to the roster templates

I did some playing around with roster templates for the NFL project and I'd like to bring some of that here. You can see at Template:NFLplayer that there are additional inputs for status, and I think we should incorporate that into Template:MLBplayer for things like DL stints and suspensions. So for instance, typing in something like {{MLBplayer|36|Nick Johnson|DL15}} might produce...36 Nick Johnson 15 day DL

There's also the possibility of building in wikilinks to the template, so that all names are automatically linked, with the |d= parameter an optional disambiguator. This could produce a roster that looks like this...

New York Yankees roster
Active roster				Inactive roster		Coaches/Other
Pitchers Starting rotation 34 A. J. Burnett 65 Phil Hughes 46 Andy Pettitte 52 CC Sabathia 31 Javier Vázquez Bullpen 62 Joba Chamberlain 48 Boone Logan 43 Dámaso Marté 39 Mark Melancon 45 Sergio Mitre 61 Chan Ho Park 30 David Robertson Closer 42 Mariano Rivera		Catchers 29 Francisco Cervelli 20 Jorge Posada Infielders 24 Robinson Canó  2 Derek Jeter 53 Juan Miranda 19 Ramiro Peña 13 Alex Rodriguez 25 Mark Teixeira Outfielders 11 Brett Gardner 33 Nick Swisher 38 Marcus Thames 22 Randy Winn Designated hitters None		Pitchers 91 Alfredo Aceves 15 day DL 63 Jonathan Albaladejo 64 Andrew Brackman 68 Wilkin De La Rosa (Susp.) -- Shane Lindsay 74 Héctor Noesi 41 Iván Nova 47 Rómulo Sánchez Catchers None Infielders 76 Reegie Corona 36 Nick Johnson 15 day DL 94 Eduardo Núñez 27 Kevin Russo Outfielders 26 Greg Golson 14 Curtis Granderson 15 day DL -- Chad Huffman		Manager 28 Joe Girardi Coaches 58 Dave Eiland (pitching) 57 Mike Harkey (bullpen) 50 Mick Kelleher (first base) 54 Kevin Long (hitting) 56 Tony Peña (bench) 59 Rob Thomson (third base) 15-day disabled list (Susp.) - Suspended list (Ber.) - Bereavement list Roster updated May 18, 2010 Transactions • Depth Chart → More rosters

Thoughts? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't we already have the DL and suspended list symbols on the roster pages? Seems you are just suggesting to change the symbols we are using? Spanneraol (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We currently use †, *, and #, which are meaningless symbols, while the injury icon is a universal symbol that stands out with less ambiguity about its meaning, so yes I am suggesting we change that. I'm also suggesting embedding these things in Template:MLBplayer to keep them out of Template:MLB roster, which is a little cleaner. And I'm also suggesting putting the wikilinks in Template:MLBplayer, because they don't need to be entered manually every time.

This isn't a major change, and it's not majorly important, but I think any little bit of change that improves functionality and utility, even a little bit, is a good thing. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes to the DL symbols.. not sure about the wikilinks.. would that change mess up the existing uses of MLBplayer? Cause it is used on all the historical season rosters also and making that change would be a real time consumer.. Also.. on some of the minor league rosters it would create red links where we are currently not linking non notable A ball players. Spanneraol (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also on the topic of wikilinks, the way it's coded it doesn't appear that it would work on links that would take you to a completely different page name (i.e., Vic Power->Victor Pellot). That would need to be addressed, because not all of those will have been set up as redirects. -Dewelar (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a parameter that would allow that. That doesn't seem like an issue that would come up often. It wasn't a problem in the NFL this season. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't come up often (if at all) in current seasons, but it does come up occasionally in past seasons. As another example, former Pirates GM Pete Peterson was known as Hardy Peterson during his playing days, and as such his name should display as Hardy. I'm not sure how to do it either. I thought using the "!" pipe-substitution might do the trick but no dice. -Dewelar (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can leave that be for the time being and play around in my sandbox to see if there's a way around it. — Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The wikilink idea may be out for now but if there's no objection, I'll make the change to add the DL symbol to the MLBplayer template at some point during Spring Training. --— Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

World Series

There is a discussion in progress about the lead sentence for the World Series article (after the discussion on the disambiguation note). Any comments or feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy Kosco

