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 (62) talk  → Featured lists (211) talk  → Good articles (559) 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

First ejection

I have also posed this question at the umpires task force talk page: Should the first ejection of an umpire's career be considered notable enough to be included on his page? I think the answer is clearly yes in cases where the umpire only has a small amount in his career, but I would also argue that it is enough of a milestone to be added on any page. However, these kind of questions are what this page is for. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ejections are, unfortunately, not rare, and I believe that highlighting any routine ejection would be placing undue weight on the event. isaacl (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That is true but I would counter that home runs are not rare either. I think it would be hard to argue that a player's first home run doesn't belong on his Wiki page. I would say that the first ejection is a similar milestone for an umpire. I am not saying that it is something to celebrate, but at the same time, umpires don't have many statistics and ejections is one of the most significant, if not the most. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, based on the articles I have seen, a player's first home run is not included in the person's article (assuming there are no notable circumstances surrounding the event). Umpires have ejected many people in the minors prior to reaching the majors and how they handle them and use their judgment in problematic situations is part of how they are evaluated for promotion. (I agree that personally they feel like they've passed a milestone by ringing up their first ejection in the majors, but it isn't notable in the overall scheme of things.) isaacl (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'm quite surprised if first home runs really aren't being included but if they aren't then I guess first ejections shouldn't be either. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I partially retract my earlier statement; after I did a few more spot checks and found some references to first home runs (Alex Rodriguez, Gary Carter, but not for Barry Bonds), I looked at the Featured Articles for non-pitchers, and I counted two out of eleven articles that mention the player's first home run. Nonetheless, my view on including the first ejection for umpires is still the same. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A first home run, victory, strikeout, or whatever or a player is clearly a milestone, an accomplishment. An ejection is not the same - it is not an accomplishment for an umpire. It may be the umpires fault, it might be the offending party's fault. There is no inherent value to using ejections as a counting statistic for umps. If umpire A has 200 ejections vs. umpire B's 100 ejections, that doesn't make him a "better" umpire. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good argument. First game, first game as crew chief, first postseason game, first postseason game as crew chief. Those are the umpire milestones I can think of. Ejections are the equivalent of runway excursions - people generally don't want them to happen, they don't happen all the time, but they happen often enough that they aren't particularly notable unless something else happens as a result of it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and number of seasons in majors, number of seasons as crew chief. Forgot those. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

One major difference between 1st home run, victory or even game, etc. versus first ejection is that home runs, victories and games are all official, highly visible stats. I don't think there is an official stat for ejections, and even if there is it is barely publicized if at all. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Isaacl that the guiding factor should be WP:WEIGHT. On that note, I know WP:BASEBALL/N presumes MLB umps are notable, but how much non-trivial independent coverage do they get outside of ejections. I randomly pulled out Hunter Wendelstedt, and that's all that is mentioned. Just curious, I have no interest in challenging any guidelines on this one.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Jim Joyce. Joe West. Also, something like this. It happens, but usually it's something significant. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of the bios end up as routine mentions of some bad call, and routine boxscores refs that he was the umps in XYZ game, and non-independent coverage from MLB.com. At the very least, looking at the articles you pointed out reminded me that websites like Hardballtimes might have some comprehensive evaluation of umps outside of mainstream trivial coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There's enough BLP libel on umpire's talk pages and ejections will just make it worse. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Um

Has anyone ever noticed that List of Major League Baseball perfect games and Perfect game are pretty much the same article? Except for the spots were they contradict each other:

Over the 135 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 22 official perfect games by the current definition.

That's from List of Major League Baseball perfect games. On perfect game we see:

Over the 143 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 22 official perfect games by the current definition.

The next sentence in both articles is:

More people have orbited the moon than have pitched a major league perfect game.

And it goes on like that. The prose is substantially similar on both articles. It appears that perfect game sees more regular editing attention as the correct statistic

During baseball's modern era, 20 pitchers have thrown perfect games.

appears there, while on "List" we see

During baseball's modern era, 18 pitchers have thrown perfect games.

Perfect game also has a lead section that "List" does not, but other than that, the two articles are nearly identical. And forgive me if this is controversial, but do we need two virtually identical articles? I would say redirect one to the other, but as perfect game is in better shape of the two and List of Major League Baseball perfect games is hardly a likely search term, the latter article should simply be deleted. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Muboshgu had intended to split out the MLB-specific information from the "Perfect game" article into the list article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 27#Perfect game for the related discussion thread. isaacl (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea was to do it the way we did the hitting for the cycle and List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle, and the no-hitter page and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters. I've gotten distracted with other things and haven't gotten to this one. Anyone else can step in. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems that after the split, the content was restored by the edit, hence the duplicate info.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this still going to happen? Because having two separate, (somewhat) simultaneously maintained articles that are functionally identical...I just don't see the point. 75.94.63.254 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I. The article is currently tediously and unnecessarily long. Redundant information must be removed at the earliest TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Carthage44

Carthage44 (talk · contribs)
This user has been known to us for his past behavior. Now, he's starting to edit war about the smallest of things: he wants us to wait until the All-Star break before the next stat update, and is rolling back valid edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of coming here earlier. I have had my share of trouble with this user, and at some point his contributions are going to be outweighed by his disruptive conduct. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely got serious ownership issues, and has now edited his user talk page to remove the entirety of the dispute. I believe the line has been crossed. -Dewelar (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's almost a step forward that he even discussed it with me this time. When you say the line has been crossed (or was a long time ago), does that mean something can finally be done? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh...it just means that, to my way of thinking, the moment one starts hiding the evidence of one's misconduct, one has made a tacit admission that one recognizes that it is, in fact, misconduct, and therefore requires hiding. That's a line of a different sort, and not necessarily one recognized by TPTB. -Dewelar (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Undoing valid edits like this should be considered vandalism. Have you considered bringing this to ANI? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have previously been to the dispute resolution noticeboard awhile back, as can be seen somewhere in here. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't looked at what exactly is going on in "this" situation, but I can contest to the fact that I have seen people remove discussions or warnings from their own talk page. I'm saying that it is usually to hide behavior, but in some cases it certainly looks that way. I've had ip vandals give me "warnings" when I revert their edits and I usually remove it as nonsense, so not every talk page discussion removal is trying to hide bad behavior.JOJ ^Hutton 21:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

While your comment wasn't directed towards me, and may not have been affected by my comment at all, I would like to clarify that I did not mean undoing talk page comments was vandalism. His undoing of stats updates was vandalism. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, here are the relevant talk page guidelines at WP:TPO: "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." Now you can quote the guideline verbatim. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that while talk page issues were mentioned, they aren't the real concern here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I know the Baseball project likes to update stats daily, but instead of 162 edits to a page, wouldn't simply updating the pages at the end of the season like WP:Hockey does make more sense? Just seems like a lot of work to update all players daily instead of once per season. I see no issue with being upset with the user for doing this since this project updates daily though. If a daily thing is the will, I wonder if there's a bot that could be created to do it automatically? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I will respect the viewpoint of the hockey project, however I disagree with it. If users want to take their own time to help keep one of the most widely-known websites in the world up-to-date, I don't believe they should be hindered. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not any such policy was in place (to my knowledge, we don't have a policy on how often to update stats at all), and really whether the policy states that edits should be made annually, daily, or only at the full moon, our policy would not, nor should it, ever stand in the way of editors who wish to keep pages current. If the updates being made are accurate, then in addition to potentially biting newcomers, reverting them is a waste of time and energy that could be put to use in more constructive ways. If anything, I'd say the hockey project's policy is detrimental to Wikipedia as an entity, or certainly a great deal moreso than our lack thereof. -Dewelar (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

An additional note: the edit linked by Ryan Vesey wasn't reverting the stats to the beginning of the season, but to June 27, for no apparent reason -- other than that Carthage44 was the one who made that particular update, that is. -Dewelar (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, from the hockey perspective, we are fortunate that our set up leads to few attempts at updating statistics. We're also a little different than the baseball project in that we utilize career statistics tables, and in many cases, editors who attempt to update the current season's stats fails to also update the career totals, so a mess has to be cleaned up either way. Now, as to the baseball project's viewpoint, since the infobox stats section includes an updated date, that only serves to encourage drive-by editors to come along and update. Consequently, setting an arbitrary limit on when updates should happen is counter-productive, so I'd agree with you guys that Carthage44 is wasting their, your and everybody's time by reverting. Resolute 23:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care who updates the stats or when, as long as they change the date when they do the update, User:Mnap25 tends to do a lot of updates and never changes the date and hasnt responded to my request that he do so. As for Carthage... I've had issues with him on the season pages.. and reverting valid edits cause he doesnt want them updated is a bit much. Spanneraol (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that Carthage44 should be notified of this discussion. I'll leave him a note now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment My suggestion is to notify this project of any disputes that anyone feels is not being resolved. Editors can watch the page(s), and it may be eaier to reach consensus and hopefully avoid edit warring. If not, it should be easier to identify if there is a real culprit.—Bagumba (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Carthage44 has made a handful of reverts to the Adam Dunn article within the past 10 days, several of which fail to provide an edit summary. When he does provide an edit summary, it has often times been "stats not correct." In instances of the latter, the user needs to provide a more complete edit summary; is the user not aware they may be using a different source than other users? Different sources update stats at different times. My source has no issues with credibility or verifiability (MLB.com), so I fail to understand how the stats could be "incorrect." Are they not to his liking? If you look at the user's talk page, you will see comments (since deleted) by the user stating "I can manage the page on my own" and "I do it because others do it incorrectly" in response to Muboshgu, AutomaticStrikeout and others. Keep in mind the users he is often times reverting are not novices. The user no doubt has ownership issues (echo what has been said above) and fails to build consensus or discuss sources, etc. with other users. It is very difficult for me to believe the user is acting in good faith. When talk pages have been utilized in the past, the tone/comments have been sophomoric and attacking, another reason why I fail to see the user acting in good faith, and perhaps most importantly, are discouraging other editors. Zepppep (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Chipper Jones

