Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

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)
  • 2x National League pennant (1898, 1901)
  • 14x All-Star (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010)
  • 4x NL home run champion (1957, 1963, 1966, 1967)
  • 2x NL batting title (1965, 1966)
  • World Series Most Valuable Player (1964)
  • NL Most Valuable Player (1975)
  • ALCS Most Valuable Player (1996)
  • NL Comeback Player of the Year (1986)
  • AL Rookie of the Year (1996)
  • AL Manager of the Year (1989)
  • 4x Gold Glove Award (1978, 1979, 1980, 1981)
  • Hickok Belt (1955)
  • Hutch Award (1966)
  • 3× NL Rolaids Relief Man of the Year (1977, 1978, 1980)
  • 3x Silver Slugger Award (1992, 1996, 1998)
  • Babe Ruth Award (2008)
  • Branch Rickey Award (2007)
  • 2x NL Cy Young Award (1978, 1981)
  • Lou Gehrig Memorial Award (2009)
  • Roberto Clemente Award (2010)
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)
  • MLB career home run record (715)
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)
  • MLB postseason RBI record (21 in 2011)
  • AL career stolen bases record (337)
  • 2× NL complete games leader (2003, 2004)
  • New York Yankees No. 5 retired
  • Texas Rangers Hall of Fame
Comment My reasoning being that this easily indicates players had a large impact on a franchise and likely have a prominent standing among the team's fans. Not an insignificant accomplishment and likely a a more lasting impact on their legacy then specifics about leading the league in some category.—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pitched perfect game on January 1, 2001 (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)
  • Pitched no-hitter on January 1, 2001 (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)
Agree that date of no-hitter is not needed, no matter the number of no-hitters Zepppep (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hit for the cycle on January 1, 2001 (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)
  • Unassisted triple play (May 12, 2008) (added by Bloom6132)
  • Hit 4 home runs in one game (2012) (added by Bloom6132)
  • Hit 2 grand slams in one game (2003) (added by Bloom6132)
  • 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)
  • xxx [statistic] club (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4) - please list all notable clubs you wish to be included
  • Pitching/hitting Triple Crown winner (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)
  • MLB All-Star Game MVP (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)
  • Home Run Derby winner (added by Y2kcrazyjoker4)
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.
You can't force people to participate in consensus building. The last few times this was discussed, it didn't get feedback from enough persons to establish a consensus. With more participants, a better sense of the general view can be determined. isaacl (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, it's not uncommon to have a discussion remain open for a week, as some people do no edit on a daily basis.—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Was just in the process of adding that after the discussion has lasted a week or so, I'd be happy to summarize the consensus as I see it, and others can review it. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm obviously chomping at the bit.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.
As I mentioned previously, we can help make the concensus permanent by updating the infobox on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice article to reflect the concensus choices. That way everyone can reference it the next time an infobox discussion comes up.Orsoni (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the plan, as we've both mentioned. isaacl (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Trying to sum up the above: 1) has consensus been reached on what can and can't go in an info box? 2) is the max number of items 5? 3) have we determined an order of items and how they should up top-bottom? 4) Am I right in my understanding that POM and POW awards aren't listed? 5) what is the verdict on CollHOF? Zepppep (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion is still ongoing regarding the items to place in the infobox, so there is no verdict yet. In order to avoid entangling the discussions (which leads to them bogging down, as there are too many directions to follow all at once), perhaps a new section could be started with the proposal to limit the number of items to five. As the discussion has turned to the contents rather than the order, let's finish that discussion and then discuss order. I suggest trying to reach a consensus on the number of items first. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, College HOF would be in the same boat as Texas Rangers Hall of Fame in the above sample...so it looks like 7 NO vs 6 YES, with 1 neutral, but the polls haven't closed yet.Orsoni (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A reminder for anyone who is awaiting a consensus to be reached: adding new items will result in a delay, to allow for more comments. Nothing wrong with that, of course; just something to keep in mind. Naturally once an initial set of items is agreed upon, it is also possible to have a subsequent discussion about more items. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Better to close off indiv items and leave the new ones (if any) open.—Bagumba (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no real rush, so I'd just as soon evaluate consensus all at once rather than trying to have a rolling set of items to go through. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
True. Seeing that you haven't vote, you are an even better candidate to close as an uninvolved editor.—Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
If I'm reading the thread above correctly, I would say the consensus is stat clubs (such as 300 wins) should not be included. I see a lot of "no's." Zepppep (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Limit on achievements listed in infobox