The editor Johnandmitchy (talk · contribs) added File:Andykoscoyankees (2).jpg to Andy Kosco. Since the player is living, and WP:BASEBALL seems to indicate that free images should be sought out for living person, it seems that John's uploaded image does not belong. Should the image be removed? Let me know what the proper approach here is. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Radbourn

Looks like a couple of vandals quick added Charles Radbourn to GA, which needs reversing. I guess I could nominate for delist, but if there is a quicker way.........Neonblak ^talk - 05:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think if it never actually got properly nominated and then reviewed, that it could just be removed. Might be best to check over at the WP:GAN.  Afaber012  (talk)  11:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Delisted. Luckily we have opportunities to get our 100th GA properly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If Bill Stein isn't the one, I have Dave Sisler nearly ready, just needs a good copyedit.Neonblak ^talk - 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1959 tie-breaker is currently under review and almost done, also. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

...or that one.Neonblak ^talk - 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Boom, tis done. #100. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlinking birthplaces in text

An anonymous editor (User:64.180.212.125) is unlinking the birthplace of baseball players from the main text, claiming that "standard use is to link in infobox only". I reverted a change to Roberto Alomar on Feb 6, stating that "not all mirrors or other users of WP use the infobox material; this needs to be in the text too". This editor has been removing birthplace info from the text nonetheless. Can someone keep an eye on this? Mindmatrix 14:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:OPENPARA, this anonymous IP is right. Birthplace shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but it should be included somewhere in the text. Simply removing it from the intro without replacing the content elsewhere in the text is inappropriate. Mindmatrix 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess it could go in the body, as the opening of an "Early life" or similarly named section. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking all-time rosters

Would someone be able to go through all 30 All-time rosters and make sure players that played in 2010 were added? Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Poke. I could take a look through them myself this week but don;'t have time to do all that myself. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been keeping the Dodgers list up to date.. dont know about the others though. Spanneraol (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can start on this today. If we have multiple people doing this, we should have a checklist somewhere so we don't repeat the work. -Dewelar (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Twins are done. -Dewelar (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mariners are done. -Dewelar (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Phillies are done because of my huge off-season project. — KV5 • Talk • 23:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Devil Rays are done. -Dewelar (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Win Remmerswaal / nl:Win Remmerswaal

Hello all, I hope to get help here. I have expanded the article on this Dutch baseball Major League player on nl-wiki a lot and another editor nominated it for review and elections. How ever - there is no picture available on commons so I hope some one here can help me. Thank you in advance for any help. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please? Any hints or contact adresses also welcome. MoiraMoira (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there no one in the USA who made a picture of him inbetween 1975 - 1981 and willing to upload it? Many of us would be very grateful for it. Here is where he played in those years: nl:Win_Remmerswaal#Clubcompetities MoiraMoira (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find free images of players who played outside the public domain years and before the internet era (1963~2000), which Remmerswaal falls in. If you know of any Red Sox fans during that time, then they would be the best people to ask. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I live in The Netherlands so do not know Red Sox fans other than my own 11 year old son who plays baseball himself. If any of you in the US have any clues how to find them (perhaps forums or society pages?) I'd be grateful. MoiraMoira (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season

I just happened upon this list today, what do we think about notability? Already have List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds which covers his 500 home run club shot, #70, #71, and #73 from that year. Beyond those 4 already covered does the list really merit it's own article? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. I think it's cruft. Does anyone really care about Bonds' 15th home run of 2001? The milestone article is less dubious, but could still use discussion or an AfD to determine notability as well. — Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

naming conventions - nationlity

Tavix moved the Francisco Rodriguez articles to Francisco Rodríguez (Venezuelan pitcher) and Francisco Rodríguez (Mexican pitcher) and tried to alter the WP:NC-BASE naming guidelines to back up his move.. Our last discussion on this subject was the nationality was not to be used. I reverted his changes to the guidelines but wanted to bring it up here in case something changed, I agree with not using nationality. Spanneraol (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

He did the same thing with the different Ramon Ramirez players also. Spanneraol (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not cool to try to change WP:NC-BASE without any discussion. — Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I restored the Rodriguez's and Ramirez's to their original names. Now how do we proceed with the editor? — Muboshgu (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Has he been warned? — KV5 • Talk • 12:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On further review, he has not been. I'll drop a note on his talk page about the issue. — KV5 • Talk • 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured someone like you would craft the warning better than I would, and I was right. — Muboshgu (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable

