Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Copyedit request

2004 World Series is already a FAC, but I think it may need a small copyedit. Thanks for any help in advance. BUC (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

MLB Awards FT

NBA Awards and NHL awards are already FTs. List of Major League Baseball awards doesn't exist yet, but when it does it is far far far along towards being a FT. Of the 15 awards listed at {{MLB awards}} only Commissioner's Trophy (MLB), Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award (and it's close), Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award, World Series MVP Award, Major League Baseball All-Star Game MVP Award, Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award, and then two lesser awards that may not even belong (DHL Delivery Man of the Year Award and LCS MVP awards) to be all featured up (plus creating List of Major League Baseball awards). I think we can do it, and the process is slow and steadily working along (already have Silver Slugger as a FT, and GG is almost there). Staxringold talkcontribs 23:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a start. Gimme some time. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it ok if I take dibs for World Series MVP Award? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Go nuts. And I'm done with List of Major League Baseball awards for now. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Commissioner's Trophy is done... it's a Good Article, done by me earlier this year. The Gold Gloves are nearly complete. No offense to your work, Muboshgu, but I was envisioning a bit of a different format for the overview article, more of a text list with explanations rather than a table. Would you mind if I re-worked it a bit once I'm done with the Gold Glove pitchers? KV5 (TalkPhils) 02:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. I was just getting it started while watching some TV. I'm open to any changes. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind though that, as far as general formatting goes, this is what the NBA and NHL lists look like. We need a sourced prose intro, and maybe some fixing for the positional awards (so they look prettier with all those "current award holders" taking up space), but this is the skeleton used on the others. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware, but I don't like the format with the images inside the table. It would be much better to have what I call a "prose list": a non-tabled list with introductory text for each award; an image, if available, thumbnailed to the right; and the current holder named in the prose or current holders in a small table. KV5 (TalkPhils) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that I don't like having images within the table. It works for the NHL page since they have a picture for each award, but we don't have a picture for each award. Plus there's no reason we should follow the other sports. I'd approve of changing it to prose. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The nice thing about the prose list format is that a lot of the work is already done, because the awards are explained fully in the leads of the articles (at least, they should once they are GAs or FLs). KV5 (TalkPhils) 01:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, folks, there is already an article for Baseball awards, which could perhaps be merged with this new one, or at least cross-linked. -Dewelar (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that article existed. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I was aware, but was planning on moving it when the appropriate time arrived (I was going to do it at the end as kind of an icing on the cake). Cross-linking would be fine by me too. Whichever. KV5 (TalkPhils) 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say crosslink. That article includes minor league and college awards. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it's got two each of those, and 49 MLB awards (although some aren't even awards per se, like the Triple Crown). How do other projects handle non-major-league awards? -Dewelar (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a few college awards that were missing. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and acted boldly, removing the DHL award (so brand new, basically just the Rolaids award) and the LCS award. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This would be a huge coup for the project, I think this is a great thing to work on (I'll get to work on the ASG MVP). A topic with 14 member articles, two of which have fully FT subtopics (SS and by the time this is done GG)? Awesome. Solar System is currently the only FT with more than one featured subtopic. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Could interested parties let me know if this format works for everyone for the main article? Thanks. KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. One comment: I think the current holders should be displayed more prominently for the Cy Young, MVP, etc., in a similar manner to the way the Gold Glove and Silver Sluggers are pulled out from the text, so that it really catches the readers eye. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • With only 2 people per award I'm not sure they warrant a pulled-out table. BTW, should we create a Project sub-page for this? Hopefully I can get to work on the ASG MVP article tommorrow. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the amount of winners was my concern too. I could make it a bulleted list under a subhead instead; would that work? KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Actally, a question on that. For the ASG MVP list, should I reformat to show some game stats (perhaps a basic box score line, AB, H, RBI, R, HR, SB, etc) and perhaps a notes section for anything notable (such as Carl Crawford's big catch which likely earned him this year's award)? Problem is that the award can often be won for more esoteric things like that (or Ichiro's win with the first inside the park HR), but what would be included in such a note section would be somewhat original research and personal opinion. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. In my opinion, there is a very high threshold for something in an exhibition game being notable (like Pete Rose barreling into Ray Fosse). --Muboshgu (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay if I replace all the position abbreviation with the full (ie. SS --> Shortshop)? This is since having abbreviations I think are a waste of space from the key, and so that readers won't have to scroll up and down to see the key. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Player positions

Is their a golden rule as to what position a player is listed as in their infobox? Specifically Francisco Liriano was recently changed to a reliever (I'm assuming he has been sent to the bullpen?) and Hideki Matsui has been changed to a DH, which he has been this year, but traditionally a left fielder. What to do?--Phil5329 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that didn't address active players. I believe the rule for active players is that the infobox reflects the player's current position, while for inactive players it reflects the position(s) at which they were most used throughout their MLB career. -Dewelar (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, a general convention that I have seen used is that if a pitcher is filling both the duties of a reliever and a starter (a starter who is pitching out of the bullpen or something like that – Jamie Moyer and Brett Myers are examples), that pitcher be used as a general term, rather than qualifying that player as a starter or a reliever. KV5 (TalkPhils) 19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Got it, thanks.--Phil5329 (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixing World Series Champion templates

Yesterday while looking around wikipedia, I saw some of the World Series Rosters and noted how incomplete they were. Take for instance the

Only 15 players are listed, but World Series rosters then were usually 25 players. I do have a book(The World Series by Richard M. Cohen and David S. Neft) that list all players who were on a world series roster, whether they played or not. However the edition of the book I have is up to 1985 only. The players missing in the templates are usually players who didn't make an appearance in the series.

Today I began correcting some templates, the 57 Milwaukee Braves, 63 LA Dodgers, 56 New York Yankees, 85 Kansas City Royals. I will continue to do more, but I'd like to double check my work and get rosters up to the present day.