Hey all. Someone nommed Jones for GAN. While it's not at that level yet, would anyone be willing to make changes and try to improve it if I provide a detailed review? Thought I'd ask here before adding too much detail if no one's going to fix it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to help. Chipper is one of my "homeys." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Same thing with Yankees - Red Sox rivalry. Someone did a driveby nomination, and I'm too busy to wade into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

69kb of prose? Eek. Yeah I feel bad for whoever takes that on on both sides. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I also like how there are TWO large sections on the 2004 ALCS and as much detail on the last three seasons as there is two entire decades between 1940 and 1960. That article doesn't need a GA nomination, it needs someone to take a weedwacker to it. Resolute 23:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And that weedwhacker should be named WP:RECENTISM. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, though, as it pertains to this particular rivalry, that's probably a fair weighting of those two eras. The rivalry as such didn't really kick into gear until the mid-70s. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I agree about the timing, but I still feel that '04, '09, '10, and '11 do not deserve as much weight as they're given compared to the '80s and '90s. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I was responding more to Resolute there. I also agree that it should be done by trimming the later years rather than expanding the earlier. -Dewelar (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

MLB attendance

I started a discussion on some recent edits to the introduction to the Major League Baseball article regarding MLB's attendance. Any input is welcome. isaacl (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion to create a new section in the article, "Popularity", which can cover the relative popularity of MLB with other sports leagues, as well as the historical popularity of MLB. Feedback within the discussion thread is welcome, in order to help establish a consensus. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Mathews

Pitcher Bobby Mathews is listed at 297 wins in the all-time wins article. He needs to be removed. Many of those wins came with the NAPBP and the AA. I would think that the lists should only have MLB stats, thus NL and AL. Arnabdas (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The 19th-century American Association is considered a major league by official sources, so those stay. There's no clear consensus on the NAPBBP, of course, but that's a discussion that hasn't been resolved in a century of debate. If that's a fight you're willing to reopen at this time, more power to you :) . -Dewelar (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just saying to be consistent and verifiable. MLB.com didn't have Mathews at 297 wins when I looked him up in the all-time wins list there. I really don't care, but think we should have some sort of standard. As for the AA, I am not sure who you refer to as "official sources?" The company/corporation known as MLB did not start until the American League was born. The AA was a "major league" but not apart of the organization known as Major League Baseball since it folded before MLB was established as an organization. Arnabdas (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the Major League Baseball article, the organization recognizes itself to date back to 1869. There's a section there which lists what leagues are officially recognized by MLB itself as major leagues (the AL, NL, AA, Federal League, Union Association and Players' League). -Dewelar (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick question Dewelar, as per the article, it states

"Several other defunct leagues are officially considered to be major, and their statistics and records are included with those of the two current major leagues. These include the Union Association (1884), the American Association (1882–1891, not to be confused with later minor leagues of the same name), the Players' League (1890) and the Federal League (1914–1915). In the late 1950s, a serious attempt was made to establish a third major league, the Continental League, but that league never played."

However, I do not see a source for that information. Do you have something that officially said by MLB ever that states those leagues are considered apart of Major League Baseball and were not simply major leagues? Arnabdas (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Understanding that this is semantics, technically the entity known as Major League Baseball actually did not come into existence until 1903, not 1901, so obviously nothing from before that time could be considered "part of" it. For that matter, the entity known as Major League Baseball did not even have jurisdiction over the AL and NL until 2000, so if one wished to be truly pedantic one could claim that any records before that date are not truly MLB records either.

However, since MLB's own web page claims that the organization dates back to 1869, the waters are a bit muddy. Trying to do a web search for "major league" in regard to baseball in a vacuum is nearly impossible. For better or for worse, the two terms "major league baseball" and "Major League Baseball" are used interchangeably in the press, and have been for decades. We must therefore look at what the source itself says. When the MLB website lists these other leagues on their player pages, which are marked as being those players' Major League Baseball records, they have de facto been accepted as Major League Baseball.

Admittedly, however, I believe the recognition has been never been officially announced, which makes precise citation difficult. MLB itself was a bit shaky on its own history for most of its...well, history, and most of what it recognizes today is based not on its own decisions, but decisions made by outside record-keepers (e.g., Elias Sports Bureau) over the decades.

All that said, I would not object to changing all of the pages to un-capitalize "major league baseball" if that winds up being the consensus. As I noted above, it's probably technically more accurate anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have looked around again for an acknoweldgement from MLB on what it considers its actual date of origin, and again I have located nothing. Maybe it is time for "we the people of WikiPedia Baseball" to petition Bud Selig to answer this question once and for all? If we are to use MLB.com as the standard for all baseball statistics, then the NAPBBP, the UA, and the PL are out (since they are not included). Likewise, the NL, AA, AL, FL are in. In this case, the stats could be amended with an "*stats from NAPBBP, UA, or PL not included" for all players affected by this. Then, in the "Teams" section, you'd have make UA and PL sections, like what's been already done for the NABBP, example: Albert Spalding. Then, when that's done, are players that only played in the NAPBBP, UA and PL no longer inheritably notable? Or should we just stick with what we have been doing, using baseball-reference.com and retrosheet.org for all stats, since they have been recognized as "reliable" resources?Neonblak ^talk - 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we're jumping the gun a bit here. As it stands, there's no reason to believe that the issue with MLB.com isn't just an oversight or a temporary glitch. -Dewelar (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement of 1869 being the origin refers to the Reds being the first team to have all salaried players from what I understand. The NL didn't officially start until 1876 I believe. I think consensus should be that MLB started then. It isn't complete as it is now, but it started then. However, we can't simply go by opinion and we need verifiable sources. Therefore, I propose putting in footnotes for all players stating that the totals include all of the other major leagues for all of those early players. If the player only played in the AL and NL, then they don't need that footnote. The footnote could read something like "stats for this player include totals from the AA, NAPBBP, UA, and PL." Arnabdas (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead should explain which leagues are included and why, with footnote of notables source that choose not to include the leagues. If it is clear which reliable sources we are getting the stats from, I dont think footnotes for indiv players are necessary.—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins is using as its source. Should this this list just be modern era? Charley Radbourn is listed with 309, but MLB.com has him with 282.—Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably using either Retrosheet or Baseball-Reference. MLB left out the Players' League stats for some reason (although I have some theories). -Dewelar (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Further checking reveals the same issue with Tim Keefe, who is listed without his PL stats. The Hall of Fame bios for both players include those wins, though. I will write to the MLB website and see if I can get a response. -Dewelar (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, the NAPBBP stats are verifiable. MLB just has never recognized the league as a "major" league due the rampant corruption within it. Which is why the NL was created with teams having the power and not the players. I think the stats should be used for these players per vetted reliable sources like baseball-reference.com and retrosheet.org.Neonblak ^talk - 05:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The name of the article has "Major League Baseball" in it. If the intention is any major league and not specifically MLB, it should be renamed and detailed in the lead. That being said, isnt MLB more notable.—Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If MLB does not recognize it, I don't think we can consider it apart of MLB records. All of these records articles should be edited to say which league stats are included and which aren't if we can't find a reliable source Arnabdas (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. There are other major leagues besides Major League Baseball; the stats in several of the other leagues should be counted and I as you can see below, perhaps an official, verifiable update is coming soon because only those leagues which are recognized by the MLB should be included in stats, with a separate mention of stats in other leagues not recognized. The Jake Beckley article has been a bit confounding for me. MLB.com lists him with 2,763 hits but doesn't appear to include the 167 hits he had in the Players' League, which Baseball-Reference.com does list, but there is a difference of 4 hits between B-R and what Beckley's HOF plaque states (2,930 career hits). Beckley is certainly not the only player article that stats will be difficult to list. If the HOF historians put 2,930, that's what I went with on the article. However, I know a lot of editors use B-R as a go-to source. Zepppep (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

I just received a phone call from MLB.com. The statement I was given was that the site is "currently focused on modern leagues", and that the PL and UA will be included in a future MLB.com update. I asked for an official citation for the fact that these should be considered major leagues, and was told that they would have to transfer it to their New York team, and I would likely receive another call on Monday. So, unofficial confirmation that these leagues are considered part of MLB history, hopefully with something more official to come. -Dewelar (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Something web-accessible from them is needed, whether it be a press released, updating their site, new page on MLB.com, etc. Zepppep (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think for now we can move forward with inclusion if that is the case with a citation tag saying the source is needed. That way the information is there and then can be verified by inserting the web links when they are available. Thank you for your work Dewelar! Arnabdas (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Second update

Well, I finally got my secondary reply from MLB, and it was...less than hoped. While it is, technically, a confirmation that all the leagues that we presume were "major leagues" are, indeed, considered such by MLB -- or, more precisely, the Elias Sports Bureau, which is MLB's official steward of all things statistical -- it was neither a confirmation that they are "part of Major League Baseball" as requested above, nor a document usable as a reference. It was nothing more than an e-mail containing that statement. However, the e-mail did pointedly exclude the National Association in its list of major leagues, which at least gives us a clue to how MLB views its status. I don't know how much help this has been, but I am loath to press the issue any further. All in all, a disappointing, if expected, result of the inquiry. If anyone would like a copy of the e-mail, I will gladly provide it. -Dewelar (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cardinals-Cubs

Can people please contribute to this article. I have done my best by adding some of the matchups prior to the Cardinals joining the NL. The article before I got to it was mostly devoted towards the McGwire-Sosa HR chase, which is silly considering the 1.5 centuries these two teams have faced each other. This thing needs to be drastically improved. Arnabdas (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I put a statistics table in an article?