Just came across this -- List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable. Thoughts? If sourced, it would be interesting (to me), but I can't tell for the most part what is sourced and what is OR (and the articles screams out at me "by whom?"). Thought I would run it by the cabal.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my thought, "by whome?" I think it's too vague and subject just may be considered by many to be trivial.Neonblak ^talk - 04:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In reality, there are only records that are highly unlikely to be broken given today's conditions. However, conditions have changed throughout baseball history, and so virtually all records could be broken. (Both Bill James and Baseball Prospectus, as I recall, have written about this in the past year.) So I don't believe the article is well-founded and ought to be deleted. isaacl (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my thought is that this article could be brilliant if its written in the perspective of how we have some records considered unlikely to be broken (batting .400 in a season, Joe DiMaggio's hit streak), and show how other records that were believed to be unbreakable were broken (Ruth's 60 home runs in a season, Lou Gehrig's consecutive games played streak). More of a "lore of baseball" page than a statistics page. I apologize in advance for Yankee-centrism out there to all those who are sensitive to that, but those are some examples that came to mind quickly. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd go a little further and say that based on the page being sourced by "Baseball's Most Unbreakable Feats", a DVD produced by MLB in 2006, this whole page needs a complete overhaul or deletion based on WP:PROMOTION – Muboshgu (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there's no technical reason the records couldn't be broken, other than the way the game is played. What's needed is better sourcing, as it appears to contain a number of built-in assumptions. Some records are obviously impossible to break unless someone develops a bionic arm. Cy Young's career wins and losses come to mind (and the article only lists the wins). Although a 56 game hitting streak is certainly possible, studies have been done to demonstrate the extremely low probability of such a streak. On the other hand, the two consecutive no-hitters, while statistically of low probability, could certainly be accomplished by any good pitcher if things happened to break right, so it doesn't belong. Each item needs to be scrutinized. And for some perspective, how about a section on records that were once thought to be unbreakable? The most obvious is Gehrig's consecutive game streak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One record that absolutely never will be broken was set on July 22, 1884, when Charley Sweeney was ejected and Providence Grays were forced to finish the game with just 8 players on the field.[1] That can never happen now, because the rules require a forfeit if a team cannot field 9 players. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I see this page as problematic. Just a few years ago, George Sisler's single season hits record would likely have been on this list, but it fell. Some people talk about the .400 barrier never being broken, but it has been approached in the past 20 years or so. Since it would seem to me that the definition of a record being classified as unbreakable would be how many times it has been approached, it seems somewhat arbitrary to set the point at which someone has approached a record. Does Pete Rose's hitting streak come close enough to demonstrate the DiMaggio streak is unbreakable? How about Gwynn's and Brett's batting averages ... close enough to .400 to claim .400 is not unreachable? I might agree on some of these, but it seems an indiscriminate list, and I think that is specifically forbidden. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