Is there a resource on internet that can help me with this?

Baseball-Reference. They have the most complete source of info that I've been able to find. They get their data from Retrosheet, who also has the information. Just make sure that you're following the uniform format when updating the templates KV5 (TalkPhils) 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Women's baseball

Should Women's baseball and Women in baseball be merged? The articles are very similar. I am surprised at the lack of information on both these pages, neither of which mentions Eri Yoshida. I know a semi-professional competition exists in Japan and in Australia the Women's Championships are quite a big tournament that would only be rivalled by the premier men's events in Australia. Perhaps it is because much of the information provided from this project is from North Americans? It seems women are discouraged to play after little league, which is very interesting. Is there any articles on why this happens? Cheers JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 13:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

TSN decade awards

I just added the following to Sporting News#Major-league baseball awards (at "One-time only"):

  • The Sporting News Player of the Decade (1999)[1]
  • Sporting News All-Decade Team (2009)[2]
  • Sporting News Manager of the Decade (2009)[2]
  • Sporting News Team of the Decade (2009)[2]
  • Sporting News Executive of the Decade (2009)[2]
  • Sporting News Performance of the Decade (2009)[2]
  • Sporting News Game of the Decade (2009)[2]

Eagle4000 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I inadvertently omitted Player of the Decade. It's listed now. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Team userbox question

I had updated {{User:UBX/MLB-Phillies}} to inlcude the {{PD-textlogo}} "P" image, but it was reverted by User:Tom Danson, on the theory that not all MLB logos qualify as {{PD-textlogo}} (i.e., public-domain images). Is this a project policy, or are we able to improve MLB userboxes with free images? BillTunell (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If the page is tagged as, and qualifies for, a PD-text qualification (as the Phillies "P" logo does), you should be fine. Not all logos count, but the ones that are text only (Boston, NY and NY, Philadelphia, etc.) should work. KV5 (TalkPhils) 22:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sure the "P" logo itself qualifies as free-use. I guess what I was really asking is whether there is a wikipropject policy that it wants all the userboxes to look the same -- and therefore prohibits the use of {{PD-textlogo}} images in userboxes because not all teams have one. Ever heard of such a policy? BillTunell (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. I've never heard of such a thing around here. KV5 (TalkPhils) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Anybody else? BillTunell (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There is now a request for commentary discussion on the subject here . Some of you may want to comment. BillTunell (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FPOC Help request!

Hey, could anyone help me out a bit on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Baseball? I've already done most of the work, but any help adding additional lists/articles will always make the portal better, plus I really don't want to go through and deal with Da Bomb's request right now. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Userbox Request for Comment

There is a request for commentary discussion here on the use of free images in MLB userboxes. Some of you may want to comment. BillTunell (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The future

The recent letter from Jimmy Wales got me thinking, not only about the future of WP, but the future of the WikiProjects that I am in as well. Where do you guys want to take the project in the future? Five years seems like a long time, but maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to get that vision and work back from it. Where do you want to take the project in five years? Howabout one year, six months, three months, ten years? Concentrate on a certain area or strengthen general polices to unify the project overall? I think it has been pretty well established that WP in general has slowed down with the quantity of articles, and that likely holds true for sports as well, so now it’s time to start on the quality. blackngold29 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I dunno if WPs need much strategy planning other than what articles to work on. I tend to see strategy for Wiki as pretty meh anyways, just fix up content. Anyways I'd say once we finish the awards topic we continue along that path. Large projects like that are useful for organizing and driving content work, WP:MILHIST has one on battleships for example. I'd say we consider working on position players, World Serieses, the Negro/Women's/Japanese/etc leagues, etc, etc. Definitely Featured Topics are a good tool to drive forward on. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are minor league baseball players notable simply for being minor league baseball players?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodis Bowe It would really help if you folks would make your opinions known here. If minor league baseball players are considered notable just for being minor league players...then I think I need to go bang my head against a wall until the feeling stops......