Although the discussion is still open, it appears that the general view supports a number of different categories to include. Given this, it has been suggested that a limit on the total number of items be imposed. Can you state if you support or oppose a limit? For sake of argument, let's say the limit is five, give or take one. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It would also help if we saw some examples of "bad" infoboxes. Perhaps there are other alternative besides a hard size limit (e.g. rmv redundant achievements).—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Support limit on achievements listed

I'm not sure a hard, fast limit will work for every player. Take Brooks Robinson for instance. He has 11 awards listed in his Career Highlights Section of his infobox. Removing five lesser awards still leaves 6 major awards. There may be some Hall of Fame members with even more major awards than Robinson. Fortunately, players like Robinson are few and far between, so we won't have to face tough decisions on most articles. I'm still ambivalent on whether I support or oppose limiting awards in infoboxes, but my gut feeling is that any more than 6 or 7 may stretch the limits of Wikipedia's policy of having as little information as possible in infoboxes.Orsoni (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I support removing them all so I guess that would be a limit of sorts. So many of these awards are far too detailed for an infobox. Hall of fame is about the only one I would list in an infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • If a common subsection (and thus, can be easily found via article's table of contents) I see in several player articles, "Highlights and achievements", is acceptable in articles, then I support a limit in the stat box per MoS Purpose of Infoboxes. I am particularly opposed if years are also to remain next to the feat in the infobox. If the subsection mentioned is not allowed, then I would have to switch my vote to "oppose limit." Zepppep (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I support having a limit on these awards, primarily to prevent excessively long infoboxes. I have no problem with having a full awards list towards the bottom of a players article, but I would rather not have it clog up the info box.Spanneraol (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I absolutely support a limit on the amount of awards, however, I believe that a hierarchy of awards needs to also be established to avoid arguments about which 5 highlights deserve to be in a given infobox.--71.54.246.53 (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