Is this allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuDarvishFan (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Which article? And what statistics table? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you mean a table of the players' career statistics, that's against the consensus of this project. There's a discussion thread on this in the archives of this talk page, but I'm too busy to search for it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth is that against consensus? Are there some sort of copyright concerns? I wouldn't think so because uncreative factual information isn't copyrightable; however, the way it is presented might be copyrightable. In any case, a career statistics table is reason number one that I would go to a sports bio. We could even create some fancy transclusion method where we use one overall list, or we could transclude from the season statistics, like the table seen at 2012 Minnesota Twins season. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I looked. See here. It's not a copyright issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very unconvinced by the arguments presented there. I understand the difficulty with stats not being updated, and perhaps the tables should list stats prior to the most current year or the infobox should include a note to update the stats box when the infobox is updated. I feel like a discussion should be reopened but with community input outside of WikiProject Baseball. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the former, especially with a hidden comment note. Something like <!-- By consensus, players' career statistics are only updated through the end of the most recently completed season --> - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck enforcing that. These tables are too cumbersome, both in terms of the size it takes up bite-wise, and also in terms of maintenance. Try telling an IP editor how they're supposed to be handled. Besides, tables like that are completely redundant to external stats sites, which exist for that very purpose. They do the numbers, we do the prose. I'd even argue the stats tables at that Twins season page should go. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen you argue the latter before, and I disagree - not just because I'm the one maintaining the 2012 Washington Nationals season equivalent table, but because we have at least one GA with them in it: 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season. Logically, that means that they are part of good season articles, although I also agree that they should not outweigh the prose. In the Twins case, that means that that article needs some serious prose-writing. Finally, Wikipedia is a work in progress. If our data is out of date, it's because it's unfinished. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have data! - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We have only the one season article GA, and it would remain that way if the stat tables were removed because of the prose. The Nationals article has some nice prose, but the table isn't the most intuitive. You can't tell by looking at it that the sortable function is enabled, for instance. So that we can all see the appropriate policy, I'm quoting WP:INDISCRIMINATE:

“ Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2008, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely. ”

As I don't see how listing every statistic is necessary, and they aren't all discussed with the proper context, it seems best to me in a players article to summarize the key points (triple crown stats, stats where the player led the league, any top 10 finishes) and leave the rest out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That ignores the entire purpose of the table. If I want to know how many stolen bases a player had each year, I'm not going to wade through a bunch of text to find out. Tables are for organizing information and presenting the information in an easily understandable manner. Even 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season doesn't contain the table statistics in prose... because it shouldn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I !voted to not have stats before, but I've softened my stance since the discussion on team game logs. Players stats, in an ideal world, would be good to have in the same article without having to go to an external site. I wouldnt go adding every sabermetric stat, but some stats are reasonable and expected. Not allowing stats doesn't necessarily mean stat editors will start to write prose; they might not edit period. Updating tables only during the offseason seems like a reasonable solution that addresses out of date updates. Poor editors, whether they be registered or IPs, should be dealt with through discussions, enforcing edit-warring, seeking page protection, ANI, etc. A good article isn't just all stats, but neither is a good article all prose.—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exactly. "Necessary data" doesn't cover every statistic, I agree, but it does cover the "big 10" at least (R, HR, RBI, AVG, SB, W, L, SV, ERA, WHIP) - the ones that are presented on the front page of MLB.com. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A statistic table is ok in certain situation, and depends on the statistics shown. I'm completely against adding player season by season statistics in most biography articles because Wikipedia isn't a place to have a overload of statistics and it defeats the purpose of external websites like baseball reference. Something like regular season logs are fine. Secret ^account 23:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

External site have more stats than WP bios will ever have, like splits and game logs. WP consolidates from multiple sources, whether it be prose or stats. If it wasnt for incorrect stats or badly formatted edits, I'm sure most of us as a reader (throwing aside the editing concerns) would find some subset of yearly stats in the bio useful. Just like there can be excessive text, there can be excessive stats.—Bagumba (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, for articles about individual players, text in combination with the infobox, should be used to flesh out significant career statistics. I agree with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, that stats reduce the readability of an article. A link to the player's page on Baseball-Reference should be sufficient for those interested in statistics.Orsoni (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind this postseason

Remember, this is attractive:

Hatted table

January 7 - Giants Stadium 5 L.A. Rams (OT) 19 December 31 - Veterans Stadium January 14 - Candlestick Park 2* N.Y. Giants 13 NFC 5 L.A. Rams 21 5 L.A. Rams 3 January 6 - Candlestick Park 4 Philadelphia 7 1 San Francisco 30 NFC Championship 3 Minnesota 13 January 28 - Louisiana Superdome 1* San Francisco 41 Divisional playoffs Wild Card playoffs N1 San Francisco 55 January 6 - Cleveland Stadium A1 Denver 10 Super Bowl XXIV 3 Buffalo 30 December 31 - Astrodome January 14 - Mile High Stadium 2 Cleveland 34 AFC 5 Pittsburgh (OT) 26 2 Cleveland 21 January 7 - Mile High Stadium 4 Houston 23 1 Denver 37 AFC Championship 5 Pittsburgh 23 1 Denver 24

This is not:

Hatted table
First Round Conference Semifinals Conference Finals NBA Finals                         1 Golden State 4 Western Conference 4 Seattle 2 4 Seattle 2 5 Detroit 1 1 Golden State 4 2 Chicago 3 3 Kansas City 2 2 Chicago 4 1 Golden State 4 2 Washington 0 1 Boston 4 4 Houston 1 4 Houston 2 5 New York 1 1 Boston 2 Eastern Conference 2 Washington 4 3 Buffalo 3 2 Washington 4

See the difference? Remember that. Just a friendly reminder. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{07:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}

I hatted these for ease of readability. I agree fully with the reminder. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sam Holbrook

I'm not sure whether Holbrook's ejection of Zack Greinke merits mention in the article. I would be interested to hear what some of the more experience editors have to say. I could have raised the issue on the article talk page, but I am not sure that very many people would have seen it. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page. isaacl (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Don Williams - which one?

I jsut created {{Bethune-Cookman Wildcats baseball coach navbox}}, and a coach by the name of Don Williams was the head coach for just the 1988 season. I am going under the assumption that it's got to be either Don Williams (1958–1962 pitcher), Don Williams (1963 pitcher), or Don Williams (baseball scout). Can someone please help me figure this out? Jrcla2 (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but this seems like a clear case of WP:NENAN. They're for navigating and right now there isn't two articles in it that could even navigate from one to the other.

As for which Williams, you could always call or email the Athletic dept at BC and see if they can help you or search the archives of the closest newspaper to the University....William 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that it was probably the scout one because he also spent time as a coach... but i don't know for sure... that article should probably be renamed.. i think his coaching career is more notable than his scouting one... Don't really see a need for that navbox in any case. Spanneraol (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

FLC review/feedback urgently needed

I have nominated two baseball-related lists as FLCs and they are waiting for reviewers. Please check out the 20–20–20 club (nominated 18 days ago) and 50 home run club lists. Feedback and comments will be much appreciated. Thanks a million! —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mayday call. The 20–20–20 club list has now passed the 22 day mark and could easily fall off the FLC if consensus isn't reached. The main sticking point is whether or not this list passes criterion 3b or not. Only one review has come in the last 13 days, so a discussion is urgently needed if action is going to be made (i.e. pass or fail). The current support–oppose is deadlocked at 4–3.If a few more folks from our baseball community can give it a quick look as well as input, that would be great. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Rubén Rivera

We could really use more input on this article regarding the presentation of his 2003 baserunning gaffe. Please see the talk page and get involved. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mnap25 (talk · contribs)

This user has been continuously updating player statistics without updating the date for the stats. He has been asked about this three times on his talk page, but as far I as know he has not responded. What is the next step? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Carthage44 reverts

There is edit warring at Template:Chicago White Sox roster. Can others either help edit if it is against consensus or otherwise help with the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Chicago White Sox roster?—Bagumba (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I put a 3RR warning on his page. In case he reverts again, it's his fourth, so it should go to WP:3RRNB. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In the event further action is needed, it would be worth noting that another edit warring warning was given on the editors talk page on July 20 related to another incident .—Bagumba (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

He deleted your warning notice you put on his talk page. Spanneraol (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There has been some issues with Carthage44 before. I suggest WP:AN3 (note that you don't need to violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring) or WP:ANI if you want to reference the entire issue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note edit warring at Adam Dunn. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll watch that, but as of now I don't see a problem at the Adam Dunn page. There has been a BR so far today of the BRD cycle, but I don't see edit warring at this point. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the previous edit warring. It was to show that the edit warring is an ongoing problem. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that deleting comments from one's own talk page is acceptable. Continuing edit warning would not be.—Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not concerned that he deleted the warning. I'm concerned that he continues to edit war over his ownership issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 

BTW, in case any of you don't know, there is another thread about this user on this talk page right above (not even archived yet). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Text within the 3RR warning posted to the user's talk page included: "should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." However, I don't see the deletion of the warning or failure to utilize any of the article talk pages as of late (or user's) as a good sign that the behavior which has been displayed and seen by several users is going to be changing anytime soon. Of course users are allowed to pretty much do what they like on their talk pages -- we all know this user is not the only one that leaves praise on their talk page whilst deleting any hint of criticism or beyond -- but the behavior displayed is not good. In a different thread (above), the user was also notified on their talk page there was a discussion, but the user has not left any comments or explanations or appeared to give me any reason for hope at this point. Zepppep (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just removing a warning is considered acknowledgement that its been read. It is not an issue. I have my eye on him, if he continues to edit war he will be blocked. No use wasting more time talking about it, if he isn't here to discuss. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