Let's just say I hope consensus doesn't back that point of view. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:ATHLETE clearly defines athlete notability as "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." (which a minor leaguer has not) or "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"which a minor leaguer has not." Except that minor league baseball players are fully professional. They have not achieved the highest professional level, but they are professionals none the less. And until WP:ATHLETE clarifies this, these issues will continue to come up. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Even if WP:ATHLETE doesn't clarify it specifically, there is nothing to stop us from further defining OUR notability guidelines within the constraints of WP:ATHLETE. I'm fairly sure that we, as a project, have defined "fully professional" as making an appearance at the Major League level or playing a full season at AAA, have we not? KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't even need to do that. Note the following sentence in the lede of the section of which WP:ATHLETE is a subsection: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The project has simply used the second half of that sentence to narrow our definition of notability. -Dewelar (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of this, but further I think it should be laid out in the clearest and most visible way possible. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. -Dewelar (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, well, this seems like as good a time as any. We already have WP:NC-BASE; no reason we can't have WP:BIO-BASE. I'll volunteer to write the page up once we agree on a codified guideline (unless we already have, in which case I'll get right on it). KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
What about the notability guidelines in the project box? If they're acceptable to us and accepted by the project, make them a convention instead of "an essay" – whatever that's supposed to mean. KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That looks like a good base at the very least. I will ponder what might be added to it, if anything. One thing I note is that it says nothing about participation in the Olympics or in the Baseball World Cup. If consensus is that those players are notable, then those will need to be added. -Dewelar (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
We also have to consider if the WBC counts (I think it does, on the same level as the World Cup). We should also codify, specifically and in no uncertain terms, that what we are saying in the guideline is this project's definition of "fully professional" as laid out in WP:ATH, and then add the criteria for inclusion for the minor league pages. WP:BASE/N will probably need a minor re-format, which I can take care of. KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the "fully professional" thing...do we really need our own definition? I don't believe we do, due to the wording I noted above. If it is determined that we do, has this ever come up before? If so, what was the result of the discussion? -Dewelar (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
We have debated the minor league notability guidelines several times... I personally preferred the previous guidelines that set out strict notability rules (minor league all-stars, award winners, AAA) but was outvoted in favor of the current vague guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the old rules; I didn't know they had changed and don't even know if they were strict enough. KV5 (TalkPhils) 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the old rules too. I also somehow missed it when the baseball notability guidelines were being changed. Although since it is an essay, the revision apparently did not get enough consensus to be considered a guideline. Rlendog (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see the easiest and most logical cut off being the major leagues. You make the major's you're notable enough, you don't make the show you're not notable enough (obviously unless you have significant coverage). There is an undeniable massive gap between the minors and the majors pay (minors are "professional" and majors are "fully professional"). The problem becomes the "significant coverage" part. Because of the explosion of the internet I would venture to say that there are, or will be in the near future, small town city papers which are online. These papers write-up recaps of local games and little kids and their parents are happy to see their name in the paper, but does that mean if a t-baller is a darn good player and he gets multiple feature articles about him then all of the sudden he is notable? That kid has "significant coverage", does he not? This is exactly why I think we need to draw the line. Even including AAA players would be an increase of tens of thousands of articles many of which would never get beyond a stub. I think we need to stop with the creation of articles, and start with the quality of articles (I guess that goes for WP as a whole really). blackngold29 03:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "fully professional" doesn't mean what you say it means to the casual reader/editor. If I were seeing that term for the first time, I would presume that it meant "a league made up of all professional players with no amateur participation". Thus, the "fully professional" National Association of Professional Base Ball Players is separated from its predecessor, the partially-professional National Association of Base Ball Players. It also separates the major and minor leagues from, say, the Cape Cod League, or semi-professional teams, or barnstorming teams of earlier eras that were not fully staffed by paid players. -Dewelar (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but I don't consider the core people here casual readers or editors, so I don't see how or why we should be expected to use their interpretation. All I can say is that that's what "fully professional" means to me. I've always been supportive of splitting up WP:ATHLETE in order to allow it to address each sport specifically, I've stated this two or three times over at WP:N, but nobody else has ever supported or argued against it so I don't know how practical that would be. I have heard that "fully professional" supposedly is, if not originally intended toward, more practical in terms of European soccer leagues (a topic which I know nothing about) which is all the more reason to clarify it for baseball and US football players. blackngold29 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Consensus includes all flavours of collaborators, not just some inner circle cadre. As a practical matter, if the guidelines are interpreted in a considerably unusual way, then a lot of time will be wasted continually explaining the guidelines and reverting changes. Better to change the guidelines if they do not reflect the established consensus. