Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Stat Updates

Hi. Over the last season, I noticed that some users update stats for players at the end of the day, while I prefer to udpate them live. I don't think there is a rule for this, and there has been some conflicts about this issue, so can anyone help us settle it once and for all?? Thanks Jonathansuh (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, if I had my way, the info box stats (I assume that's what you are referring to?) would only be updated at the end of the season.. It's way too haphazard any other way.. and the current season stats are available most of the time on the season pages. But if it's a choice between updating at the end of the day and "live" I would certainly go with the former.. Spanneraol (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Stats should only be updated at stable times (to new users who ask, I recommend either at the end of every month or – my preference – twice per season at the All-Star Break and after the end of the year). There is absolutely no reason that statistics need to be updated live, as it creates inherent instability in our articles. If there is someone who insists on updating the stats every day, it really doesn't hurt us (especially if someone hits a milestone or something), but it has to be done completely, meaning that the date of the stats and all of the statistics in the infoboxes need to be updated. If this is referring to stats tables in articles, those should be removed because there is consensus against their inclusion. If there is someone who refuses to update stats properly, we do have talkpage warnings for that kind of thing (I'll get them moved into the mainspace eventually, but for right now, it's User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-1, User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-2, User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-3, and User:Killervogel5/Baseballstats-4, which redirects to {{uw-v4}}. Just subst them onto the talk page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't think I was clear enough on this, but what I was talking about was pages like List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters and List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins. The Home Run List is usually updated live, but the wins list is updated at the end of the day. Jonathansuh (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Same concepts should apply across all project articles unless there's some persuasive reason not to. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• The one argument for live stat updating (even on player pages) is there will be notable events like Barry Bonds #756 or whatever that will likely cause huge traffic to the article rather immediately, and it's probably better to have the correct info listed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Right, that's the great thing about not being a paper encyclopedia, but still, the every day thing gets out of hand on a lot of articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• End of the year, with the exception of said big events, sounds good to me. Baseball-ref, MLB.com, ESPN, Yahoo! all have live stats if you want them. There are just too many players to do it by hand. blackngold29 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• But you see, that's the problem. What defines a big event? And even if you could define it, we would wind up with the stats for 500 HR, 3000 H, 3000 K, 300 win guys updated mid-season and everyone else un-updated. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth on player pages and stat leader pages the hockey project doesn't update stats till end of season. The only page that gets stat updates are the season pages. It helps alot with not confusing readers as its consistent across pages and doesn't suffer from some pages being updated up to game 23 and others being updated to game 67 etc etc. I think that would work very well here. As for how we handle big events. Sometimes we have a small section at the bottom of the list stating such events occurred during the current season but at the top of the page we make it clear the actual list itself is only accurate as of the end of the last season. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That would also be a perfectly acceptable solution. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this until now. Seems to me this wikiproject is over-regulating things. As long as there's an "as of" date in the infoboxes, then whenever the stats are updated it should be OK, IMO. When A-rod, for example, hits his 600th HR, I'd hate for the stats edit in the infobox to keep being reverted, citing this discussion here. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue has resurrected at Roy Halladay. Do we have consensus on this or not? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow - so this is ridiculous. You want to set a rule to revert all legit edits to an player article... why? Pretty sure you guys are overstepping your boundaries with this. As long as someone updates everything in the infobox and the date - it should be fine.... Otherwise, you might as well lock every player page and update them yourself at the end of the season, because you are attempting to create a really stupid situation that prevents anyone from ever updating pages. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if you update one page then you have to update every page or it leads to reader confusion because you can't compare players if one player is updated to game 57 and another player is updated to game 78. It's worked pretty well in other sports. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac is what comes into play here. We aren't supposed to try to replicate the statistical coverage that you would get in such situation. That is what sports sites do. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well thats' the point of the date being so prominent.... get rid of all stats completely if you're going to make such a big deal out of it like that. Not letting people update pages (which is the whole point of wikipedia!) is just dumb. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The dates being there doesn't solve the problem of quickly looking at two pages and comparing them. Personally I don't think stats should be in the infobox at all, as the infobox should just be key information and I don't think stats fit that mold. But if they are going to be there I think you should just add them and if you feel strongly about it, somehow denote that they are as of the last season. The point of wikipedia isn't to just update everything or anything. There are many such restrictions on what should or shouldn't be updated on all kinds of pages. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And in looking at the Roy Halladay article it does appear that we denote it to be the end of the 2009 season. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that's because Killervogel5 keeps all Phillies related articles that way, because he thinks a policy is already in place. That isn't the case with players on any other team.... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Have I ever said that there is a policy? No. Please do not put words in my mouth, per WP:CIVIL. I have referred only to the consensus already in place here instead of policy, in which you did not participate until today. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