DJsasso is right, that's pretty much all there is to it. Although an admin might want to warn him with a non-template sentence or two explicitly telling him this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification I wasn't saying deleting something on the user's own talk page was cause for concern -- but rather the behavior displayed not just recently, but for a long time. There are multiple ways a user can acknowledge they've read something. Zepppep (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty aggressive and did not appreciate the comments at Talk:Paul Konerko. See info on outing. Zepppep (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The comments he made in Talk:Paul Konerko should already be grounds for a block. Insulting any user by stating they "clearly know nothing about baseball", claiming they "do not understand English" and telling them that "people like you don't belong" clearly violates WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. That alone should merit a block (not to mention his disruptive reverts). I say it's time to take severe action. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning about the attack since it was a separate issue from edit warring. If it continues let me know and I will block. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bloom6132. The user has been given a tremendous amount of chances. The edit warring might be separate but to me it's all intertwined. Of course I might be a little subjective since his comments were aimed at me, but I am far from the first user he's directed such vitriol towards. When editors do things not to his liking, they're often met with a swift "you know nothing," "you're dumb," etc. and often times have their contributions reverted. It's sad because rather than working on articles and talking about sources, what should be included to make an article stronger, etc. editors are having to deal with this counterproductive stuff. What has been echoed but feel it needs to be said again, these are the types of comments that drive new users off in droves. Look at the White Sox roster template; how many times did the user hit below the belt? The message has not gotten through. OK, guys...wish you all a great day...I'm going to go do some editing! Zepppep (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree too. This has to be the final warning; if they cross the line again at all, this should hit WP:AN/I. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I gave him the courtesy of a civil, non-template warning in May regarding a different personal attack, which was acknowledged by a reversion that is the typical response of this editor.—Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

He has also been warned on his talk page about his recent deletion of comments from Talk:Paul Konerko.—Bagumba (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLB OriolesNationals

Template:MLB OriolesNationals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the 1937 World Series

An ip has twice in the last 24 hours changed the teams that played in the 1937 World Series. Not sure why, but I reverted it as vandalism both times. Better to keep a good eye on that page for a few days. Also I had to revert some deliberate factual errors at Chicago White Sox as well, by the same ip.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 31 hours. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Digest

Have all issues of BD been completely removed from Google Books? It seems I can't access any of them for sources (they result in HTTP 404) and unfortunately, Internet Archive doesn't seem to have copies of them either. Say it ain't so! —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping it's a temporary glitch, as I've used many of their articles as citable sources.Orsoni (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They're back up on google books, but the 404 errors remain. Based on that I'm hoping it's a glitch. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Google about it. Albacore (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Major League Baseball controversies

I'm not sure if this article should exist... seems like it contains a lot of original researc and it's definition of "controversy" seems unclear. Spanneraol (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think an article listing controversies can be very helpful, however there should be an understanding of what "controversy" means. Also, this article is nowhere near complete. I'd suggest that the article be broken down into sections based on decades, i.e. "the 1920s", "the 1930s", etc. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of it looks to well documented and obvious notable controversies. The "Black Sox"', "Jackie Robinson", and "Steroids" seem obvious. Brian Stow, Steve Bartman, and the pine tar incident less so.JOJ ^Hutton 19:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Bartman and pine tar incidents are still very well known. I added a section about the Jim Joyce/Armando Galarraga game, but I still think the article should be broken down into chronological sections. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is full of factual mistakes....William 19:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a list? That would help in making corrections. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I could do the fixes myself. The Chisox won the WS in 1917, the Mets started up in 1962, Rose betting on baseball led to him being banned in 1989 not the 90's, the pine tar being economical sounds like rubbish. Jackie Robinson and Brown v. Board of Education weren't long separated but 7 years apart. There's other things that need checking(Was Brett ejected?)

The thing is- I'm thinking of doing a AFD on the article. Original research and no definition of what is and isn't a controversy....William 19:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict-related break) Way too many problems with this article. Addressing some earlier subjects about what it should address: "Steroids", certainly. "Jackie Robinson" per se, no, but "Major League Baseball color barrier" or similar. "Black Sox" is in no way controversial in the way, say, the banning of Benny Kauff was. After all, there aren't a lot of people who will speak out in favor of throwing games. Stow is in no way a controversy either. There might be an argument for Bartman, since although he didn't do anything technically wrong there was certainly a lot of uproar over it, but it's much less controversial than, to pick a similar occurrence, the Jeffrey Maier incident. Really, either this article should be renamed "Major League Baseball scandals" (which seems to fit its actual content), or it needs to be about actual controversies -- e.g., the designated hitter, the wild card, instant replay, quality of umpiring, the stewardship of Bud Selig, and so on. -Dewelar (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Stow isn't a controversy. There is Category:Major League Baseball controversies, that is a bit more thorough and perhaps might help as a starting point for an article.Orsoni (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• And as with similar articles in the same "controversial" genre, the arguments begin as to what is notable and what is not. Sink o' wiki, sink. JOJ ^Hutton 21:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb would be if it is still remembered 30 years later, such as the Cleon Jones shoe shine incident.Orsoni (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And of course, everyone has their own formula as well. Not that the 30 year rule isn't a good idea, but deciding the criteria for these types of articles tends to be just as controversial as the subject matter they contain. JOJ ^Hutton 21:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This. SO MUCH this. I tend to lean toward Spanner and William's idea of just AfDing it, but figured I'd at least provide some feedback on what it should/shouldn't contain should it survive such an AfD. -Dewelar (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Instant replay would seem to be a natural addition to this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure about the encyclopedic value of such an article, I believe that controversies are part of the rich pageantry that make up the game, just as much as the statistics that baseball fans obssess about. Perhaps because many of these controversies occured during the post-season, when the entire nation was watching, such as the Jeffrey Maier game. Just because the subject may lead to stringent debates shouldn't be a reason to reject the subject. That's what the Baseball Project Talk Page is for. I'll agree that the article in it's current state doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Maybe the article should be limited to incidents that involved an umpire's call.Orsoni (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have other concerns. What makes the Reds briefly calling themselves the "redlegs" controversial, per se? There was nothing controversial about Brian Stow's beating. We're going to mention Barry Bonds and steroids, but not many others who have been accused or caught? The Gallaraga near-perfect game isn't even controversial, as everyone agrees it was an incorrect call. The lack of MLBers in the Olympics is unlikely to have been a significant controversy, and it certainly was not why baseball was removed from the program. The dilapidated state of Athens' Olympic baseball stadium is a good example of what was the cause. Jackie Robinson should not be listed by name as a controversy, but rather the colour barrier should. Nothing on the owners getting caught colluding in the 80s? That article is just a complete mess. Resolute 23:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dan Denkinger and the 1985 World Series? Mike Andrews and Charley Finley? Bowie Kuhn reversing sales of players made by Finley? Charlie Dressen's departure from the Brooklyn Dodgers? Gene Mauch and the 1964 NL Pennant race? Elrod Hendricks and Ty Cline? Carlton Fisk and Ed Armbrister? Phil Linz and his harmonica? Are all of these controversies or some of them or none of them? Remember Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

Controversies can be done. If clearly defined. Like the Jane Blalock cheating controversy, when the leading money winner in ladies professional golf got suspended by her fellow players. Golf has never had a cheating story like that before or since.

Baseball on the other hand we'll be arguing back and forth what goes on the list and what doesn't....William 23:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats why this article shouldn't exist. Unless someone can find a reliable source on the subject of controversies in baseball then anything that goes into this would be original research. Spanneraol (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Articles on specific controversies or incidents have merit. Those can be easily defined. Something like this will try to join completely unrelated topics into one article, and that never meshes well. Resolute 00:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I created the deletion discussion[1]. Creating AFDs I have a lot of experience with but this is my first baseball one....William 00:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm mixed on deleting the article. On one hand, there is merit to "A" MLB controversies page. There have been a few controversies over the years, but which sport can be said not to have any? On the other hand, I'm not looking forward to the whole debate of what goes in and what goes out of the article. How controversial a subject is, may be objective, and what may be a major controversy to one person is nothing but a minor bit of trivia to another. Debates on what is "controversial enough" to be included usually lead to hurt feelings and long threads. We all know that this project has had it's fair share of heated debates, and although we work together peacefully 99% of the time, that 1% usually takes up about 75% of our debate time. Needless to say, the inclusion criteria of an article like this will undoubtedly be tested time and time again, as new major and even minor controversies arise in ball parks across America (and Canada for you Toronto folks) every summer. My only hope would be that if the article is kept, that only major well documented controversies that effect the game overall be included, not minor single game events that had little or no effect on the game as a whole.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

To shirk our responsibilities as baseball editors would seem to deny the existence of baseball controversies. As this discussion indicated, baseball history is steeped in lore that involve controversies. It would be a shame to have no reference. Perhaps it will fall on one of our editors to BE BOLD and create his own article, with reputable sources naturally.Orsoni (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Any controversies that are part of MLB lore are likely suitable for inclusion in History of baseball in the United States or the history section of Major League Baseball. isaacl (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The article's creator is back and have to read his section[2] on the 1985 World Series. He added another section[3] about the Yankees which is almost as bad....William 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow...that Yankees one is cringe-worthy, almost to the point of wondering if the author is actively torpedoing the article. -Dewelar (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd say that the author is not helping his/her cause with those recent additions. Most of what is being said in the deletion discussion is that there is too much synthesis involved, and the latest additions just confirm it.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Baseball controversies

Come here[4] and tell us if you think the article should be deleted. Bringing your glove and bat are optional....William 00:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism from 24.184.231.115

The user has engaged in clear vandalism (page blanking, smart aleck remarks) -- multiple times. Zepppep (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I see (only) two troublesome edits. In the future, it's more effective to warn the user on their talk page first. Persistent vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV. This project can help in cases of edit warring, namely, to make sure you yourself do not get accused of edit warring also.—Bagumba (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The user was warned 2x by ClueBot. I saw/see no reason to keep going with the same. Zepppep (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NPB franchise and postseason

Template:NPB franchise and postseason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes page dead

As you can see, the page to track recent changes in this project is no longer working. Does anyone know how to fix this problem, or create a new recent changes page? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hunter Pence, Shane Victorino and maybe more coming

It's the trade deadline today, so it goes without saying that there is going to be a lot of activity on some articles for players involved in trade situations. It could be helpful if those who see this note would be willing to keep an eye on the activity of some of these pages, to prevent vandalism from sneaking in or all-out edit wars from breaking out. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also a reminder that {{Current sports transaction}} can be added to the article if speculation is constantly being added/removed.—Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unaware of that. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Standard infobox

Without mentioning any names, there is an editor out there who I've never seen him make a relevant edit. His sole purpose is to go around editing infoboxes to his liking. I've recently done extensive edits on Leo Cardenas and Jeff Conine among others, only to have him shadow me and rearrange the order of information in the infobox. That's it.