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess the problem is that the consensus isn't all that strong. blackngold29 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much why I don't think we should go fiddling around creating our own definition of "fully professional" at all. Besides the fact that it's unnecessary, it's just going to further muddy the discussion of which players are notable. -Dewelar (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That is what I disagree with. I think we should make a policy that is as specific as possible and that would cut down the complexity of the AfDs, reduce the AfDs in general, and make it easy to tell anyone who asks, "Is this guy notable?" if he is or isn't notable. Because right now, we can't do that (if we could, we wouldn't be having this conversation). Even, as mentioned above, we simply say: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability is now policy of the project. We can't control what you create, but WP Baseball will not support it unless it meets these requirements. Would be a step in the right direction. blackngold29 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Except that Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. It is an essay. Rlendog (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we need a clear policy. I just don't believe that it needs to involve, much less hinge on, making up our own definition of this term, which is what everyone (including you) seems hung up on. -Dewelar (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
When we create a project notability guideline, that's all we are doing anyway, whether we say it or not. The only part of WP:ATH that's really debatable is "What does 'fully professional' mean?" When we set a project-wide guideline, we are codifying our definition of "fully professional", whether we say that is what we are doing or not. KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you disagree that the part of WP:ATH that says "...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is open-ended enough to allow us to define what is covered and what is not. Instead, we MUST use the term of art supplied by WP:ATH and contort ourselves to meet it. Gotcha. May I say for the record that I disagree 100%. -Dewelar (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that's not what I said at all. I simply said that, because the only part of WP:ATH that's open for interpretation is "fully professional", any guideline that any project sets is necessarily defining that point for themselves. Please don't put words in my mouth. KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
KV, if you do, in fact, believe that's the ONLY part that's open for interpretation, then there is no other way to interpret that than what I have said above. Allow me to explain.
There are two parts to what I said:
  • That the piece of WP:ATH that I directly quoted is not open-ended enough. If "fully professional" is the only part of WP:ATH open to interpretation, then by definition the sentence I quoted is not open to interpretation, in your opinion, correct? If the part I quoted above does NOT allow us to define notability ourselves, what do you believe it DOES mean?
  • That we MUST use the term of art supplied by WP:ATH and contort ourselves to meet it. Since "fully professional" is the only part of WP:ATH open to interpretation, and as you said above we are using our own definition of that term, then we are doing EXACTLY THAT. We are contorting ourselves to come up with a definition of the term BECAUSE WE MUST.
I will say again: YOU ARE WRONG -- ON ALL COUNTS. Your initial assumption is wrong, and the conclusions which follow from it are wrong. WP:ATH is rendered entirely mutable by the sentence I quoted above, period. -Dewelar (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Then I suppose there is no reason for me to bother discussing. Apparently my opinion is wrong. I'll take my business elsewhere. KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dewelar the sentence you quote only means that in addition to meeting those things it still has to meet WP:V and WP:BIO. Its not meant to be a in to creating your own standards. -DJSasso (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
So basically our project has no real say in what people are notable enough to have articles, we simply control what we include in our project. Hypothetically we could say WP Baseball only includes MLB hall-of-famers. The other articles can exist, but our project doesn't provide them with support. Is that what you're saying? So it seems that we have to go to WP:ATH if we would want to clarify what articles can and cannot exist. It seems to me that something should be changed about WP:ATH due to the numerous minor league ball players which have had AfD debates. If every kid who has ever picked up a bat is deemed notable, then fine; I'll strongly disagree with it, but it'll make things a heck of a lot simpler. blackngold29 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's what I was saying... KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
We could not do what User:Blackngold29 says, because WP:BIO would include many, many non-HOF baseball players regardless of any baseball-specific guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was: WP Baseball can't decide which players can or cannot have an article, however, WP Baseball can decide which players are covered by WP Baseball. Just because we're WP Baseball doesn't mean we have to include everybody who has ever picked up a baseball. blackngold29 04:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I see. But practically, we are discussing notability standards for baseball players and if someone meets WP:BIO and played baseball in a manner we would not consider notable (e.g., low minor leagues, college), the fact that they do not meet the baseball notability standards would have and should have no effect on whether they are included in Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, those who consider themselves part of WikiProject Baseball are also part of the consensus for the notability of articles, so it's not true that its membership has no say in the existence of articles. The suggested sentence starting with "We can't control..." puts too much emphasis on WikiProject Baseball, giving it a very parochial feel, and implies article ownership. I do not believe it is necessary. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is this being brought up yet again? We have the minor league player pages for this sort of thing. Spanneraol (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Many people who create articles on minor league players seem to be unaware of the organization pages. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, there is still no real consensus about what to do about minor leauge players. So this will be debated over and over until a consensus emerges. Rlendog (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...I'm pretty much speechless that this AFD was closed as merge. If even this article can't get deleted, none will. So instead of spitting in the wind and going on to do ~300 or so AFD's, I'm just going to link to the list of articles that I identified as being of questionable notability, and you can all either leave them be or merge them (I look forward to seeing those minor league player pages grow to 700k+ in size) as you see fit, because clearly I'm out of step with consensus on what to do with bios of people such as even !votes in this AFD said aren't notable.