At least in the case of batting .400; that in itself is not a record but a "plateau", .426 would be the record to break. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that .426 is definitive yet, some still say .424, or even .422 depending on the source. Baseball historians are still finding hits, earned runs, and other stats that change "established" records, like Cy Young's 511 wins for instance... when I was growing up, it was 510, and before that 508 I believe. Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average has changed, Hack Wilson's RBI total for 1930 has changed, etc.Neonblak ^talk - 06:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Any even moderately lengthy discussion of MLB history is going to eventually mention the "unbreakable records" (or unachievable feats, to be technically correct); it's part of baseball lore. Wikipedia definitely needs to document the idea in some fashion. The current article simply reiterates the conventional wisdom onthe subject, but definitely needs more sourcing and attribution. So, cleanup, but don't delete. oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• As the original creator of the aforementioned page, I thought I might take a second to weigh in on this. Granted the sources are not its strong suit, and background information is certainly lacking. However my intentions were to set the framework for a potentially substantial article. I see many pages related to sports on Wikipedia and it seemed like there there was room for a page about baseball records that have may stand the test of time. I always found the rich history of the game to be fascinating and over the years have heard/read about various records that we will "never" see broken. If someone put in the time to do some serious upgrades, this would be a very involved and interesting article. I highly recommend keeping the page and encourage its expansion. If I was talented enough and had the time I would give it a shot, until then I hope others will carry the torch. - RoadView (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As of now, this seems to be a collection of indiscriminate information. There are too many examples of "unbreakable records" being broken for this to be a viable article topic. In football, they say "any given Sunday"; with 162 games per year, anything can happen at any time. If a player is involved in a potentially "unbreakable" record, it can be discussed in that player's article (or another appropriate article, as was done at Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award) with proper sourcing. As is, this article doesn't have enough reliable sources to stay as a properly referenced part of an encyclopedia. — KV5 • Talk • 14:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• I guess where I come out is that if there can be proper sourcing for any of the material in the article, it should remain. The fact that it is speculative is not a bar, if it is speculation from a reputable source/expert, and advanced as such (rather than as fact). But anything advanced as "fact" is not appropriate in this sphere. And material not appropriately sourced is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In addition to avoiding making speculative predictions about the future, care has to be taken to avoid giving undue weight to any single view. There should be a clear majority or significant minority holding a given view, not just a single source. (And for a list article, I don't think a significant minority will do, as it would overly-expand the scope of the list; it could suffice for the article specifically about the record in question.) isaacl (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • True, care should be taken. But there is no prohibition on using "a single source". If it is an expert, that's fine -- care can be taken by proper attribution. Same holds for "significant minority" -- just reflect the facts; a significant minority of experts saying x is perfectly fine to reflect.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I should have said "a single opinion". If a source documents a majority view, then it is not undue weight to present that view. But if it is just one expert proclaiming a personal view, without reliable sources to document the view as a majority view, then that view should not be given undue weight. isaacl (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• A number of the rationales in the article have to do with how long a record has stood. Maybe the article's focus could shift a bit in that direction, coupled with SABR-metric style analysis of possible reasons why it has stood for so long, e.g Young's 500 wins and 300 losses. There could perhaps then also be a section about records that stood for a long time and were eventually broken, e.g. Gehrig's streak. Certainly changing conditions have to do with some of it. Like the reason why drop-kick records in the NFL will stand forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Watch yourself there, BB -- given that everyone knows that you are an expert, your pronouncement on drop-kick records will no doubt make its way into the parallel football article. That is, of course, unless the "one expert is not enough" editor is drafting it ... --Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not there already??? There's been ONE successful drop-kick score since the start of World War II or thereabouts, and that was done as a stunt, by Doug Flutie in 2006. If the NFL were to fatten the ball up again and maybe abolish the forward pass, it might see a comeback. Just like if they were to start constructing baseballs to pre-World-War-I standards, we would see a return to the dead ball era and the home run records would be put on ice. I think I'm much more likely to see a pitcher throw consecutive no-hitters in my lifetime, than to see those other things. P.S. Is there actually such an article for the NFL, or you would just pullin' my lariat? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Bugs has hinted as a potential solution. Perhaps a better direction would be to rework the article into something like (this is merely a random suggestion): "List of Major League Baseball records which have stood for 50 years". The amount of time is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but it could represent records which currently have not been broken for that time (Young's victory record), but also records which stood for that long and were eventually broken (Sisler's single season hit record). All of this could be very easily referenced, and it removes the aspects of indiscimenency (?), original research, and out-and-out opinion, while still preserving the overall substance of the article. It's just a thought, and I'm not sure that this still doesn't stand in violation of policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• The problem there is what makes that subsection notable enough for an independent article? The only arbitrary qualifier articles I know of are purely for ACCESS reasons where the general list is too big (KV5's alphabetical Phillies' roster, the soccer lists by games played, my .400 OBP list with a PA cutoff, etc). The closest list I can think of to what you're describing is List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters and it's ilk, which have always bothered my from a notability standpoint. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fireballer

I've come across another article which I thought the cabal might be interested in. To wit, Fireballer. Some of the material is unsourced (though I expect sources could be found for much of it). Some has copious sourcing -- specifically, that relating to Korean pitchers. I'm not quite sure whether there is an issue here as to whether all the pitchers mentioned are called "fireballers", or are what we would commonly consider fireballers, but thought that I would raise the article here as well for the views of others. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's certainly a notable slang term. Dunno if it warrants a separate article, particularly with articles like Power pitcher already. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • An adjective doesn't merit an separate article in my opinion. I also think fireballer may not even be a word. It may be two words. The same might be said about the article Baserunning.Orsoni (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Season wikilinks