WHAT F'N CONSENSUS? All I see is a small discussion that went nowhere.Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility, please. If you don't think that the above discussion constitutes a consensus, then please provide other reasoning. Please don't undermine the discussion that did take place by saying it "went nowhere", because several editors participated and provides several different sound reasons for changing the way this project handles statistics. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a major Wiki-Nazi thing. You have absolutely no right to tell people they cannot properly update a page containing information that can be updated. The stat pages that are sourced are updated daily... Yes, people should update everything or nothing - when they don't do that it's annoying. But to just start watching and reverting every sinple player page when someone updates the infobox stats? How does that make any sense from the standpoint of what the purpose of wikipedia is supposed to be? Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And what purpose do you think wikipedia is supposed to be? Wikipedia specifically has a criteria that says its not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. One of the things that most other sports projects follow is that we try not to be an up to the minute stats database. We leave that to other sites whose sole purpose is to do that. You don't have to watch and revert every player page, you just revert when you see someone has done it. One thing the hockey page does is they add a HTML comment in the code that is only visible when you edit on pages where people are constantly trying to update that says something along the lines of "Statistics are not updated until the end of the season." That way when people go to edit them they see the message and then don't edit them. Eventually people stop trying to update them except occasionally. And something to note blahblah is that on wikipedia silence is considered consent. So as far as this discussion goes, no one objected in almost a month. Therefore it was reasonable to assume it had consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If its not a collection of stats - then get rid of them completely. You don't have the right to revert people updating them while they're there. This is a significant policy change here - not something that should be resolved in a minor conversation here... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to get rid of them completely, its not an all or nothing scenario. There is a perfectly reasonable middle ground. And as long as there is a community consensus, then yes they would have the right to say that. More people should hopefully comment yes, but lack of comments usually does indicate that most people don't care. In other words its not that significant. And its something that is done with a number of other sports, so its not actually all that significant a change. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"This is a significant policy change here - not something that should be resolved in a minor conversation here" - Although this is not a change in policy, merely a change of consensus, everything on Wikipedia is determined through conversation and discussion. While DJSasso and I disagree on a lot of issues, this is something on which we are in complete agreement. There is a large gray area here; it's not simply black and white. The long and short of it is that many participants in this discussion were in favor of simplifying the process by establishing a consensus to update stats less often where before there was none. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I do appreciate the desire to avoid churning the statistics daily, as it adds a lot of noise to the history, I do see an argument for updating them when an event occurs that is notable enough to be mentioned within the article text. If the stats are not also updated, they will be inconsistent within the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hall of Fame Project Idea

I got bored a little while back and made a table of all those in the baseball Hall of Fame. The table is here. I bring it here to ask if this is something we want to keep somewhere and gradually work on it, or if it's not really of use and I'm just wasting my time. Admittedly this would probably be a permanent project, no way we have the capacity to make all of them FAs. If we can get some more to that level though, that would be nice. I think the source section is particularly useful, we can add sources in that others may not think of and help collaborate if some editors end up having different sources and the like. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be a long-term drive, that's for sure. It's good to keep tabs on these things, at least. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