Here's the list. It's not going anywhere. Now, since I made my initial audit over a month ago, some of these players have probably gotten a September callup, making them forever and unequivocally notable (sorry...I hate WP:ATHLETE with a passion, but that's a separate issue), and certainly by this time next year some will have. But we don't write Wikipedia for "this time next year." That's what spurred me on to make the initial audit (I truly don't know what first started me down this path). But it doesn't look like it's going to come to much. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If the pages ever get to 700k big which I doubt they ever will, you simply split them into multiple lists ie "X minor league players A-M" and "X minor league players N-Z" like is done with many other pages. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If we're stupid enough to start splitting like that I'm leaving wikipedia, because that will prove we're wasting our time. Look at example 1 that Nosleep linked to: A ROOKIE LEAGUE PLAYER, for god's sake, and we're going to merge all that? Ridiculous; redirect fine, and then it'll be deleted when he's released whenever, assuming anyone ever remembers that it existed. Merging every single article into those pages is a horrendous idea. The double a players, upper level single a even, those can be thrown in there, fine. But not damn rookie league players who may play one season and move on with their real world lives. Wizardman 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would agree with Wizardman that Rookie league players shouldn't be listed unless they are a high draft pick or have some other notable achievement.. Looking at Nosleep's list though... several of those players are unquestionably notable due to appearing in the WBC or playing in foreign leagues... others are on 40 man rosters or have long AAA careers.. which meet my threshold for stand alone articles... many of the others can be merged.. but I'd agree that rookie players and low level A guys probably shouldn't be listed. Spanneraol (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
(shrug) Maybe its cause I mainly edit a sport that doesn't go quite as nuts with minor league players as baseball. We take fully professional literally and have articles for any player who has played in a league where every player is paid enough to live on. (ie not semi-pro). So I don't get as worked up about this issue. Why not just make a list of players and no other information other than the team they are playing on etc. Pages wouldn't get that big that way. I mean we have pages for every player that has played on a team ever, and those pages aren't too big. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The consensus in this case may have been merge, but the practical effect is a redirect to the minor league page, which I don't see any problem with. I mean, if someone types in "Theodis Bowe", why shouldn't they get directed to the Reds' minor league page, rather than just get a "this page doesn't exist" message, which may just inspire a recreation. Rlendog (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The 700k+ crack was kind of a frustrated cheap shot, sorry. Obviously not all 5k of Mr. Bowe's content will be merged. Rlendog - aside from Bowe, his friends and family, some really dedicated Cincinnati Reds fan who knows probably a thousand other (baseball-specific) sites to look at, and the article's creator, who is actually going to type "Theodis Bowe" into the search box? Or pretty much any of the names on that list. I sincerely doubt any of you, unless you are that really dedicated Cincinnati Reds fan, had actually heard of him before the AFD. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 23:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Which of course boils down to WP:IDONTKNOWIT/WP:LOCALFAME which is an arguement to avoid. -DJSasso (talk)
I never heard of Theodis Bowe before the AfD. But Reds' fans might have, and might be interested in looking him up. Gulf Coast League Reds fans certainly heard of him, and may well want to look him up. As might opponents of the Gulf Coast league Reds, especially if Bowe has a big game against their team. Not that the redirect in question provides a whole lot of information that most of those people would not already know. But even if no one else types "Theodis Bowe" into the search box, all that is lost with a redirect is about 26 bytes of memory. Rlendog (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
And how about WP:DONTQUOTEESSAYSLIKETHEY'REPOLICY. The fact that no one's heard of him...pretty much means he isn't notable. Oh, I forgot, "not notable" is also an argument I'm not supposed to make. The proximate cause of Bowe's non-notability is not necessarily that he's unheard of, it's that there's nothing written about him in anything but rookie league box scores and baseball scouting websites. Of course a subject can be notable but not of widespread familiarity. A rookie league outfielder is not such a subject. But let's not rehash the AFD here. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:DONTQUOTEESSAYSLIKETHEY'REPOLICY would imply that we can't quote Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability as policy too. Rlendog (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Now you are just being rediculous. All I was getting at was that you can't claim someone is not notable just because you personally haven't heard of them which is what you just did in the prior comment. Had you said he was not notable because there was nothing written about him then I wouldn't have had a problem with your comment. But that isn't what you said. Secondly just so you know a very quick search of google found a few articles about him that were not just stats. Whether or not they would count as reliable I don't know because I didn't look into it enough cause I don't really care enough. But almost any drafted player will have a few local news articles about him which is all that is required to meet WP:N. Especially a player like Bowe who was the first ever person drafted from his town to a professional sports league. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well crucify me for saying one thing before I said another. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
So if "almost any drafted player will have a few local news articles about him which is all that is required to meet WP:N" then almost every player in a rookie league will be notable right? So we can just throw the whole "fully professional" thing out the window, because rookie leaguers don't make "enough to live on" which is how you defined "fully professional" earlier (a definition which I agree with by the way). This is the part where the growth of the internet worries me, everybody and their brother has "a few local news articles about him which is all that is required to meet WP:N" especially those that live in small towns. There has to be some way to separate the local stories from ones that can reasonably be considered coverage enough to pass WP:N. blackngold29 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
That is the thing with WP:ATHLETE, its meant to be inclusive not exclusionary. It's meant to solve the problem of people from long ago where it will now be hard to find sources for them, even though they are clearly notable. WP:ATHLETE is only a tack onto WP:N. It doesn't override it. So if someone meets WP:N then it doesn't matter what WP:ATHLETE says on the matter. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I guess I think that it's backwards. You should have to reach X level before even being considered. That would make things simpler—if we could all agree on the definition of "fully professional" that is. blackngold29 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