I've had this ongoing battle with this editor for years. I've sent him several "Why don't you just leave me alone" messages over the years to no avail.

I was wondering if there was anyway a standard infobox could be made. In other words, along with the tabs that ask name, position, image, birth_date and so on, there were tabs under highlights reading World Series, MVP, All-Star and such. Therefore the order is set and comes out the same for all ballplayers and I don't have to waste my time with this nonsense.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

J.S., you may want to look at the infobox honors formatting suggested here. The talk page discussion point became a little confused, and no conclusion was reached. If you want to pursue this to conclusion, I, for one, will strongly support you. If you want to discuss off-=wiki, please fee free to email me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Good old Johnny Spasm always playing the victim.--Yankees10 16:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to all to be civil.—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yankees10, I'm not playing any victim. I'm suggesting that there be a set format so I don't have to deal with you anymore. I really don't wanna deal with someone like you following all my edits and doing trivial little edits that add nothing of relevance to an article. I'm not trying to be uncivil when I ask this, but please name your last significant edit.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:AVOIDYOU over the use of "you", as it could come off as a personal attack. Discussing infobox format here is fine, but I would advise that you follow WP:DDE if you have specific concerns about another editors behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not personally attacking anyone. If you look at Yankees10's recent edits, Schoolboy Rowe and Jeff Conine for example) all he does is follow my recent edits and rearrange the infobox to his liking. It's kinda irritating and I've asked him repeatedly to leave me alone. If there was a standard format, which is what I'm suggesting here, my problems would be solved.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)--J.S.

I'm not going to get involved with some of what's posted here, but in regards to a standard info. box, it's something that could be considered. Like Dirtlawyer1 stated, look at the archives for past discussions. In regards to my opinion on what should be included as far as a standard, the list of MLB players who have won or played in a World Series or named an All-Star pales in comparison to those who have not. So I would be in favor of whatever applies to most number of players and would be the easiest to edit/maintain. Zepppep (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following you around its called a watchlist. I've told you this numerous times before, but you just don't listen.--Yankees10 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that POM and POW mentions in the stat box was deleted by one of you in one of the articles referenced {Conine). You might want to check out this thread found on Archive 28. Zepppep (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather large thread. Can you summarize its relevance as the thread seems it has more to do with aesthetics.?—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is the second time in two months that this discussion has bogged down in extraneous details that have derailed the thread, this time, after degenerating into a "who f---ed with my last edit" discussion on infobox formatting. Personally, I have some opinions on how we should format infobox honors, but it's far more important that we come to some sort of resolution on this issue, so good and able project editors don't engage in back-and-forth reverts of what should be the settled formatting policy of WikiProject Baseball . . . if I re-post the suggested inforbox honors formatting from two months ago, under a separate section heading, can we end this tit-for-tat discussion and focus on determining a consensus on this issue? Tit-for-tat reverts of something this basic is an enormous waste of everyone's time; can we settle this once and for all? Pretty please? I have an organized thread ready to start the discussion . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is a standard infobox where the info is just plugged in, but if there was a consensus order stated, I would go with it.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

That is an implementation issue. Whether it is done automatically in a template or is edited manually, we first need to have a consensus on the actual format.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Then let's work on that. It's always been my opinion that World Series championships come first. This would be my order:

• World Series Championship
• Rookie of the Year
• League MVPs
• Cy Young
• Gold Glove
• Silver Slugger
• All-Star
• League leaders
• Any other awards or notable achievements in chronological order.
• Hall(s) of Fame

Again, this is just my opinion. I'm willing to be wrong and go with whatever consensus is reached. I wish others would hold the same mentality.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

HOF is listed in its own box with a background and borders different from the stat box. And to me, that's a good thing. For me, a more general question needs to be answered: is it better to list accomplishments chronologically (as would likely be presented in the body but not necessarily the lead) or in some order that is agreed upon here (i.e., which accomplishments/awards are most-least important or however it would be arranged)? Zepppep (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, HOF is listed in its own box, however, college halls and other such halls aren't. That's why I listed it. I'm a big fan of chronological order, but I like the idea of World Series Titles, All Stars, league leaders and such having the 3X or whatever in the front. Perhaps if someone was just a one time All-Star it could be listed chronologically.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

I think for the reader, order of significance is most useful, and for any remaining awards at the end of the list, alphabetical order will make them easier to find. isaacl (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's order of significance, we'll need to reach consensus on what is more significant...Cy Young Awards or All-Star Games? MVPs and World Series rings...And so on. I would put the items in order of greatest number to least, with ties decided by whichever feat came first. If a member has 10 All-Star Game tabs, that would go first with the years selected behind it. All the way down the line to whatever has been won the fewest number of times. If there's a tie (person has 2 rings and 2 ASG's and both occurred in same years), then we put them in order of significance (based upon this group's decision), or alphabetically. Zepppep (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a 100% accurate order of significance, and my guess is that we can actually reach an old-fashioned consensus on this: something everyone can live with. I don't think most-to-least is of the most benefit to readers in terms of carryover benefit when reading multiple player biographies, and will tend to put lesser awards (that are easier to win frequently) over key accomplishments (like an MVP award). isaacl (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I will again argue that being a member of a championship team doesn't belong in an individual infobox. It says nothing about the accomplishment of the player, only about the team of which he was a part. I realize that there are people out there who place value on the "count the ringzzzzz, bay-bee!" argument of player quality, but honestly it's more about being in the right place at the right time with the right teammates than it is about the player. However, I recognize that I've pretty much lost that argument, but can we please, please refrain from saying that it's the most significant individual accomplishment in a player's career, above and beyond even the MVP or CYA? I realize that players would claim that it is, but in objective reality it says little or nothing about the player himself. -Dewelar (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about this order:

• League MVPs
• Cy Young
• Home run champion
• Batting average leader
• ERA leader
• Saves leader
• Postseason MVPs (World Series first, league second)
• Rookie of the Year
• Silver Slugger
• Gold Glove
• Any other awards or notable achievements in alphabetical order.
• All-Star
• World Series Championship

I moved All-Star and World Series Championship to the end not to indicate a lower significance, but to make them cappers with which to end the list. Again, just looking for something that everyone can live with, not a perfect order that meets everyone's personal preferences. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking along these lines. Maybe making them fields in the same way HoF is? -Dewelar (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think All-Star should remain at the top. Its probably the single-most reliable indicator of the success (both on the field and overall popularity) of a player.—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Silver Slugger should be above the stat leaders, as it signifies they were the best hitters in the league, as opposed to looking at just one stat category. I think Gold Glove should be grouped with SS, as it signifies being the best defensive player.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would All-Stars be that low? A players number of All-Star selections is considered a general way to determine how successful a players career was. I don't see how it makes any sense to have that on the bottom.--Yankees10 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• All-Star
• WS champions
• Gold Glove
• Silver Slugger
• Awards in order of notablility
• Notable league leads (home runs, batting title, etc)
• Retired number
• Notable records (should only be the real notable ones like Ripkens consecutive games)

This has generally been the order used on most infoboxes without much objection (other than Johnny Spasm). What is wrong with this order?--Yankees10 18:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I can live with Isaacl's list above. Order of appearance isn't a big deal for me as long as they are standardized in every article.Orsoni (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the general order specified by Yankees10, but what I think we really need to vet are what the awards of notability are. Would we count the Thurman Munson Award? Roberto Clemente Award? Babe Ruth Award? I think we need to come to a consensus on each of these to avoid future conflicts. As for notable league leads, we should specify what the stat categories are. I would propose all pitching triple crown categories plus saves for pitchers, and all hitting triple crown categories plus stolen bases for hitters. I would also propose allowing significant feats (e.g. no-hitter, perfect game, 4 HRs in game) to be mentioned, along with notable clubs (e.g. 3,000 hits, 40-40, 20-20-20). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Isaacl's order is fine with me, except I would put World Series titles first. Baseball is a team sport, and the team reaching the ultimate goal should come first. Yankees10, the only reason that is the general order in most infoboxes is because you go around changing them to that order.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

Based on previous discussions it was determined that only official MLB awards would go in the infobox.--Yankees10 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just took a peek at how the other big four sports list awards in the infobox, and found that each does it differently. Basketball lists championships first, football lists MVP's and Pro Bowl appearances first, and hockey doesn't even list awards in their infoboxes. A bit odd. -Dewelar (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Dewelar, WP:NFL and WP:CFB list infobox honors in chronological order. With 16,000+ football bios, I am sure, however, you can find a lot that do not conform to the project standards. Just like WP:BASEBALL, there are a lot of football-fixated idiots who spend their days tweaking NFL infoboxes to their personal preferences without regard to the actual project formatting standards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm just interested in a consensus. I think World Series titles should go first, but I'm willing to be told that I'm wrong. If I'm given a set order, I'll run with it. I'm tired of the worthless edits that add nothing to an article other than to change the order I put information in infoboxes. Such edits scream "get a life."--71.54.246.53 (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