True. What might be a better project idea is at the start of each year, we do FA drives for those that got inducted and get them to that status before they're inducted. So for this year we still have time to improve Dawson. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to help too. Jonathansuh (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If and when I get back into editing at a higher level (been taking a wiki-break lately), I could definitely switch over to working on 19th-century Hall of Famers. Several of them have huge amounts of material to draw from, like Cap Anson and George Wright to name a couple.Neonblak ^talk - 08:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• King Kelly was a goal of mine a while back. I'll probably get back into it at some point. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

72.197.207.250 - Chase Headley

I'm tired of trying to get thru to this IP... someone want to assist? Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, looks like he's stopped thanks to Epeefleche. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD on Bill James book

Some people of you who frequent this page may be interested in the AfD on Bill James' 2002 book Win Shares (book).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Closed as a keep. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Chanhassen Red Birds

Is this notable? SGGH ^ping! 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to tell in its current state, without any references from reliable sources. Could be a candidate for PROD or AfD, if no reliable coverage can be found. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually think we need to crack down on amateur teams. I see so many unsourced ones that it's concerning; there are so many professional teams that don't have very good articles as it is. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

At what point is an amateur team notable? I have done a lot of work on amateur teams in Australia (such as the Greater Brisbane League), where I believe there is significant enough coverage to make it notable. Also, this may be slightly off-topic, but baseball notability guidelines state that a baseball player is notable if they "play at least one game in any top-level national league (active or defunct)." I am assuming then this would make all players of the defunct (and now new) Australian Baseball League and Claxton Shield notable? JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think so (answering your second query).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Coaching history

Is it possible to add the coaching history in the infobox (for example Willie Randolph before Yankees10's revision). I don't see any reason why there can't be a coaching section, they are clearly part of the team and deserved to recognized just like managers and players. Beast from da East (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with adding this info. Spanneraol (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Baseball stubbing

Do you know anyone who likes to stub out baseball articles? I am experimenting with All-American articles and have created 1991 College Baseball All-America Team. I am trying to figure out if there is anyone who likes to stub out redlinks if I start creating these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Make sure your naming conventions are correct, we don't use the term "baseballer". Not sure if all these players meet the notability requirements either. Spanneraol (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Many played MLB and some just played mLB. I think both meet the requirement of professional baseball player even if they only played AAA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Players who only played in AAA and not the majors are not notable enough to have their own articles.--Yankees10 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have delinked the AAA guys.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What about career minor leaguers who play in the Olympics?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Olympic play satisfies WP:ATHLETE. But, as always, WP:GNG is the overall controlling force. So, for example, Pat Venditte is notable because of outside coverage despite no ML or international play. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My query is WRT 1992 College Baseball All-America Team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't name the player articles (Olympic baseball).. it should still just be (baseball) as a disamb. Spanneraol (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The vandal that wouldn't quit

Look who's back for a few choice edits. (Well, to be more accurate, the editor has just come back to baseball.) See this archived discussion for other IP addresses used by this editor. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

info box honors

Why do players like Drew Storen have long lists of goofy honors in their info boxes? Is the "Indianapolis Star Super team" really notable enough for the info box? Or the "Hendricks County Flyer Athlete of the Year"? Usually only Major League honors go in the box. Spanneraol (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnny Spasm adds them and if anyone removes them he reverts there edit. He does this with a lot of other edits that he doesnt agree with also.--Yankees10 02:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a really bad idea to have High School awards and dubious college honors in the MLB info box.Spanneraol (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree.--Yankees10 02:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We'd already discussed this at Pete Rose. They should be removed. Infobox is limited to the MLB awards topic and All-Star appearances if I recall. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but he has decided not to listen. He doesnt do it to the Rose infobox anymore but every other article he still does.--Yankees10 04:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Then just remove them. A single user working against consensus can't make a lot of progress against a large concerted multi-user effort. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If he continues after you revert him, he can always be blocked for disruptive editing, but make sure you don't get yourself in 3RR trouble when you revert him. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I think that's probably the best course of action. If there are multiple editors who disagree with his changes and revert them together, it becomes nearly impossible for him to work against consensus. Cooperative editing at its finest. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed them from the Twins prospects on their 40 man roster, and I have those pages watched. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