Besides the editor who already reverted hours of my work, why are season links being continuously reverted?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some background on what links you are referring to would be helpful here. Spanneraol (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I talk with KV5 enough I have his talk page on my watchlist so User_talk:Killervogel5#Are_you_Serious.3F. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. This revert is just one. I spent hours this morning adding relevant links to particular teams seasons, and they were all reverted in a matter of minutes using "Against Consensus" and WP:EGG as a premise.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is... Those kinds of links will be one of the first things discussed and removed in any community vote process (GAN, FLC, FAC). Links should go where they seem to go. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And they seem to go there. Pertinent and exact information is what this web-site should be striving for.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They do not "seem to go there". When you link to an article, direct links are always preferred over redirects. — KV5 • Talk • 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Preferred, but its helpful to the readers to give them as much information and a chance to read those pages. With those links in place, readership on those pages should increase. Wikipedia is suppose to be an encyclopedia for people to read. Those articles deserve a chance to be linked to from those lists. Wouldn't that be better for the wikiproject to have the articles actually being read by more readers? Yet it seems the letter of EGG is being applied over the spirit of the guideline.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes these articles "deserving", as you say? Since when it is our job to determine what readers should and should not read? The guideline on links specifically states that "The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context". This means direct links whenever possible. "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link" - if the link is to a team, then the team article should come up. — KV5 • Talk • 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link" — to me that says a link to specific season may very well be appropriate. In this case, as a list of divisional champions, the link to that team's season article (such as the "Oakland Athletics" entry for 2003 linking to 2003 Oakland Athletics season) would be the most specific link. So that guideline actually supports their inclusion.

That says nothing of the appropriateness based on the EGG principle, though. So we have to figure out a way to account for that. oknazevad (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And that's really where the rub is. A lot of readers link-hop; that is, they read from link to link without really "seeing" the prose in between. If I see a link that says "Oakland Athletics", and I click it, it should go the article Oakland Athletics. That's why the principle of least astonishment exists. — KV5 • Talk • 00:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We can't tell anyone to read or not read an article, we can only give them the chance to, but apparently you decided that they shouldn't read it. The guideline appears to refer to malicious or confusing links. There appears to be nothing confusing in these links as the year sits directly in front of the teams link. Perfectly acceptable under that guideline.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I've asked you previously not to cast blame. This is not of "my" doing. There's also nothing in those sections (WP:LINK#Link clarity and WP:LINK#Link specificity) that says this refers only "to malicious or confusing links", as per your claim. So the reasoning I gave is indeed sound. — KV5 • Talk • 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So if not create malicious or confusing links, then why have this policy if not for that? Appears to be no other reason that I can think of. And as the years are provided first on each line of the list, it should not be confusing under WP:PIPE.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What? Could you explain further what you meant by the above statement? — KV5 • Talk • 00:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Users on wikipedia don't create guidelines without reason, or in this case part of a guideline. What is the point of the part of the guideline known as WP:EGG? What is it preventing. I said it was to prevent the creation of malicious and confusing links, but you disagreed. What is the point of it then?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. "Why have this policy if not for that" was confusing. The quotes that I provided are not from WP:EGG; they are from the Manual of Style's article on linking (WP:LINK). The point of the policy is to prevent misleading links, including those to non-direct articles. WP:LINK#Piped links says "Think about what the reader will believe the link is about." As I said above, a link to "Oakland Athletics" should go to Oakland Athletics. — KV5 • Talk • 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just a general comment, for what its worth. For reasons that absolutely escape me, linking of dates has been in the past few years one of the most contentious issues, from what I've seen, across the entire project. Passions have been strong on both sides. My sense is that the general notion with regard to linking of dates specifically has been to not link them at all. But that our project has had a different leaning, when it comes to linking dates to something other than the raw year. Killer, etc. -- please correct me if I am wrong. I don't have a strong considered view on the above. But it may well be helpful to get third viewpoints from outside the project -- specifically from the wikiprojects focusing on linking and dates. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• We've been removing date links as far as the year links go, but this is about season links, such as linking "Boston Red Sox" to 1998 Boston Red Sox season and so forth. — KV5 • Talk • 01:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand if you wanted to remove the "season links" from a paragraph style article, but this is a list of teams. Lisst generally should link to the most relevant article pertaining to them. In this case its the season in which the team played. Remember creating links only increases readership in these articles and more readers of baseball related articles should be the cornerstone of this wikiproject.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Lisst generally should link to the most relevant article pertaining to them" - Yes! They should! And the most relevant article that a team name should be linked to is the team article. Case closed. — KV5 • Talk • 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see the argument here.. It might be helpful to link to the season article somewhere in that table... perhaps the year should link to the team season rather than the year in baseball? If someone is curious about the 69 Twins they might want to get there from that table rather than having to go to the team page, then scrolling down to the box at the bottom to find the season. Also, we do link the standing templates to the season articles, so its not completely without precedence. Spanneraol (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The standings templates are linked that way because they are used in conjunction with the game logs, and there was a clear consensus to link the team seasons in the game logs. I understand the argument and accept the validity of linking to the team season, but not just from the team name, because it's ambiguous, unclear, and policy-contrary. — KV5 • Talk • 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that directing the user to the most pertinent information based on the context should be our foremost concern. In this instance, all other considerations aside, linking to the team-season page serves this purpose best. Therefore, if linking to the team-season from the team name is ambiguous, unclear, and policy-contrary, then the answer is not to revert the link back to its original (misdirected) state, but to adjust the text being linked to make it as unambiguous, clear, and policy-compliant as possible while maintaining the integrity of the greater article. However, if there is no way to do that, then policy be damned, because providing the user with the best information takes precedence over and above anything else we do here. -Dewelar (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)- In the case of the year in which a team won a World Series/Pennant/Division the most relevant article would be the season in which that team played. Anything else is worthless even linking at all. So as you say. Case Closed, or am I being too ostentatious--Jojhutton (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anything else is worthless even linking at all." - that's pretty offensive to those of us who spend a lot of time working on and improving the team articles. For civility's sake, it should be retracted. — KV5 • Talk • 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be an attack, but as long as your talking about articles that people work on, its pretty offensive to those who work on team season articles to have absolutely no links to those articles. Who weeps for them?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