Enough with this bullshit, stop taking all these little jabs at me and grow the fuck up.--Yankees10 01:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Both of you two should chill out. If the IP really wants a consensus like he says, he needs to quit making inflammatory remarks. AutomaticStrikeout 01:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is silly.. Johnny and Yankees have been going around like this for years... making silly edits to info boxes that dont matter. Mostly its dumb formatting edit wars... Really I dont think we need a set guideline for what goes in these things as it should depend on the player... Some minor award may be the only award some guys win and thus they should have it listed.. but if they have won tons of awards then it should be slimmed down. But arguing if world series or all-star appearances go first and how they should be formatted is just dumb and a waste of time. Spanneraol (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit silly. We should decide on content before we decide on pecking order. World Series is a team award. It should be placed in a franchise article or season article, but not appear in the stat box for a player. If a player wins a World Series MVP, that is an individual accomplishment and should be included. League awards, such as the Babe Ruth Award, the Clemente Award, Doby Award, etc. should not be included; character assessments and any awards a player may receive for their character should be detailed in the body. Being the MVP of a team should not be included, or other awards teams may hand out. Zepppep (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments: I don't believe number of All-Star selections correlates very strongly with a player's on-field success (though naturally it is correlated to some extent), due to other external factors that influence All-Star selection. However, recall in a list that the two most prominent locations are at the start and the end. I propose putting All-Star selections and World Series championships at the end, which will give them extra visibility and make them easy to find.

Regarding deciding on other awards, I suggest we decide on these ones first. The last time this was brought up, some editors said a consensus already existed on what awards to include, and I asked them to draw up a list based on this consensus. Unfortunately, no further progress was made. So it would be nice to at least have a starting point. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be cluttering the infoboxes with every single conceivable award that we can think of. Better to leave the infobox with only as much information as is needed to identify the subject and leave the details for the body of the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that no awards be listed in the infobox? Though there are some who have this opinion, I do not believe it is the current consensus view. Do you have a view on a minimal set of awards to include (and on their order)? isaacl (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the user was suggesting the info box should only contain the the awards considered most significant, but I can't speak for the user. Jojohutton did a good thing by creating the below list. I went ahead and voted. Zepppep (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am suggesting that. Why list awards in the infobox? It's encyclopedic information, but it's information that comes off like a list. It's information that should be allocated to the body of the article and written encyclopedically. A list of awards can be added to the a section on awards, but otherwise, keep the infoboxes as simple and as least cluttered as possible, otherwise they begin to grow out of control and become tiresome to look at and maintain. my philosophy is KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

List of honors and awards

Here's a fairly comprehensive list of examples of honors and awards that could be included in player infoboxes:

• 2x World Series champion (1978, 1979)

• No. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. We may feel this is a team accomplishment, but reliable sources and sports media absolutely refer to players as "x-time All-Stars and x-time world champions". It is a significant part of how they are rememebered. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 2x National League pennant (1898, 1901)

• No. Zepppep
• Yes for pre-World Series era. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No unless pre-World Series era. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Can't make up my mind J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 14x All-Star (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 4x NL home run champion (1957, 1963, 1966, 1967)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 2x NL batting title (1965, 1966)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• World Series Most Valuable Player (1964)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• NL Most Valuable Player (1975)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• ALCS Most Valuable Player (1996)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• NL Comeback Player of the Year (1986)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• AL Rookie of the Year (1996)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• AL Manager of the Year (1989)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 4x Gold Glove Award (1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes except for Derek Jeter. _{Joking of course} Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hickok Belt (1955)

• No. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hutch Award (1966)

• No. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 3× NL Rolaids Relief Man of the Year (1977, 1978, 1980)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 3x Silver Slugger Award (1992, 1996, 1998)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Babe Ruth Award (2008)

• No. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Limited There was no WS MVP from 1949–1954—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Limited per Bagumba. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Branch Rickey Award (2007)

• No. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 2x NL Cy Young Award (1978, 1981)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lou Gehrig Memorial Award (2009)

• No. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Roberto Clemente Award (2010)

• No. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment I support this as its an MLB-issued award frequently mentioned in relation to its winners, and is a major indicator of above average baseball player who is also strong in the community. This isnt just given to a bench-warmer, and most (if not all) are all-star players, and many were HOFers. Take a look at Roberto Clemente Award for winners.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral. It gets a far greater amount of press than any of the other second-tier awards. If I had to pick one it'd be that, but leaning no. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• MLB career home run record (715)

• Yes. Zepppep {Comment after 10 votes: All significant regular season records should be listed.)
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely. I think all significant records set should be listed --J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: if a player has multiple records, like Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds, how do we want to handle these in infoboxes? List them out like the other highlights we have? Have a section heading that reads "MLB records" and list them there? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we should probably have a separate section. Create a table that lists records divided into regular season, postseason and All-Star. That would be in-line with current FA Mariano Rivera. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I also think we should standardize the language for records, as I've seen a lot of variations of this. For example, there's "MLB record 714 home runs" for Barry Bonds, there's "Single-season hits record" for Ichiro, there's "MLB regular season leader in career saves" for Mariano Rivera, there's "Holds record for 2,632 consecutive games played" for Cal Ripken, Jr. I hate to make to derail this voting process with another thing to weigh in on, but I feel like if we're going to go through all this effort to achieve a consensus, let's go all the way. Y2Kcrazyjoker4(talk • contributions) 17:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Y2K, let's settle on what to include first. After we decide what to include, the next step is to decide how we are going to write it. Patience, Grasshopper. You cannot snatch the pebble from a closed fist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• MLB postseason RBI record (21 in 2011)

• Yes. Zepppep (Comment after 10 votes: I thought it was post-season records in general, not this particular stat (just like AL Manger (above), I thought it was speaking for both AL and NL). If other post-season records are not listed, such as number of playoff wins for a pitcher, then I would have to say no to this. If other significant records are posted, then I would vote "yes" that this would be one of those deemed significant.)
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Not a level playing field. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No for this particular example, Yes for career postseason records. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes with same perspective as Zepppep above. AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• AL career stolen bases record (337)

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 2× NL complete games leader (2003, 2004)

• No. Zepppep
• No. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• New York Yankees No. 5 retired

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. This already has its own template displayed in the body of the article. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Texas Rangers Hall of Fame

• Yes. Zepppep
• Yes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. -Dewelar (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes if this is their equivalent for retired numbers, No otherwise. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. I'm also in favor of college halls being in there. --J.S.
• Yes—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral Depends on the team, some have far more established Halls of Fame than others. Wizardman (talk)

23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pitched perfect game on January 1, 2001 (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)

• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pitched no-hitter on January 1, 2001 (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)

• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hit for the cycle on January 1, 2001 (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)

• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Unassisted triple play (May 12, 2008) (added by Bloom6132)

• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hit 4 home runs in one game (2012) (added by Bloom6132)

• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hit 2 grand slams in one game (2003) (added by Bloom6132)

• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• 3x MLB AL/NL [statistic] champion (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4) - please list all stats you wish to be included

• W, ERA, K, SV, AVG, RBI, HR, SB. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Stats making up the Triple Crown, as well as saves and stolen bases, are the most important. Anything else can be left out. –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. I also happen to believe that is a pretty complete list. --J.S.
• HR, AVG, SB There are the most mentioned indicators for hitting, power, and speed. K's for pitchers maybe, but really how often is it mentioned (aside from trivia purposes) that someone led the other categories? We really need to follow MOS:INFOBOX: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• No Didn't notice this was for MLB champion. AL/NL champion (already above) is more often mentioned. I would support SB champion for AL/NL, as Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Lou Brock, etc known for their speed. However, these are not as notable as BA and HR for sure.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes for triple crown stats, saves and stolen bases. No for any others Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes for W, ERA, K (for all staring pitchers, relief pitchers) SV (for any starter who's spent significant time in the bullpen, for all relief pitchers (closers)); AVG, RBI, HR (for all non-pitchers), SB (if it was a defining part of their career or they are high up on the all-time list) - Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes:W, ERA, K, SV, AVG, RBI, HR, SB.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No they can be included in the players page but not the info box Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• xxx [statistic] club (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4) - please list all notable clubs you wish to be included

• 3,000 hits, 300 wins, 3,000 strikeouts, 300 saves, 500 home runs, 20-20-20, 30-30, 40-40. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• 50 home runs –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No on 20-20-20 & 50 home run --J.S.
• No—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes on 3k hits only, neutral on others, No on any peripherals like 20-20-20. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• No to all. Most of these would already be detailed in the stats (such as no. of pitching wins), for the others, they could be linkable and in the lead and/or body. Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pitching/hitting Triple Crown winner (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)

• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes –Bloom6132 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes J.S.
• Yes. Wizardman (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• No Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes AutomaticStrikeout 22:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Major League Baseball Delivery Man of the Year Award

• Yes This is affliliated with MLB for relievers now, not Rolaids Relief. Unclear which one is not notable, so list both.—Bagumba (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes If the award has slightly changed over the years, then we would just list whatever was the award given at that time of the player's winning. Zepppep (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Both awards currently exist, but Delivery Man is marketed by MLB; not entirely clear if there was an official relationship between Rolaids and MLB before. Still, Rolaids was and remains oft-cited.—Bagumba (talk)
• Yes Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes.Orsoni (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Carthage44 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yankees10 & I have been going at it for years, and I would LOVE to put an end to it. Take for example Frankie Crosetti. The man holds the distinction of having won the most World Series rings of all time. There is little doubt in my mind that his World Series Championships is the first thing that should be listed in his box. After I completely rewrote his article, and put that as the first item in his infobox, someone else came behind me and put his All Star appearances first. My point? I think we need to have a consensus because no matter how great some other achievements are, stubborn people will always impose their opinion.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