FINALLY..... Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If I'm going to be discussed at length like this, you all could at least have the courtesy to let me know. That said, thank you Muboshgu for letting me know. Yankees10, you never cease to amaze me.

I created Drew Storen's article right after the draft. He was a first round draft pick, and there was nothing to put in his infobox other than high school honors and items of that nature. It seemed a logical thing to include; I'm creating an article for a guy who is a first round pick. Doesn't it at least make some sense to include amateur awards he's received to justify the early selection? Yankees10, do me a favor and don't answer that question.

I would NEVER include high school awards and awards of that nature with a major leaguer, and certainly not one at Pete Rose's level. Yankees10, if you have evidence to show otherwise as you claim in this debate, by all means, enlighten all of us.

As far as minor league teams and minor league awards go, there was a debate a while back; I don't have the link handy, where it was determined that this was indeed appropriate information to include in the player boxes of minor leaguers with no major league experience. However, as Muboshgu and I recently discussed, there probably is also a consensus contradicting that one as well. I personally like it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember a discussion about minor league teams being allowed in infoboxes but I don't remember one about awards. But, I have only been following this talk page closely for about a year. Prior to that it was sporadic. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I find the comments on contributors above to be unnecessary. I also recall the same discussion as Djsasso, but I haven't heard anything before now about minor league/amateur awards. That being said, the same rules apply to all articles, regardless of who the person is. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, we seem to agree on minor league teams. Let's open up a debate on awards. Yes? No?

I say yes UNTIL he has major league experience. For example, Wizardman recently removed the minor league honors from Wilson Ramos' infobox. That seems appropriate. Likewise for Drew Butera, Drew Storen and any other article I created for a minor leaguer. For that matter, even if I didn't create the article, and that article's creator included minor league awards, then remove them once he hits the majors.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't put any awards in infoboxes, that is the sort of thing best left to the prose. However, if you are going to have awards in the infobox I would probably only list the most important of those awards, which in my opinon would only be MLB ones. Ideally I would just list entry to the hall of fame in an infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the infobox says career awards and highlights, and since the infobox is also a major league infobox, it should be limited to major league awards, preferably those under the scope of the awards FT. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point in adding things only to take them out later. If something is notable enough to be in the infobox. Thats why I also disagree with Johnny about the minor league teams. Things should either go in there or not.. If the event/award/team is notable it should be included.. if it isn't than it shouldn't. Notability is not temporary. Spanneraol (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, infoboxes aren't about notability. They are supposed to summarize the key points of an article. So if the key points of a minor league player are his minor league awards then perhaps they should be there. But I would probably create a new infobox for minor league players in that case or rewrite your MLB infobox to be generic for more leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be open to a minor league players' infobox which could also solve the semi-dormant issue of the major league teams in the infoboxes of minor league players. It should have common parameters to change over easily to the MLB infobox, though. I could take a stab at whipping something up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Spanneraol. Wikipedia is all about adding information and removing it later. I think what was notable about Drew Storen when I created the article a year ago was important information to anyone interested in reading about this first round draft pick a year ago. This information clearly gets less and less notable with the establishment of a major league career.