People who work on team season articles... you mean like the 2008 and 2009 Philadelphia Phillies seasons? Our only two team-season GAs? You act as if I have no cognizance for the importance of these articles. Do you realize that every team-season article is linked from each team's main article, easily accessible by a link in the team's navbox? — KV5 • Talk • 02:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You you mean the pain in the ass to find years, which are Easter Egged by the way, at thge bottom of the page in a drop box. I doubt very much that average JQ reader will be able to find any of those most of the time.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Templates are a specifically listed exception to the linking guidelines: "The exception is when it is clear from the context that links go to specific articles, as in template:2008 Summer Olympics calendar, where all links go to the article about these specific games." Again, I will ask you to refrain from the above incivility. — KV5 • Talk • 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the need to link to season articles when they are pertinent to the subject. For instance, when reading about Bob Gibson pitching a no-hitter in 1971 against the Pittsburgh Pirates, I would prefer a link going to the 1971 Pittsburgh Pirates season article so that I could see the batters he faced, rather than the main Pirate team article.Orsoni (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It can be hard to find the season-by-season stuff. When I want to see details on seasons, I just pull up Retrosheet and look for it there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, we should be making this as simple as possible.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• One interesting comparison (I just came across it because it's on the main page), the lead for 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests links to each individual country protest article when listing the countries initially. "To date Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen have all seen major protests, and minor incidents have occurred in Iraq, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan and Syria." The 'major' protest countries link to the protests, the 'minor' ones (with no article, I assume) link to the general country article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that's even more confusing than what this proposal is currently trying to enact. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Rather pertinent information in the context of the article though. Just as yesterdays, or the days before depending on where you live, Featured article Joseph Johnson (publisher) has a couple of those pipe links. Most notably Religious Dissent in the "early life" section. It was approved as a feature article with that pipe link which is an EGG, so its not fair to characterize every EGG as not allowed.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • And it's not fair to characterize my position that no Easter egg links are allowed, because I never said that. Please don't misconstrue what I've said in this discussion. — KV5 • Talk • 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Fine, you said Direct links are always preferred over redirects.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, I did. When a direct link is available, it should always be used instead of redirecting elsewhere. — KV5 • Talk • 00:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
            • The most pertinent and useful link should be provided and it would seem that other articles and other users agree, or else those links wouldn't have been placed in those other articles the way they were, especially a featured article.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
              • The example you provided isn't relevant to this discussion. Yes, it is an example of a proper Easter egg link: a piped link going somewhere other than its text says, going to the most closely related article to the text of the link. It is not, however, an example of what you inserted in the list of World Series champions (which is featured content as well) and the divisional lists: the most closely related article to the text "New York Mets" is the article New York Mets, not 1975 New York Mets season. — KV5 • Talk • 00:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
                • Now you think those pipe links are proper easter eggs? Didn't you say earlier that: I think that's even more confusing than what this proposal is currently trying to enact? What are they then? Proper or confusing?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, or else you're applying it improperly. I think that the types of egg links that Staxringold mentioned ("One interesting comparison (I just came across it because it's on the main page), the lead for 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests links to each individual country protest article when listing the countries initially. "To date Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen have all seen major protests, and minor incidents have occurred in Iraq, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan and Syria." The 'major' protest countries link to the protests, the 'minor' ones (with no article, I assume) link to the general country article." - from his comment above, where country names link not to the country but to an article on protests) are confusing. These are the types of links that you are attempting to introduce: a link that doesn't go where it purports to go. I appreciate the necessity and usefulness of our team-season articles. However, there's little to no utility to linking them just to the team name. If you say, for example, "The 1969 Yankees won the game" (and this is just an example), then linking to 1969 New York Yankees season is more than appropriate. But if you say "The Yankees beat the Cubs", then a link to "Yankees" and a link to "Cubs" should go to New York Yankees and Chicago Cubs. I am in no way conducting some sort of vendetta against piped links. They are part of the software and we should use them appropriately. I don't believe that your method constitutes an appropriate use. — KV5 • Talk • 01:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