And I said that above, but apparently I was "wrong". Which is why I haven't contributed to this discussion anymore. KV5 (TalkPhils) 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I agree with that, unless we are saying that WP:ATH can override WP:N. We should agree on some level that confers notability for baseball since, as DJSasso says, at some level a player will be notable (and sources can be presumed to exist), even if the relevant sources are hard to find. But WP:ATH, regardless of what level the line is drawn, cannot override WP:N. If a player meets WP:N for some reason, even if they only play(ed) baseball at a low level, they are still notable. For example, the fact that George H. W. Bush never played baseball above college level doesn't make him non-notable. Or if an A-ball player becomes notorious for being involved in some major crime, he may still be notable. Rlendog (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with of course requiring someone to reach X level is that X level is purely POV. I mean lord knows I would like to say that as well, but we have to be realistic picking any point is arbitrary. You say have to play MLB for example, well what about someone who was highly notable and achieved all kinds of honours but something happened right before they played their first MLB game. Does that make them non-notable. If we pick a set number of games say 500....is someone who played 499 games less notable than someone who played 500. The whole reason we use WP:N is to avoid this kind of POV calls. Does it let in more than it should, probably. But its better to have too many people in than too few. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The best we can do is have a level of definite notability and a level of definite non-notability, with a discretionary range in between. Right now the entire minor leagues and leagues of other countries are all discretionary, and that's what's screwing us over. i.e. a short-season A player is definitely non-notable, no questions, if that's all he's done. We need flat ones like these, though we can't narrow it down 100%. Wizardman 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be anymore POV than AfDs are. If we said "Must have played in the MLB" or "Must have played 500 games" then it's completely black and white, AfDs would either be non-existant or extemely quick because it is such a clear cut rule. As for "is someone who played 499 games less notable than someone who played 500?" If that is the consensus then no, they would not be notable. It wouldn't even be a question of "more" or "less" notable, either they are or they aren't. It seems there is a loose consensus that a clear-cut policy would help, we just have to establish what that point is and then get it put into WP:ATHLETE. blackngold29 20:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
While I agree I would like a clear cut line like that because it would make it easier. I would be against it because playing 1 more game than someone doesn't make you notable or non-notable (in terms of a regular type game). A clear cut line that already exists is that you have multiple reliable sources or you don't. There really is no ambiguity there. Some people like to argue some sources are less worthy than others but in the end you either have sources or you don't. When you start picking game numbers or whatever you start cutting out people that definitely should be included like a player who played maybe 1 year and had a all-star calibre year but then died in a car crash so never went further. You can bet that player was highly notable in the news for his really good year and then subsequent death. But if you relied only on games played you would cut him out. We definitely need to error on the side of inclusion instead of exclusion. Wizards man comment above is a good one. But none of these will ever make it into athlete as its been tried many times. WP:N will always override anything with specific requirements because WP:N is what wiki was basically founded on. -DJSasso (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Rlendog's earlier point is correct and very clear. WP:ATH is not the ONLY definition of notability, but it is the definition of notability when your only path of notability is through your athletic career/performance. If you are a former president or a notable criminal or whatever, as Rlendog said, you're notable whether or not you played for the Montgomery Biscuits or not (best mascot ever, BTW). But if you are an otherwise nn person, WP:ATH clearly defines what specifications need to be met to be considered notable enough for your own article (otherwise you are merged into the MiL player pages, or are altogether deleted). You don't like WP:ATH? Fine, this isn't the place to bring it up/whine about it. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I actually brain farted when I wrote that, because I neglected examples where a low level minor leaguer can meet WP:N or WP:BIO for baseball related reasons. For example, a highly regarded prospect or a high draft pick may well get several articles written about him while in the low minors, which would also meed WP:BIO. Austin Jackson may be a recent example. I don't think articles for such players should be deleted either, but that may be more controversial than George Bush. On the other hand, since such players meet the revised minor league criteria, presumably I am not out of line about that. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, those are exactly the kinds of players I am referring to that would be cut out and shouldn't be. -DJSasso (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Problem is I have brought up altering WP:ATH at WP:N two or three times, I've also seen it brought up at the Village pump, and nobody has ever supported or rejected it. I was hoping if we could establish a consensus here first we would have a better chance of actually getting something changed. blackngold29 20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Then you have never seen Wikipedia:Notability (sports) which is one of the more recently widely debated proposals that was blown out of the water. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I'll add it to my watchlist. I would certianly rather have the baseball policy outlined there than simply "fully professional". But still it doesn't remain policy and that is what we have to get to actually make a difference. blackngold29 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's safe to say that WP:ATH exists to describe the notability for someone like Drew Carpenter. Obviously a #1 draft pick like Stephen Strasburg (bad example, since he was in the Olympics which is another notability source) or Tim Beckham has alternative notability. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, I DYKed Drew Carpenter, what's wrong with his notability? LoL. KV5 (TalkPhils) 01:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Do understand, I'm not out to have Stephen Strasburg deleted. He's obviously notable whether he makes the Majors or not (even disregarding the Olympics). Obviously, my definition of "unequivocally notable for purely sport reasons" will be much stricter than most of yours. That's just an opinion at this point, though I do think WP:ATHLETE needs to be killed with fire. I wouldn't say, for example, that Moonlight Graham is at all notable for purely sport reasons (he is of course notable as a semi-fictional character, though). I wonder if, when everyone steps back from the ALLCAPS and policy discussions we can see what was at stake here - a rookie league outfielder. Forget all the policy you've ever read, and just ask yourself, is a bio of a rookie league outfielder, assuming he never advances any further (because notability is not temporary....ok, don't forget WP:N, I guess) of any encyclopedic significance? If your answer is yes, then there's really nothing more I can say. About getting redirected to Cincinnati Reds minor league players when entering "Theodis Bowe" into the search box - are you prepared to make redirects for all ~100 minor league players listed on those pages (obviously some are former big leaguers who have articles)? Maybe you are. Are you willing to maintain them every time a nothing righty reliever or backup shortstop gets Rule 5'd or claimed on waivers or PTBNL'd or some other transaction that you never really hear much about? If you are, I'd like to suggest you shouldn't be - this would seem a pretty full-time job, consuming efforts that would be much better spent elsewhere. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It actually is not that hard to keep track of minor league transactions... but to the main point.. I would think that we really should only be tracking players in High-A or above... The rookie guys just don't really matter that much. Spanneraol (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I do think a clear cut rule is best enforced. However, there will always be exceptions. The two I can think of off the top of my head are the two Indian pitchers with the Pirates' GCL team. Those players while not notable for their MiLB contributions (aside from one of them being the first Indian player to win a game in an affiliated league) are notable due to their celebrity in winning the Million Dollar Arm TV show that got them to the GCL. (Yes I know this is vague and doesn't help my case, but their names escape me at the moment). But if we are going to make a rule that you have to reach a certain stage of MiLB or reach MLB to be considered as notable, we also have to figure out what to do with players from the NPB, CPBL (Taiwan) and KBO. Many of these players are great athletes that should be considered notable, but have never appeared in the Majors. Some of them may not have the notability of WBC or Olympic play either, but they need to be considered. I'd say appearing in these leagues would be equal to an appearance in MLB, so all roster players in these leagues should be considered notable. I'm on the fence about players in the Cuban Leagues and non-MLB players who play in the Caribbean Winter Leagues. I do think that being on a team that wins the Serie del Caribe should allow a player to pass into notability. But I'm curious what everyone else thinks about the international notability criteria.Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record and for those unfamiliar, he's referring to Rinku Singh and Dinesh Patel. KV5 (TalkPhils) 11:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some notability examples