Articles about minor leaguers are for avid baseball fans. Fans interested in seeing what is on the farm for their favorite baseball teams. I believe the more information provided, the better.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually all articles are supposed to be written for people who know nothing about the subject. In other words non-fans. This goes for any topic from politics to music to sports. You are supposed to assume your reader knows nothing about baseball or the player themselves. It is supposed to contain information that will always be relevant to their biography, and not just trivial facts that are interesting at the time, but rather something someone is likely to want to know in 100 years. -DJSasso (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is setting too high a bar to require an editor to judge which facts will always be relevant, since without a crystal ball, it is impossible to determine what future events will make past incidents more or less important when viewed within the overall context of the subject's life. (Note this isn't an excuse to include trivial, non-notable information today; it just means that a warranted fact today may not always be warranted in future.) Isaac Lin (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnny, how is the "Hendricks County Flyer Athlete of the Year", whatever that is, really a notable award? ... KV.. I don't see the need for a new info box.. how would it differ? Would you include both boxes? Because the current ones with the MLB team listed remains my preferance as I like to see which organization the players belong to.. their minor league team changes often several times a year. Spanneraol (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Was "Hendricks County Flyer Athlete of the Year" one of the highlights I had for Drew Storen? I'm not even sure. In any case, may I point out again that I created that page and listed those awards a year ago right after he was drafted. Such information is notable for a first round draft choice we know very little about (in my opinion anyway). I whole-heartedly agree that it should not be in his infobox right now. My preference for these articles is that they remain fluid, and what is notable at one stage of a person's career would become more trivial later, and thus removed.

When major league infoboxes first began being used for minor leaguers, I didn't agree with it, but I've actually grown to like it, and agree with Spanneraol on that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that honors from college and minor leagues don't belong in major league player infoboxes, I also would like to add a reminder that Wikipedia aims for a global point of view. Thus, I hope there's consensus that, where appropriate, infoboxes should include honors received from other top-level leagues or international competitions such as Nippon Professional Baseball, the Negro leagues, and the Baseball World Cup. I mention this because I've seen these types of awards deleted in overly zealous efforts to "clean up" player infoboxes. BRMo (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you that honors from those international leagues should be included. Spanneraol (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The question does remain, however, as to what career highlights should be attributed for minor leaguers.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are minor league honors, put them in prose. This is an encyclopedia, after all, so we are all about article-writing. By the by, foreign honors are cool with me too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the difference is in putting them in prose or putting them in the infobox. Either way, this information will be removed eventually once the player develops a more relevant resume. My understanding of an infobox is that it is to give an overview of a player's career. If the highlight of a player's career up to this point is that he was a Florida State League All-star, then that is the highlight of his career, and it should be part of that overview.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason to remove minor league information from the prose of the article of a player who's in the majors and developed further. The infoboxes should be standardized across the project, and minor league awards don't need to be part of it. — KV5 • Talk 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Derek Jeter, for example, won a slew of minor league awards. After what he's accomplished in the major leagues, it would be ridiculous to include them in his infobox. If it is the intention of the infobox that it remains standard (and I do not believe it is), and does not contain information that will eventually be removed (I don't agree with that, either), then I guess we shouldn't include minor league awards in the infobox (we're now up to 3 items I don't agree with). Do we pose this as a question to WikiProject Baseball's entire audience, or does this debate settle it?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the entire audience. There is no reason the minor league awards shouldn't be in prose, as the article would be incomplete without it. But they don't belong in the infobox, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — KV5 • Talk 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a better way to say it. I agree. - Masonpatriot (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New Article

I'm thinking of creating an article that will show the pitchers with the most walks allowed. The problem is, I don't know how to name it. There already is an article dealing with the hitters with the most walks. I don't want people to get confused with the article above. Can you help me name the article? Thanks. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't love those top 100 articles. But why not just "walks issued"? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that they should not be titled as "Top 100" or "player with more than XX statistic". That should all be commonly titled, preferably with "MLB career leaders in XX" and not with an arbitrary cutoff. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Baseball League

For those interested, (probably just myself and Afaber012) the new Australian Baseball League has been starting a marketing push within the last week and a website is now up www.theabl.com.au. Couple of good advertisements featuring Travis Blackley, Ryan Rowland-Smith and one completely featuring Peter Moylan. The league starts in November. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 10:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