First they are confusing, then they are proper, now they are confusing again. The links to the various protests through the Easter Egged countries are obviously proper or the wikipedia big brass (Honestly I have no idea who makes these decisions), would not have a link on the main page going to a poorly written article. This is a very good example of this policy either being ignored or being used properly. --Jojhutton (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Because you continue to misconstrue my remarks, I'm recusing myself from the remainder of this discussion. I see nothing further productive to be gained after explaining my viewpoint in detail and having it misrepresented by spurious remarks. Anyone else who cares to take up the mantle of propriety, feel free to explain what's wrong with this picture. — KV5 • Talk • 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, what I really like about Wikipedia is the ability to follow links wherever they may go. You can go from the French Revolution, to the Apollo Space program to Machu Pichu in a matter of minutes. I favor the policy be damned approach and would prefer going with the pertinent link. Having to navigate the main team article to find the season article seems contrary to what makes Wikipedia enjoyable to me.Orsoni (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A few issues with a link that has non-obvious link text. First, not everyone can hover to see what a link points to, and so it is not discoverable by all users (someone using a screen reader, for example, may have no idea that the link will take them to something other than an explanation of the link text). Second, to take an extreme position for a moment, if all links pointed to subjects that differed (to some degree) from the link text, although it might (big if: if there is a clear choice for an alternate link, which is not always the case) offer some advantage for an individual link, collectively, they would all degrade the usability of Wikipedia. Users would be forced to look closely at every link before clicking to decide if that was the link they wanted to visit. Now of course the extreme position is not being sought here, but there is a line beyond which this degradation becomes significant, and I believe the line hews pretty close to keeping links as obvious as possible. Surfing through from topic to topic works because it's pretty obvious where you're ending up when you follow a link, without having to think to much about it. If you end up at unexpected places a few times, you quickly start to mistrust clicking through. isaacl (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Some very fair points, and I fully understand the first point on links being discoverable. I regularly edit and read wikipedia from my iphone and have to click on a link to see what it says. Yet, there's no guideline, that I am aware of, that says that we have to take into account the type of browser someone reading an article from.

Keeping links as obvious as possible is the key to the point of not confusing the reader or redirecting them to some malicious link. Yet somehow this guideline is being used to prevent the articles, and the entire baseball wikiproject for that matter, from being improved upon. I'm all for following the guidelines and policies as they are written, but if a policy or guideline gets in the way of improving the article there is precedent for improvement over policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Various persons have quoted "ignore all rules" as if it is a given that the specific proposals being made are improvements. I believe the crux of the disagreement is that some believe the changes are not improvements. (Personally, I'm not sure about the specific proposed changes to the American League West article, and so have not expressed a specific view on this yet.) Regarding guidelines, there are guidelines on accessibility that must be kept in mind. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware that any one has alleged that the changes were not improving the article, only that the links violated a guideline, but if anyone thinks that the articles were not improved by the links, please say so, so we can get to the meat of that problem.