Oppose limit on achievements listed

I don't know if "hard & fast" is possible. Take Pete Rose for example. All-time hit king, 3 World Series championships, World Series MVP, NL MVP, 17 All-Stars, All Century Team & 3 batting championships all belong in his infobox. That's 7. There are, however, 12 items in his infobox not including records. I very definitely believe it should be cut down (to the 7 I've listed).--71.54.246.53 (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.
  • I oppose, as well. The vast majority of articles would fall under any limit. A limit would only really apply to articles for exceptional players, and for those, I think we would be cheating those articles by not including all awards/accomplishments on a consistent basis. What if player A and player B both won the World Series MVP Award, but we exclude it from player A's article because there were a lot of other accomplishments in his career? Also, how do we decide which accomplishments to exclude after hitting the cap? Seems like it would be a lot of arbitrary decisions to me. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    An order would be decided upon for listing the awards, and the top five applicable ones would be included. isaacl (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Make that three in opposition. Arbitrarily cherry picking which awards should or should not be included (just to adhere to a "limit") kinda sounds like original research violation to me. Don't get me wrong here; the awards info itself is not OR. The act of picking and choosing (i.e. setting a limit) clearly is. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Regarding the concept of picking and choosing being an original research issue: note that the whole discussion above is about picking and choosing what awards would be appropriate for the infobox. (Personally, I have no issue with trying to make that list more tied to what reliable sources use in prose to summarize a player's career in a paragraph, but the vote above is the closest we've come to actually getting a discussion going on this, so it seems like the best we can do.) isaacl (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Re: OR violation. It is not being suggested the awards can't appear elsewhere in the article -- simply the info box. By the definition of an infobox, it summarizes and allows readers to identify key facts at a glance per MoS. I would not consider winning several awards/feats as "key" facts, and thus, don't believe the other side is guilty of deciding arbitrarily or cherry picking. Zepppep (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • MOS:INFOBOX says it should "summarize key facts in the article in which it appears", I think awards certainly can qualify as key facts. The length on the summary is dependent on the subject. Even MOS:LEAD#Length only has guidelines on the lead's length based on the article's length, "not an absolute rule". One rough guideline would be to only list awards that would be expected to be described in the lead if this were a feature article.—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If by "awards" it is meant strictly awards, I have less of an issue with the no. of items that can fill an infobox, although not enough to reverse course considering a "highlights and awards" subsection is recommended in baseball player article layout. If awards also includes things listed (above) that had a fair number of supporters for inclusion, such as no-hitter and 4 HRs in one game (which are not an awards), then clarification may be needed to assure everyone involved in this process understands just what it is we're discussing. Also, by the list above, seems a majority supports Golden Glove Award to be listed. Would a player who has won one Golden Glove Award in say a 13-yr career have that listed because it is thought that would be a "key fact"? Zepppep (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    This discussion is related to the entire list of items being discussed in the vote above: everything within the section currently called "Career highlights and awards" in the infobox. Though I left the word "awards" out of the description of the question, just calling them "items", as a convenient shorthand I used it in the subsection headings for "support" and "oppose". I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. isaacl (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Gold Glove is a significant award and would be a highlight worth mentioning in the lead—and thus infobox—for most if not all players. Do you have a specific example, or is this a hypothetical question?—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    It's partly a hypothetical, as I was essentially stating (but not too clearly) if a player has won several awards (let's say 5 since that's what we're discussing) multiple times, are we also going to include an award the player won once, thus bringing the total to 6, perhaps over the limit determined (eventually) in this thread? I would argue it should not. Brett, Hershiser, and Torre won at least 5 awards that all have a majority of "yes's" above (such as MVP), yet only one GGA. A hierarchy of awards needs to be set up so it can be decided which of the awards the players only won once stays and which goes (or perhaps it shall be decided the hierarchy is player-specific, and the awards can be decided upon on the article's talk page). There are lots of details put into leads but do not make it into the info box. To a similar point, would a GGA be essentially the only defensive mention included in info boxes? I don't think it's right we're essentially all but ignoring defensive statistics, even for players known for their defensive prowess. I would argue a player known for their defensive prowess (or conversely, known for his fielding follies) is more of a "key fact" than his batting average or home runs might be, which are standard stats to be included (I suppose because for some reason, offense gets most of the attention?). Zepppep (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary of consensus

Thanks to everyone for their collaboration and patience! Based on the expressed opinions, here is the general sense I have of the achievements for which there is support to include in the infobox:

  • season league leader / award winner:
    • MVP
    • Cy Young award
    • Rolaids relief man
    • MLB delivery man
    • home run champion
    • batting average
    • RBI
    • ERA
    • strikeouts
    • wins
    • pitching/hitting triple crown
    • comeback player
    • rookie of the year
    • manager of the year
    • Silver Slugger
    • Gold Glove
  • All-Star
  • League championship series MVP
  • World Series champion
  • World Series MVP
  • career MLB leader
    • home runs
  • career league leader
    • stolen bases
  • team retired number
  • signature pitching achievements
    • perfect game
    • no-hitter

I assumed those expressing support for "triple crown" stats were including both pitching and hitting. I used a relatively conservative standard of consensus, also accounting for the fact that there are at least two editors who essentially voted "no" for all categories. That being said, I believe there was only one close case. I trust everyone is willing to put aside for now any items not listed above, with the possibility of revisiting them later.