Here are a few examples from our discussion, what do you think of their notability?

Person Background
Stephen Strasburg #1 overall pick in 2009 Major League Baseball Draft, and Olympics competition. No ML appearances.
Tim Beckham #1 overall pick in 2008 Major League Baseball Draft. No ML appearances.
Drew Carpenter Single ML appearance, otherwise non-notable.
Moonlight Graham Similar to above, one appearance (though outside fictional notability)
Rinku Singh and Dinesh Patel No ML appearances but "first" notability as first Indians signed by ML team, also won Indian contest/game show (though that show doesn't yet have an article). In other words, would Jackie Robinson be notable after his signing but before he appeared in an ML game? (perhaps a bad example, since Robinson was a notable Negro Leaguer before that)
Dustin Ackley #2 overall pick in 2009 Major League Baseball Draft. Currently 4/5, 7/10, and 12/20 in the 09 draft have their own article. Notability as a #1 overall pick is one thing, but how deep into the draft are you notable simply for being a high draft pick?
Pat Venditte 1345th overall pick of the 07 draft, 620th pick in 08 draft. Switch pitcher who had specific MiL rule created to deal with him.

Please expand/reply if you think of others. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think all of them are notable without question as all of them you can find sources for. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's the issue, though. If you are notable simply for having sourcing then essentially every decent/odd minor leaguer (Pat Venditte) gets an article. Drew Carpenter at least appeared in a Major League game, a hard and fast line, what makes one MiLer notable and another not? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes I know, and that is my point. You can't make subjective cut offs because it completely goes against NPOV. -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the level of sourcing and what is unique about them. Not to mention I believe it's established that anyone who has appeared on a 25 man roster is notable. I believe all of your examples meet the criteria for notability, with Ackley and Beckham the least notable at present. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • My thinking and maybe this is wrong since baseball's draft is less important for this, but all first round draft picks I'd think are notable. In hockey (which is probably the closest to baseball as far as the "future" aspect of drafting is concerned), the notability guideline is all first round draft choices. Plus, I'd assume (perhaps wrongly) that all first round players out of college (and possibly high school) are notable based on their amateur background. But all of the above are notable for one reason or other. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Because of the way the minor leagues work, there are so many first-round picks that crash and burn that it's really not anywhere close to a bright line to call them notable. And for the record, from the table above, Drew Carpenter has more than one ML appearance; he spent several days with the Phillies this season and made, I believe, 2 or 3 starts. KV5 (TalkPhils) 01:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The first four are definitely notable. The Indians, given the sources and what they have done, I would consider them okay. In terms of draft picks, I'd only say the first pick has no-question notability (this doesn't mean other first rounders aren't, many probably would be). The sources provided in the final two articles make them notable, but Venditte would not be notable if not for the special 'switch-pitcher rule' status. Wizardman 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ackley signed a major league contract and is on the Mariners 40-man roster. I'd guess that most players who make the 40-man roster have enough sources to meet WP:GNG. BRMo (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry, didn't see Ackley had signed a Major League deal. Anyways, you get my point, my basic questions are notability for foreign players and what amount of uniqueness is necessary to justify MiL articles. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone drafted in the first round is notable, whether they make the Major Leagues or not. If there are any first rounders on my 300+ list, they're mistakes. So that takes care of Strasburg, Beckham, and Ackley. Venditte has, admittedly by way of a curious oddity, achieved significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so while he's not notable for purely sport reasons, he meets the GNG. Similarly for Moonlight Graham, as I said above. The Indians are not notable for purely sport reasons, but if the reality TV show achieved significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, then they may meet the GNG. Carpenter I'm torn over. Do I think he's notable for purely sport reasons, no, but he probably meets the GNG anyway, and there's great likelihood that he would be notable for purely sport reasons in the near future (he's only 24 - unlike, say, Adam Greenberg (baseball) who, though maybe notable for the curious oddity of his big league "career," is not notable for purely sport reasons and seems unlikely to become as such as he's 28 and in an independent league). I would say that Brian Esposito and Larry Yount are not notable for purely sport reasons. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that Carpenter has actually pitched in parts of two seasons. That's still pretty trifling, but it'd be inane of me to call that non-notable. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Season standings templates

This is related to last year's season standings templates. They are still in use on season articles, and are different from prior years because we started using the new format last year. Spanneraol and I talked about this issue earlier, and we took out the winning streak because it doesn't mean anything after the season. Additionally, the denotation of a division champion or wild card winner by a letter that's not keyed to anything is an MOS vio. There's an IP editor who is insisting that things be his way at the moment, and I figured if we generate a written consensus here, it gives us something to fall back on. The old season standings templates should probably be updated to match the new format as well. KV5 (TalkPhils) 21:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Now this season's standings templates are encountering issues. These may need to be protected until the end of the season. Could an administrator take a look? KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series

This article has been up at FAC for a long time and desperately needs reviewers/voters to survive. I'm currently the only person with a vote on record for that, afraid it might get delisted. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

2004 is too painful for me. I can't click on it. Sorry. :( --Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Yankee fan too, and I still have flashbacks that awake me in my sleep. Eh I'll try to get to it. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I would join in, but a) I've never reviewed at FAC; b) I'm afraid of FAC; and c) I peer reviewed it for GA so I don't want my vote to be a COI. KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cincinnati Buckeyes

Need some help straightening this out, and I need to head out the door in 15 minutes or so.

I came across Cincinnati Buckeyes in the DEP project and started to clean it up a bit. A few issues to be resolved...

  • Looks like there was a 19th century team called the Cincinnati Buckeyes (see Cherokee Fisher, and a number of hits in Google Books)
  • Looks like the team in the Cincinnati Buckeyes article might be the same team as that in the Cleveland Buckeyes, but there's some inconsistency in the timeline, and also not consistent with the timeline at the NLBPA site. I'm pretty weak in my Negro League knowledege, so I'm not sure if the NLBPA site is reliable, and most of the sites I use for MLB sourcing completely ignore the existence of negro leagues.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Talking to myself here, apparently. I've found a third team named the Cincinnati Buckeyes, so probably best to turn Cincinnati Buckeyes into a disamb page. The first two Buckeyes teams should easily be notable; the most recent is probably not notable but plays in a league that may well be notable (but that article needs a major cleanup). --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
On the Negro leagues, unfortunately even the best sources often contradict one another. In this case, however, none of the best sources (Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia, Holway's Complete Book, and Clark and Lester's Negro Leagues Book) agree with the timeline shown on the NLBPA site. They all show the Cincinnati Buckeyes playing during 1942, then moving to Cleveland to become the Cleveland Buckeyes. Since I don't know what sources were used by the NLBPA site, I try not to use it unless it's been confirmed by another source. I think the redirect to the Cleveland Buckeyes article works well in this case. BRMo (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that out. If any of those books can add to the Cleveland Buckeyes article, feel free. I added a few more sources to that one, but it looks like the article could use a whole lot more on the Negro league team and a whole lot less on the modern team. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Elimination game

It looks like the Tigers and Twins are going to have a single game playoff to determine the winner of the AL Central. How do I record that in the game log? Is " 1 game playoff" okay? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I added a note too. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that MLB is calling it a "tiebreaker" game. Anything to avoid the word "playoff", since the post-season is often called the "playoffs" (although MLB does not call it that). →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Date in infobox

Hi -- is there a view, now that the regular season is over (for most), as to how best to reflect the date in the infobox if updating the stats through the end of the season? For example, should it simply say "2009"? Or the date of the update (e.g., October 27, 2009)? Or either? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe it should be "through 2009 season". I think. KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Baseball

Just thought you might want to know that I have nominated Portal:Baseball at WP:FPOC! Please stop by and weigh in! Staxringold talkcontribs 01:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Just a reminder, this is still going on. Could use some votes/comments, plus if anyone wants to spend time transcribing more lists/articles/bios into their sections that's always helpful. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