The way I see those types of links is two fold.

1. They give specific information about a particular team that played a particular season. This is good.

2. The pipe links are like free money to the reader. Like finding a $20.00 bill in the back pocket of a pair of jeans you hadn't worn in a while. Whoo Hoo. Yes, the reader may be clicking the link that says 1969 - New York Mets, and feel that they are going to see the a page on the Mets. But imagine their surprise when they see New York Mets, and discover that each team has an article on each season. A general reader may not have known that. Not only will that increase article views on that article, but may peak their curiosity and they may want to read about more seasons, which will also increase article views on those pages. Increasing views, along with maintaing good articles, should be the main focus of this project.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I haven't formed a full opinion on the American League West article. If you have another example then I can look at the specifics. The concerns I expressed were not related to following a guideline blindly; I would have to evaluate the context of each case carefully to see if the best balance has been struck to ensure the links are as obvious as can be while still integrated with the prose. Regarding the comparison to free money, the link could also be a free tax, if the reader was prepared to go one place, and ended up in an unexpected location. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

True on the "free tax" example, but obviously we are both speculating. As far as examples of other articles, I made changes to each divisions' article, that had not already been changed. (The NL West, NL Central, and AL Central already had these piped links). So I only really made large changes to AL West, AL East, and NL East. Fair to say that I wouldn't have expected those changes to be reverted, given the precedent of the other articles. It wasn't until I made this edit at List of World Series champions, that I began to be reverted on all of the articles, in which I had edited that morning. (Several hours worth of work I might add). My point however is that since these articles are lists, they should link to the appropriate article, especially given two factors. The first is that since these are lists, the year for the season is already given in front of the team's name, so the context is already given. (ie: 1969 New York Mets. Having it written like this: 1969 1969 New York Mets season, would be redundant, given the context of the list. Second, any collateral damage, (ie: looking for New York Mets but getting 1969 New York Mets season is quickly negated as New York Mets is clearly linked in the first sentence of the season article, and very easy to find for even the casual reader. Yet if a casual reader was looking for the 1969 season and found just the link to the New York Mets, it would much more difficult to navigate the article to find the article that they are looking for, and that reader and may get frustrated (again we speculate).--Jojhutton (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, where is the Mets season-by-season stuff? In the time I took to not find it, I could have looked it up straightaway from Retrosheet, going from here[2] to here[3] in 4 mouse clicks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For tables of year-by-year results, here's one suggestion for comments: a note could be added to the header for the two teams, saying that the team name links to the per-season article for the team. isaacl (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Or what about posting a link to year-by-year results somewhere near the top of the team article, instead of being buried who-knows-where deep in the body of the article. Then you could still link to the team, and could then immediately click on the year-by-year. Problem solved! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the per-season pages are in the same place for all teams: at the bottom of the page, under the collapsed template for the team. Due to the size of the season-by-season template, it would be tricky to relocate it, I think. isaacl (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it, so I went with Retrosheet, which has better information in any case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we still talking about the list? Or is this pertaining to the main team articles. If so, the main article templates are fine as a tool for readers, but like BaseballBugs said, they are hard to find, and I agree.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I finally found it. I expected it to be visible up front, but you have to open another template first, to get to it. They may look nice once you know where they are, but it's like Rube Goldberg to get there. Contrast that with Chicago Bears, for example, which has a link to the seasons summary at the top of the first section after the intro. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So I'm open to Isaacl's suggestion of maybe adding a diclaimer of some sort at the top of each articles header, (At least I think that is what he meant), such as *Note: Team names link to the season in which the teams played..--Jojhutton (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking in the table header cells, but perhaps an explanatory sentence before the table would be better. Let's see what others think. Regarding your response three paragraphs up, "and I agree," do you mean you agree that Retrosheet has better info? isaacl (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Heck no, nothing betters than the information you can find at wikipedia, but thats my biased opinion. I had no idea that Retrosheet even existed before Baseballbugs mentioned it yesterday. Actually I was agreeing that the information on each teams main page is difficult to navigate, especially for casual readers.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally I hate misleading links, but given that the article 1998 Boston Red Sox season links to the article Boston Red Sox right in the first sentence, the inconvenience to someone who arrived to the former but actually want to read the latter is quite minimal. 137.43.105.17 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)