There is no clear consensus on a limit of the number of achievements to list in the infobox or on the best procedure to determine which ones would be included if a limit were agreed upon. Thus for players who have an inordinate number of accomplishments on the list, the number to include, in case of disagreement, will have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant "wins" and not "walks".—Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Revised; thanks. isaacl (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Triple crown consensus gatherin (above) was stated "pitching/hitting triple crown." Support was unanimous for both so I think it's safe to say editors knew what they were voicing support for. Happy editing, folks! Zepppep (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to the listing of leaders in triple crown stats, not the triple crown itself; the support was not unanimous for this. Nonetheless, from context, I believe those expressing support for including league-leading stats were supporting the pitching and hitting triple crown stats. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Order of achievements

Some editors have expressed the desire to have some flexibility in the order, so that a key achievement can be placed at the start of the list. Others have expressed the desire to highlight individual accomplishments over team ones. In the interest of balancing these wishes, and to help the list crescendo to a satisfying conclusion, I suggest the following structure:

  • if appropriate, the one key signature achievement for which the player is known
  • individual accomplishments, roughly in order of descending importance and reliability as an indicator of skill
  • any remaining signature achievements: post-season, All-Star
  • post-career accomplishments: number retirement

This way, the list will start with the deeds for which the player is best known and best summarize the player's skills, and will end with the ultimate events that mark a player's career: winning championships, and personal career recognition. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, the way the external sources/sports media refer to players should dictate the most prominent highlights. I most often see players referred to by the number of All-Star selections they had, the amount of World Series titles they won, as well as the awards they won and records they set. I don't believe in capping the amount of highlights that can appear in one person's infobox, which would require us to do more picking and choosing than the voting that we just concluded. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Prominent individual records (and thus, the ones talked about above) are typically what I see listed first. These tend to even make a headline before ASG mentions or WS rings. "Doe, record ____, led AL in ___ in '56, dead at 81." If highlights/awards aren't going to be capped then the difference between the info box and "Highlights and awards" subsection needs to be clarified to me. (Also, player articles have links, typically several, to sites that list the awards/highlights in detail...we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Our specialty should be prose.) Since years are also accompanying the mentions in the info box, I think we're drifting away from "...detailed statistics, belong in the body" from Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain? if we let all of the above be allowed for inclusion for players who've won all (or a lot of) the above. I hope baseball infoboxes don't model an FA like Michael Jordan. If a player has 5 prominent awards/highlights in his info box, that (along with a potential HOF box) should tell the reader plenty. On the other hand, FA Wayne Gretzky is a bit too bare, IMO, hence my support of capping at 5. Zepppep (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The "highlights" subsection would be an exhaustive list whereas the infobox is a select subset. There was a separate thread for infobox limits above.—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Wayne Gretzky is bare because he has a completely separate article on his awards and achievements. So not really the best example. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
He might be referring more to fact that Gretzky (and hockey players in general) do not have highlights in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, personally that is my preference. I think it makes the page cleaner and allows for a much better highlights section in the article. While I know the infobox sums up the article. I don't know that things like awards really belong, other than the ultimate award. aka Hall of Fame....and perhaps winning the world series. But I have been soundly beat on consensus on that. Sadly I find the baseball infobox to be too jam packed to be useful. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I still believe the underlying principle should be to only list awards in the infobox that would be expected to be described in the lead if this were a feature article.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been without Internet access for a couple of weeks, so I'm late in posting. As I mentioned previously, I have no preference for order of career highlights and achievements as long as all articles have the same order to maintain uniformity and fluidity when linking between articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orsoni (talk • contribs)