Can we got on with it? Is no one else thinking a line-item vote is the way to go about it? We can write paragraphs of explanations all day long, or we can simply vote. This is not the first time this WikiProject has discussed info boxes. At the end of the voting time, we tally up the yea's and the nay's and we get on to part two: how the items are ordered. But first, it is my opinion we should decide what we will determine an order of before we determine how to determine stuff we don't know if we want included or not. This is done best by a vote. Zepppep (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think World Series Championships should be in infoboxes, and listed first. I'm on the fence for league pennants. Take Robin Yount for example. I think if asked, he would call playing in the 1982 World Series a career highlight. That said, Derek Jeter has won the World Series a zillion times. Losing the World Series shouldn't be in his infobox. Unfortunately, there seems to be some need for a case by case view of these things. I generally agree with the listing above, but suppose winning the Hutch Award is about the only thing the player has done?--71.54.246.53 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

While baseball may be a team sport, fans have always focused on individual efforts (i.e. 100 RBIs in a season, 20 game winners, Triple Crown winners, 30-30 club, etc.) Someone like Angel Mangual, who won three World Series with the 1970s Athletics, and yet it could be debatable how much of those three world championships he contributed to. Again, I say that I can live with the list Isaacl presented above.Orsoni (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So World Series titles come toward the end? I can live with that, but I don't agree with that being the case with Crosetti. For that matter, take Kieth Hernandez as another example. It could be reasonably argued that 11 consecutive Gold Gloves is his greatest achievement and this should come first in his infobox. I kinda wish common sense could be used and we didn't have to go through all this. As far as my individual feud (out of a lack of a better word) with Yankees10 goes, I've tried reasoning with him in the past, but he hasn't budged. The format in his head is the only one that is acceptable to him.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

For better or worse, Wikipedia editors often fail to reach a compromise agreement on subjective matters such as a player's greatest achievement. Thus, often the best that can be done is to come up with an objective set of criteria, like a fixed order in this case. While not necessarily optimal for one given player, it can help for comparisons of multiple players. isaacl (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this statement, you're in disagreement with me on the notion of a case by case approach? What about record holders? Would Crosetti's record come first in his infobox? Would setting the career home run record come first in Barry Bonds'? Would a 56 game hitting streak come first for Joe DiMaggio? Mariano Rivera's save record, the list could go on, but in each of the cases I've mentioned, it is their single most notable achievement.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

I'm a bit confused since in a number of other comments, you've stated a desire to get a fixed standard in place in order to stop the case-by-case disagreements (and you made a proposal for ordering the items), even if this standard is not one you personally would prefer. It seems that the current case-by-case approach for this isn't leading to article stability. isaacl (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer a standard order, as it would help the reader move seamlessly from one article to the next. Case by case would lead to even more arguements among editors.Orsoni (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Isaacl, I'm in favor of a standard order. I'm sorta throwing out there that perhaps setting a significant record might be the first item in a standard order. My previous statement shouldn't have been taken as believing in a case by case approach (though I can see where it looks like that), I was merely seeking confirmation of your stance.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

I voted above on which items should be included in the infobox; I strongly encourage everyone else who is participating in this discussion to do so. If you think something should or should not be included, now is the time to voice your opinion. I agree that there should be a set order in order to avoid this ridiculous churning of edits based on nothing more than personal preference. Using a case-by-case determination is simply a formula for more of the same. I have arrived at the point where I don't really care if the order is chronological, perceived importance or something else, but the items to be included and their order needs to be settled now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding a few things to vote on. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Same here. Mostly single-game records. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that list is getting freakin' ridiculous. I'm really beginning to think we'd be better off doing away with this altogether. -Dewelar (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors can just vote-down the ones they don't agree with. I don't think any good is done from removing highlights altogether.—Bagumba (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why I would have preferred to not be so specific on these... but since Yankees and JS cant play nice... I guess we're stuck with this. Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no need to reinvent the wheel when most articles are fairly consistent. Its beneficial in the long run to document this and not have to revisit this, and it also helps new editors. That being said, the community should not be so rigid that there cannot be some exceptions where they make sense. For example, even if batting titles are generally not listed first, it's be foolish to not have them first for Tony Gwynn when he is ... well ... known for batting titles.—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For players/managers who played in other major leagues, it'd be great if we could either come to consensus on "career statistics" and what belongs in there. Sometimes this has come to mean "MLB only" and if that's the case, the label should not be "career stats" but instead "MLB stats." Zepppep (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Starting point to build upon

About a year and a half ago, some editors stated they were interested in having a WikiProject Baseball style guide to preserve some of the consensus decisions made. If you'd like the draft style advice page to progress, I suggest we start with an initial compromise, so there will be something to build upon: can we identify a very minimal set of awards and honours to include in the infobox that everyone can live with, without prejudice against expanding the list later on? Let's try to take that first step, rather than getting stuck on focusing on the many steps to come afterwards. isaacl (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have something of a consensus, and I think it is as follows:

• World Series Championship
• World Series MVP/Babe Ruth Award (though we didn't have a vote on Bambuga's point, I think we can agree on it)
• LCS MVP
• Rookie of the Year
• League MVP
• Cy Young Award
• Triple Crown
• Home run championship
• Batting title
• Gold Glove Award
• Silver Slugger Award
• Rolaids Relief Man of the Year/Major League Baseball Delivery Man of the Year Award
• All-Star
• All-Star game MVP
• Significant career records (be it Home runs, hits, stolen bases, whatever)
• Significant single season records (be it Home runs, hits, stolen bases, you get the idea)
• Perfect game (just a thought, what about a catcher catching a perfect game?)
• No-hitter
• Cycle
• Unassisted Triple play
• 4 Home runs in one game
• 2 grand slams in one game (has anyone ever even done that?)
• Comeback Player of the Year
• 3,000 hits, 300 wins, 3,000 strikeouts, 300 saves, 500 home runs, 30-30, 40-40 clubs
• Roberto Clemente Award
• Manager of the Year
• Team & College Halls of Fame

Now we need to come up with an order. I listed it in the order I like.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

I think we should have a limit to these things, like say no more than 5-6 award lines per player... otherwise these boxes can get super large for some players. Oh and a big NO to college hall of fames... these are MLB info boxes. Spanneraol (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For the NBA in Template:Infobox basketball biography, we start limiting college highlights for players with > 5 lines. If an MLB player never did much else noteworthy, I see no harm in college HOF.—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit loose with the term "consensus"; for example, equal numbers of editors have supported and not supported including 2 grand slams in one game and the World Series MVP. Most people have not supported including hitting for the cycle, milestones / clubs, or the Roberto Clemente award. No real opinion has been stated for college halls of fame. isaacl (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a little premature to call it a consensus on any number of the items included on the voting list above. I suggest we permit the voting to go for five or six days, and let all project editors who have an opinion give voice to it. I really want to resolve this, and a stable consensus, where everyone who cared got to have their say, is usually the best way to achieve resolution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"1) Agree; too early to say a consensus has been reached. Let's give it some more time (a week or so). 2) No more than 5 items seems reasonable. MoS says it best: "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Zepppep (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just trying to get the ball rolling. I like Spanneraol's idea of a limit to the amount of highlights. Some of the less significant awards could get mention as a highlight for players who've never earned some of the bigger awards. Something like the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame, for example, might be worth adding to Donn Clendenon's infobox since there isn't much else in it. I wouldn't add the equivalent to, say, Pete Rose.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

There's typically a subsection like "Honors and awards" which if an individual has made, CollHOF would certainly be listed. But for baseball players, I don't see the point of CollHOF mention in the info box. It seems like players who don't have many things that would qualify to be put in the info box are just going to have to deal with a little less clutter. And isn't that OK? I don't think we should be searching for things to put in a stat box for players who may not have as many feats. We should judge its merit overall and for me, it's a no. Zepppep (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Once a concensus has been reached, I would suggest we update the infobox on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice article, then provide a prominent link to it from the Baseball Project's main page. I would also agree that lesser awards, such as the Clemente, College HOF, Cycle, etc, can be fleshed out in the text of the article, unless the player has few career highlights, then they could be listed in the infobox. As per Wikipedia guidelines, we shouldn't let infoboxes become overcrowded.Orsoni (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently working on Kurt Bevacqua's article. Do I mention his heroics in the 1984 World Series in his infobox?--71.54.246.53 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

Is it fair to say we're all in agreement items such as "cover athlete for MLB2K12" would not be placed in the info box? And no, Bevacqua's feats are not worthy of mention in the info box, as the only thing about a World Series that would be mentioned was if the team he played on actually won it, or he was was named the Series MVP (per above). Zepppep (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, the no more than 5 items limit is my new favorite idea. His performance in the 1984 World Series would definitely make a top 5 for him.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

A player's career is full of hot streaks and slumps. I would think that a hot streak that occurred during a World Series would be coincidental more than anything else. Even something as significant as Mazeroski's series-winning homer would be better served in the text of the article rather than in the infobox.Orsoni (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. On a completely separate note, what is Wikipedia's stance on the use of foul language in an article. I directly quoted Lasorda in Bevacqua's article. I could edit it if necessary, but for right now, it is a direct quote.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

Unfortunately, I believe it is permitted. AutomaticStrikeout 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