TfD

Hi all. Just wanted to notify the project that we've got an active TfD discussion: {{MLB hitting coaches by team}}. A prior discussion in January determined that these templates aren't necessary unless there's a lead article that links them together (like we have at {{MLB managers by team}}). Just thought you ought to be aware. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Montreal and Quebec

I started a discussion at Talk:List of Major League Baseball managers on the names for Montreal and Quebec, and would welcome additional input. The discussion has wider implications than just this article, so I believe discussing it on this page would be appropriate. As there is a long history of these places having English names in common use, with a multitude of reliable sources, which is acknowledged by Wikipedia's use of these names for their articles, I believe it would be appropriate to use the English names with the text of baseball articles, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on geographical items. I realize some editors feel that the English names are a corruption of the French names. Regardless of whether both names arose simultaneously (in the case of Quebec, from an Algonquin word) or one came from another, the names have been in use for hundreds of years now, and I believe the general consensus is that these internationally-known places have multiple names in different languages. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a sidenote, this issue doesn't relate only to the spellings of Montréal and Québec, but also to the spellings of the names of hundreds of Latin-American players in today's game and throughout history. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion thread I am starting relates specifically to entities with established names in different languages. In order to keep the scope of this thread limited, I ask that discussion of player names be held in a different thread. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Players do have established names in different languages. It's the same issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I would like to keep this discussion to entities (places or persons) where their names in multiple languages have long, historic precedence in innumerable reliable sources. Current-day players are difficult to compare to places that have existed for hundreds of years, so I would prefer to keep this discussion separate from cases where historic precedence does not exist. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The historicity is not under debate here. The issue is one and the same, regardless of whether you would prefer that the discussions be separate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In many cases with player names, it is unclear if the player has chosen a name in another language, and if there is a general consensus on the player's name. In the case of places that have existed for a long time, there is a general consensus that can be observed. Because this topic can expand to cover many different cases, I would like to focus on the one where a general consensus is apparent. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Place names keep or lose them based on if there is an established english version. Wikipedia has long established that Montreal and Quebec lose them for example which is why those pages don't have them. Person names however, I have always been of the opinion that they always keep them. I have been through far to many wars at the hockey project to fight about this one again because its clear wikipedia as a whole has never been able to and will never be able to come to a clear consensus on this. As such I just suggest using the "engvar" method of dealing with it. If you see it leave it, if you don't see it leave it. In otherwords never change it from one version to the other as long as its consistent on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion - Baseball players by state

FYI, there's a discussion of a proposed renaming of these categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 22#Baseball players by state. BRMo (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Player photos

It seems like people are taking the policy of using pictures of players on their current team in the player infobox a little too far. Take for example, Jeff Baker. Yeah, the current picture of him is in a Cubs uniform, but all we can see is his back and rear end, while there is a perfectly good picture of him in a Rockies' uniform that actually shows his face. I think the WikiProject needs to put some guidelines about photo usage, because the amount of pictures of players' backs is getting ridiculous. They're okay when absolutely no free alternative is available, but should a "back shot" really replace a picture of someone's face just because the picture is of them on their current team? CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The infobox image should always be the image that shows the player best. That's the point of the infobox. If there are several good images that show the player well and they span multiple teams, then the current team would be preferred in the infobox. — KV5 • Talk • 20:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that even needs a guideline - that's just common sense. Between this and me catching people removing pictures altogether for no reason, it's high-time we had a bot to make sure the best available pictures are attached to each article. Wknight94 ^talk 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I had just brought this up because I had noticed, like Wknight94 said, people removing or moving perfectly good pictures in favor of lower-quality pictures (usually of players' backs, which are pretty worthless for the infobox) just because said picture was of the player on the current time. Maybe it's time for us to develop some type of official policy on pictures so we can avoid having these type of pictures from pervading player articles. CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)