Consecutive years in bio infobox

What do editors think about listing each award year individually, even when the player has won awards in consecutive seasons and thus, using a dash to denote "consecutive" might be a better approach and help avoid clutter in the infobox?For examples, look at the Greg Maddux and Josh Hamilton articles, where awards were won for consecutive years. Zepppep (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus at WP:NBA is to use dashes. This is consistent with the goal of an infobox being to "wherever possible, present information in short form".—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That's good to know and will start editing instances of such in the future! Zepppep (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, but you might want to wait for consensus in Baseball proj.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah makes sense for me as well, the more we can cut down the clutter in the infoboxes the better. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the reasoning for listing every year was to have the option to Wikilink to individual World Series or All-Star Games. How do we feel about cutting those things out? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If it's in the prose, it's fine by me if it's not in the infobox. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There could be a list in the article of awards/achievement that has that detail. The separate list is anyways needed for the highlights that dont make the notability cut for the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
With no opposition and no comments for 2 weeks, consensus appears to have been formed. However, I have implemented the changes at the Kenny Lofton article and had my edits reverted 2x. In one of my edits, I had also added the linkable ASG years in Lofton's "Highlights" section, but changes were still reverted. Zepppep (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I've invited the editor to discuss if they wish.—Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Players that have played all of the New York teams

Can someone please tell me where I can find a list of the players that have played on all of the New York MLB teams? I know there are some players, like Darryl Strawberry, who have played on the New York Mets, New York/San Francisco Giants, Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers, and New York Yankees. Thank you for your help. If you need any amplifying information to be able to help me, please let me know. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't count San Fran and LA as New York teams for playing purposes. Am I guessing correctly that you're thinking of creating some list or category?...William 23:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Checked quickly, and none played for all four. While 112 played for the Yankees and Mets, zero played for three of the four if the Mets are included. Here are the nine that played for the Yankees, Giants, and Dodgers though: Waite Hoyt, Tony Lazzeri, Johnny Allen (baseball), Lefty O'Doul, Sal Maglie, Bobo Newsom, Zack Taylor (baseball), Lonny Frey, and Rosy Ryan. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Maglie was the only one of the nine I could remember off the top of my head. The nobody playing for all four teams I did know....William 00:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Look at Darryl Strawberry's page. He has played for the Mets, Giants, Dodgers, and Yankees. I want to know if there were any others. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you mean including the San Francisco and Los Angeles teams? In that case, the only other two besides Strawberry are José Vizcaíno and Ricky Ledée. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure those are the only other players? I know I saw in a newspaper once a list of all of the players that played for at least 2 of the four teams (regardless of location; I think some player retired, so they used it to celebrate his career). I thought there was at least 1 or 2 others that were on all 4. Please show me proof of this (from reliable sources, of course). Also, could a list or category for this fact be made? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: list or category, see WP:NOTDIR. Re: "please show me proof", see www.google.com. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The list you saw may have included 19th-century players that played for the New York Metropolitans, or the New York Mutuals, or the Players' League Giants. -Dewelar (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Heh...forgot the Brooklyn Tip-Tops, Brooklyn Ward's Wonders and Brooklyn Gladiators, given that we're including the Dodgers here. -Dewelar (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I was going to suggest Retrosheet, as with this for the 1871 Mutuals,[1] and realized that teams like Atlantic and Eckford were left off your list also. Baseball as we know it started in the New York City area, so it stands to reason that most of the early quasi-professional clubs were New York-based. In any case, one could take a New York team's roster and check its players individually, to see who else they played for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
One guy named Nelson got around the New York area pretty well.[2] He played for both Eckford and Mutual, and later played for Metropolitan and for the Giants, and wrapped up his career with the Gladiators. He also played for Troy, which is up the Hudson a ways. Several players (I've only gone through 1873 so far) played for "New York" in 1876, but that was simply that same Mutual club, admitted to the National League. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Gerhardt played for Mutual, the Giants and the old Mets, and the Gladiators.[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I tried Googling this search, but I didn't find anything. Wikipedia seems to act like a directory, at least to me. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Casey Stengel was employed by all four teams, which may be a unique situation. Regarding those other teams, they were all short-term. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:PBfooter nominated for renaming

Template:PBfooter has been nominated for renaming to Portal:Baseball/Selected content/footer. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Selected stats" in awards articles?