IP user, going into detail about any heroics in a WS game win, but overall Series, lost, would and should be exhibited in the body of the article. You can draw attention to such heroics in other ways, such as a subsection heading, box quote, indented quote, good prose (NPOV, of course), etc. However, "game-winning HR Game __ of 19__ World Series" does not belong in the info box. Regarding the foul language, as long as it's well sourced, I don't think it's against any policies. It's a reflection of the person who used such language, not of the particular editor who added it or Wikipedia itself for offering a way for people to know more about the person/situation. Zepppep (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be permitted. See Wikipedia:Offensive material. I might also note reputable sources may not always have the actual word, but instead work to replace it. Zepppep (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is applicable. On the other hand, many find it fortunate that there is no censorship. More to Bevacqua's article, I question whether the quote is mentioned often enough in sources to warrant a full quote in the article. Seems to be undue on those grounds, not the profanity used.—Bagumba (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit saying that we had a consensus 2 days ago, but it beats the alternative. We have a nice discussion, we make some decent progress and then it is forgotten. This always seems to happen. I'd like to actually accomplish something.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

Shot Heard 'Round the World

As it stands now, we have an article for the 1951 National League tie-breaker series and a separate article for the Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), which as we all know, happened during that series. A good deal of the "shot" article overlaps the series article, while much of the rest of it looks like fluff. I wonder if a merge might be appropriate. As a sidenote, this is the only outstanding issue before we nominate the MLB tie-breakers as a good topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge. As long as users can still find the current contents of the Shot article using the same keywords they do now, I'm in favor.Zepppep (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree merge. Talking about Thomson's home run, according to some members of my family, the woman who appears at the 0:38 mark of this video[5] of Thomson's home run is my mother. It looks like my Mom who would have been just over a month short of her 20th birthday at the time. Mom never said to me that's her, but I never asked. My younger brother says its Mom. She passed away in 1985....William 16:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of merging the articles. The "Shot" itself is notable as an event, and much has been written about it as its own entity. IME, most people who know about the Shot only know that it was a pennant-winner, and not many even know that it was the end of a three-game series and not a single-game playoff. There's a reason the Shot article existed long before the series article did, which is why they reflect each other: I used the Shot article as a base for creating the other and presuming that it would be expanded into something worthy on its own. It's unfortunate that it apparently hasn't. -Dewelar (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if it was merged Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) would still exist as a redirect, or proper disambiguation to the merged article would be in the main article Shot Heard 'Round the World. So getting access to the information will not be a problem even if it is merged.—Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge Based on Dewelar's comments, its understandable and normal how these articles got to their current state. However, I think there is enough overlap as they are today to warrant a merge. There just does not seem to be enough about the shot itself that would have it be undue weight in 1951 National League tie-breaker series. Also, the size of the merged article would not warrant a split per WP:SPINOUT. I think most of the pop culture section is trivial and can also be cleaned up (unless more significance is found).—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like there's certainly enough merge sentiment for me to formally open a merge discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If, as its lead states, "It is the most famous moment in Major League Baseball history.", then it needs its own article. (By the way, that assertion is not referenced!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be useful for an article if it's focused primarily on lore and how people have viewed it. However, that is also something that can be done in the 1951 article. i'm fine with keeping the two separate, but it would need to be clear that the article can survive on its own without it being mostly fluff and pop culture notes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I opened a merge discussion at Talk:1951_National_League_tie-breaker_series#Merge_discussion. Please vote there. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge I think there are thousands of articles on wikipedia that could be merged. This is a nice start. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.246.53 (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A User-Incentive Proposition

I know that this suggestion is likely to immediately draw some opposition, however please don't dismiss my idea without at least giving it consideration. I am proposing that we as a WikiProject create an award, the MVE (Most Valuable Editor), to be given out monthly to the editor who has made the most significant contribution to the WikiProject over the past month. Some will say that this is unnecessary, but I think it could help to encourage editors by reminding them that their contributions are not going unnoticed. Obviously, there are details that would need to be worked out, and I'm willing to take on that task if there is enough support for it. AutomaticStrikeout 21:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It simpler for individuals to issue their own Wikilove than to wait for consensus on this.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I know. What I am thinking of is a WikiProject-wide award. I believe, although I could be wrong, that other WikiProjects have done the same (I am aware of at least one instance). AutomaticStrikeout 01:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't we already have our own project barnstar? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd imagine we do. AutomaticStrikeout 02:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Afraid to say, but I'm opposed. The more time we spend on reviewing an editor's list of past month's contributions, etc., the less time we have to work on templates, improving sources, skirting vandalism, etc. Would also hate to see editor's choosing from which one editor "did the most in the last month." If we see someone contribute significantly or make something about our WP lives easier, then give 'em some dap. Zepppep (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest just starting a thread at say the start of each month to solicit recognition of any worthy editors. I don't see much need to narrow down this list to just one winner. isaacl (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think I could go along with that. Sounds like a good idea to me. AutomaticStrikeout 03:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Babe Ruth League

It just blows my mind to find that there is no article yet on the Babe Ruth League. Unbelievable! All I can offer for starters is this downloadable 2010 Inquiry Kit, an informational pdf prepared by the league. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was planning on starting it soon. It had existed, but was deleted due to copyvio. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And I just started it. Help out, everyone. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Good man, Muboshgu! Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/20–20–20 club/archive1

The 20–20–20 club FLC has now been placed under "Nominations urgently needing reviews." After more than a month now, with the support to oppose votes tied at 5–4 and no imminent consensus, should I just withdraw this FLC and wait till another time to re-nominate it? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO there havent been any action items, but merely a concern that it is too short. I dont see any benefit of withdrawing, and would recommend leaving it open so that it can either be promoted or a consensus is reached on what specifically can be done to improve the list.—Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up the discussion Bagumba. I'll keep the FLC open, since there already is a considerable amount of support. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We could sure use a lot more input here in order to break up the current 5–4 stalemate. Can anyone else please give some feedback? Over a month now and this FLC discussion continues to drag on (to say the least). —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins

I'm hopeful one or more project members may be able to assist me on the List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins. User:EdelweissD has all but claimed ownership of the page (he has made only 4 edits to pages other than this list) and refuses to allow anyone to change any aspect of the page, often giving a poor explanation/no explanation at all for reverts. I attempted to split the 3 long tables into 4 to increase readability, which was reverted. After undoing that and explaining myself on the user's talk page, it was again reverted with a poor explanation. The user has not responed to my explanation, only making some remark about a "know-it-all attitude". I asked User:Muboshgu for help, and he reverted to the 4 table version for readability, which was met with another revert by EdelweissD (with the explanation "readability"). Muboshgu also recommended I post here to ask for assistance. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the fact that it lists 500 people cuts down readability. We should cut the list down considerably, as we did cutting the home run page from top 500 to top 300. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if you could start a discussion on the article talk page (and I can copy the following comment to there if you do). The width of the user's browser window will affect how readable four tables are versus three. Unfortunately, due to the uneven lengths of the tables, if there is insufficient space for the fourth table, it will not float all the way to the left below the others. There isn't a good solution that I'm aware of to deal with the column length issue, without using later versions of the CSS style language that is only supported by the most recent version of Internet Explorer, or resorting to some Javascript to make adjustments on the fly. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the best option would be to reduce the list size from 500 to 300 and keep it at 3 tables. I had not thought of browser window width. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

500 players appear on the list? Wow, that is quite a list. 300 sounds like a much better figure. Secondly, I would recommend utilizing the article's talk page so you can generate consensus on edits you like don't/do like, Trut-h-urts man, as you may get additional users to weigh in. I see the article has more activity on it than I was expecting for an article like this; hence, other opinions might come rather quickly and in decent numbers. I don't see anything on the talk page regarding this most recent issue so I am not able to comment, but I might be willing to if the issue was present on the talk page. Zepppep (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now that I'm on my work computer, I can see that four columns is problematic for the smaller resolution. I'm boldly cutting the list now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be chopped. I would even go as far as right down to 100. 500 is clearly ridiculous. A page with only the top 10 in each stat category might even be a worthy endeavour instead of an individual page for each to avoid issues with NOTSTATS. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases, then, where I cut from 500 to 300. I'd prefer 100 too, but 300 is at least a foot in the door. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that 500 is NOT too many. Baseball has been around since the mid-1800's and for the hundreds of thousands of players that have played Major League baseball, the top 500 in any category is an accomplishment and should be noted. Thanks Carthage44 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That does not mean the list has to grow organically in proportion to the amount of players that have played in MLB... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: in 50 years, after thousands of more players have gone through the league, it would then be OK to have the list to contain 1,000 or so players? Where is the logic in that? Being in the "top" means you're at the top. A little bit like wanting to put CollHOF mention in a baseball player's info box if that player doesn't have any other feats of mention. We shouldn't feel bad for players and have to work at ways to make the good appear at the same level as the best. Anyone who's ever played a game in the MLB already is eligible for their own WP article; we don't need to worry about hurting a player's feelings by not including them in a list or searching for things to make their info box appear full. Zepppep (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLB SoxCubs

Template:MLB SoxCubs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLB MarlinsRays

Template:MLB MarlinsRays has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/30–30 club/archive1

I nominated the 30–30 club list for FLC three days ago. It would be great if I could get a wide range of comments and feedback from members of our baseball community for this list. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of championships won by the New York Yankees (2nd nomination)

Nominated this list for deletion, since it is an exact reproduction of information found in the main New York Yankees page's infobox. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets

The article Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced collection of Original Research. No commentary added, simply a collection of facts concerning the uniforms. Primary author has been indef-blocked, so I'm informing the relevant Project

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Achowat (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lincecum GAR

Tim Lincecum, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. —Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I had no idea how that article was GA. I think it's a good move, Bagumba. Zepppep (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)