I'm finally starting up my quest to make NPB MVP Award a featured list. I stopped awhile ago because picking out selected stats for each player was taking a very, very long time. I just noticed though that MLB MVP Award does not have these stats but MLB RotY Award does. Is there a reason for this? Which way should I use when I finish up my NPB list(and future NPB award lists)? Should we standardize how we do it with MLB as well? --TorsodogTalk

I prefer ROY format with some stats to put award winner into context.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bagumba, stats help tell a little more about the player's season. As an aside, note that both MLB lists you mentioned are featured lists. AutomaticStrikeout 21:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I knew that both were FL. That was the reason I as looking to them for some guidance. That also makes it even more confusing that their formats are so different. --TorsodogTalk 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with the ROY format since it provides more information, which it seems that's what you're doing. Also gives us some more redlinks to work on if anyone's itching to create. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins‎‎

Could use some extra eyes on this article. A major contributor to the article who did not participate in the discussion to trim the list is now reverting back to the larger list without discussing. Editor is also changing Grover Cleveland Alexander's name in the list.—Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been maintaining this and similar pages for over 2 years, and he looks to be trying to "own" the article. If he wants to maintain a lengthier list, he could do it as a subpage of his own user page. If he persists, you may have to take him to WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hoping it doesnt need to do go there, but a second revert will prompt a edit-war warning on his page. I had already informed him of the earlier consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
He's back at it again. I think he might need to be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

David Rackley

People keep inserting information about a call blown today here. It's not noteworthy enough for inclusion, and I've taken it out twice. I don't want to possibly get in trouble for violating 3RR, so I'd appreciate some assistance here. AutomaticStrikeout 22:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC

I just reverted and called for an administrator. That will stop the IP....William 22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Williams. I hope it will resolve that issue. AutomaticStrikeout 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors that deserve a mention

Per a suggestion that I received from Isaacl a while back after I originally proposed the idea of having an editor of the month, I am opening this thread for those who would like to recognized fellow baseball editors for any significant contributions during the past month. For my part, I would like to commend Bagumba for his successful RfA. AutomaticStrikeout 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Making Stephen Strasburg a Good Article

I'm looking to turn this B-class article into GA. I expanded some on his college career and wrote about the debate over his shutdown this season. Still, gaps remain. Any takers?

I'm looking at you, Muboshgu. --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You got my attention. On the surface, it looks close. I'll take a look later to see if I can identify where you consider the gaps are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Template for use in article lists

A template has been created and is viewable here (thanks to Bagumba for editing help). The template would be used on article lists, including but not limited to:

Implementation of the template will bring an increase in article accuracy, reduction in edit wars and number of article versions of an article, and stats which can actually be verified by a reliable source. Zepppep (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work, hopefully this will help reduce selective updating. AutomaticStrikeout 02:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a single reference can be mandated for use, so I'd like to reword the template a bit to take this into account. isaacl (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No issue with that, although there's pretty much only one site that provides a date stamp, so re-wording is OK. Zepppep (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Here is an alternate proposal, with copy edits made for conciseness:

isaacl (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "whenever possible" should say "or add new citations as needed for verifiability."—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I assumed the intent was to get editors to use the existing references if they were suitable and not add new citations to new references if avoidable. If not, then perhaps item #1 can be eliminated. (The second paragraph already provides guidance on the use of new references.) isaacl (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Six in one, half-dozen in the other. Would recommend removing "note" in second-to-last sent. I would make "citations" or "references" in "ensure you add citations or references" linkable, as a beginner or an editor who typically onlyupdates stats may not know how to do such. Zepppep (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a revised proposal:

isaacl (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I do think we should encourage the use of the existing general references. You made the point earlier that it can't be mandated, which is true, to which I suggested the addition that new citations must be added in that case—which can be mandated.—Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good points. AutomaticStrikeout 18:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I originally thought the "six of one" comment was responding to my question about using existing references, which is why I dropped it. Here's a version including this guidance:
isaacl (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Also strike "For lists", as this notice is specific to lists (based on the red text).—Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking that the text could be placed in a template and reused for non-list articles. This was before I learned that only admins can create/edit an edit notice, and so making one that includes another template would defeat security, unless the template itself were protected (which is possibility that could be entertained). Anyway, here's a new version (the red text doesn't mention lists, though some of the following text does):

This is OK for lists. Since the red text mentioned "ALL PLAYERS", that makes it more applicable to a list. We're not implying that independent bios all need to have the same update on them.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I raised this issue to the group regarding lists, not individual player articles. Player articles updates are independent of game times for other players. However, a list, comprised of players playing across multiple time zones, requires wholesale updates to avoid the article becoming virtually worthless. Zepppep (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins. Zepppep (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place of birth

Twice today I found articles, Chuck Taylor and Rex Brothers where the town they were listed as being born in didn't match what Baseball Reference says. BR is very reliable, and I changed both articles. For anyone out there creating articles, if the place of birth for a player doesn't match what BR says, put in a reliable source. Otherwise I will correct the article to match where BR has the player being born. If anyone disagrees with this, feel free to post here. I'm open to input....William 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

FLC review/feedback urgently needed

Mayday call. The Golden Spikes Award list has now passed the 17 day mark. Currently, only 4 users have given comments (3 of which have been resolved) and 2 votes of support have been given. 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) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Mayday"? Relax. Besides, my FLC nom on the Hutch Award has been open longer than your Golden Spikes nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Muboshgu for the reassurances! And yes, I'm more relaxed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that more than a week has passed and nothing has changed for both our noms, should we give another nudge? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball runs scored champions

Nominated this list for deletion. Reasons listed in the nom page. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's too late to comment in the deletion discussion, but just for posterity: regarding the references to runs scored and sabermetrics, the runs scored by a team is considered notable by sabermetricians; the runs scored by an individual player is considered to be highly context sensitive, and I've never seen it used in a sabermetric analysis of the value of a player. isaacl (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Perfect game was Um

I have moved the discussion titled Um to Talk:Perfect game because it was archived without a resolution being reached. It seems more appropriate for the discussion to be there anyway. Op47 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

World Baseball Classic

The Baseball Wikiproject should do a project to update every articles related to the 2013 World Baseball Classic kinda how people kept the Olympics page s updated all the time. The Qualifications start today and every national baseball team articles havnt been updated with the current rosters yet. Spongie555 (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Blue Jays retired numbers

A new user recently created the template {{Toronto Blue Jays retired numbers}}, which contains only the entry Roberto Alomar. This is a subset of the template {{Blue Jays Level of Excellence}}, and frankly the latter template could easily be modified to relate this information. I think the retired numbers template should be deleted. Any thoughts? Mindmatrix 16:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually just suggested to the template's creator that it be renamed {{Toronto Blue Jays honoured numbers}} and include the level of excellence. Didn't even check to see if there was an existing template for that. Certainly the current navbox has no reason to exist, given it goes nowhere. I'd definitely support a merge. Resolute 16:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I would just redirect it to the level of excellence template. That is what I usually do when I find things like this. (and then remove it from the Alomar page since it would be a duplicate) -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected the template. Thanks for the suggestions. Mindmatrix 13:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Questia

If anyone haven't signed up for this free (if you are qualified, which i think its 1000+ edits) resource yet that Questia decided to offer us to the Wikipedia community. I went over most of what this resource offers today, and it has an amazing collection of full view baseball history books written by some of our biggest historians of our day, Koppett, Charles Alexander (who wrote the McGraw biography), and so forth. Basically every baseball book that was written though a major university publishing company is in Questia. Some of the older books that was originally published by small publishing company, and were deemed worthy for a second printing by university publishing is also included. This could really help this WikiProject achieve new heights in article writing considering how rich these sources are. You are not going to find Jane Leavy's Mantle biography, or all these autobiographies baseball players are writing nowadays, but this seems way more valuable as these books, in most cases are difficult to find. Thanks Secret account 07:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The qualifications are 1000+ edits and an account that's at least a year old. Seriously, think what Muboshgu could do with this ! AutomaticStrikeout 15:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_32&oldid=1144945583"