MLB awards FT (2)

Since I'm sure most of you don't wanna scroll all the way up to see the section, I just moved it here. Two questions: Couldn't we just make List of Major League Baseball awards into a GA instead of an FL? This is because the article is already in article format, and absolutely has enough prose to become a GA/FA. Also, If we do make it into a GA, the article name should of course be changed to just Major League Baseball awards. Second question: Is it okay if I sort Template:MLB awards alphabetically instead of notability? Notability is more of an opinion than a ranking, which is why sorting the template alphabetically would probably be more beneficial. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't make a redirect of Major League Baseball awards to the one currently used, as the history would get messed up. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
List can't be GA per Wikipedia:Good article criteria.—Chris! t 02:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant that the article isn't a list, and looks more like an article, which should therefore be nominated for GAN. Look at Music of Final Fantasy I and II for example. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the current format of List of Major League Baseball awards is still organized as a list. See Wikipedia:Lists#Definition lists.—Chris!c/t 04:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me about that, though the examples used on that section uses ";Term" instead of "===Term===". This could be argued... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why you linked to Wikipedia:Lists#Definition lists, because the article doesn't use definition lists. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the important thing here is that List of NBA awards and List of NHL awards, central articles each to similar featured topics, are both featured lists. Yes they are formatted like more traditional lists than this one is, but they still set a rather clear standard. List of MLB awards is still just a collection of small bits of description about each individual award listed, ie a list. Having more prose doesn't change that, IMO. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed on both counts. This is most definitely a list. Just because I decided to make a slightly different format doesn't change that. I think that this format is a lot cleaner-looking than trying to cram all of that basic information into a table, and is much more informative to the casual reader looking for an overview than a table without said info would be. KV5 (TalkPhils) 12:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Note for the record – discussion can continue above

The Gold Glove FT was promoted today. KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Swoot, congrats! Seriously, our current topic box will soon look like this (including pending FLCs).
17 articles
Major League Baseball awards
60px

Good article Commissioner's Trophy
Most Valuable Player (MVP)
Featured list Cy Young Award
Featured list Manager of the Year
Featured list Rookie of the Year
Featured list Gold Glove Award subtopic
Featured list Silver Slugger Award subtopic

Comeback Player of the Year?
Featured list Rolaids Relief Man of the Year
World Series MVP
Featured list League Championship Series MVP
Featured list All-Star Game MVP
Featured list candidate DHL Delivery Man Award
Featured list candidate Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award

Featured list Roberto Clemente Award
Featured list Hank Aaron Award

And both WS MVP and the general MVP article are underway. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I will start building the framework for the CHAA this evening, hopefully to be completed by Thursday. If not Thursday, then I will probably finish it on Sunday. I hope. Stax, you and I should maybe discuss the key for the WSMVP at its talk. KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Will do. I'm slowly starting to at least reformat the MVP article, that's one of the big kahunas. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Can the box be formatted so the article evaluation indicators are outdented? The example looks a bit ragged, and I think it would help readers see the boundaries between each listed award. If anything else can be done to separate out the awards (a little extra white space, perhaps?), I think that would be good. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That box doesn't mean anything, it's just tracking the FT process. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Right; the FT box doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme, because it will only appear on WP:FT, where all the boxes look alike. KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it: if there isn't a convenient way for a reader to identify the cluster of articles that form a featured topic, then what's the point of having this concept? Isaac Lin (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There is: the talk page tags. They redirect to the topic box itself on the FT page. KV5 (TalkPhils) 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
In that case, back to my original request: can the formatting be improved? Isaac Lin (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No. It's a uniform format that's used for all FTs. The only real change we could make is moving articles so that the columns are even. There are 16 articles in the box (actually, there are 17 in the entire topic; the box is wrong), so they should be in one column of six and two columns of five. I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to, but there's no other way to list the articles on WP:FT. KV5 (TalkPhils) 11:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the markup within each column appears to be controlled by the contents of the template parameter, and not auto-inserted by the template, perhaps some markup can be added so the graphic can be the the left of the left margin of the award text, and that there be a bit of extra white space between items. (If there were only two columns, however, then the items would be more likely to fit on a single line, and so these changes would make less difference.) Isaac Lin (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
We could try, but there is really no point to us doing it. Excess markup that doesn't jive with normal standards would be removed when the box is placed on WP:FT. KV5 (TalkPhils) 12:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if other awards like the Babe Ruth Award aren't listed there, and they aren't going to be included in the FT. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MLB Comeback Player Award

Related to this topic, there may be a way to get this to the 10-item "minimum" for a featured list. Since it's the Comeback Player of the Year, we can do a "selected statistics column" which compares the winning year's statistics with the prior year statistics. That would get us to ten items because we would have to split the list into an AL and an NL table. This would only be valid, of course, after this season when the award is presented. I just removed the fake 2009 award apparently added by some crazed Yankees or Rockies fan. I can still start on the idea, though; this shouldn't take long. KV5 (TalkPhils) 12:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Co-nominators

Just so we have a list sorted out, I'm going to try and start (informally) collecting a list of people who should co-nominate the FTC or at least be mentioned in it when it comes about. Here is a list of everyone I can find who has played a significant role in the creation/upgrading of one or more of these lists:

I just want to make sure everyone who contributes significantly to this project gets proper FT credit when the time comes. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks complete to me. KV5 (TalkPhils) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to help out, and I'm willing to take on a more substantive part of the project, if there's a piece that needs to be adopted. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If you'd like to split out the DHL award so that each year is a subhead with its own table, that would be a great help! Obviously it needs a lead expansion and pictures too. If you need any help, let me know. KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

More stuff

OK, so I think we're all pretty much agreed on the criteria for inclusion now. I've updated the topic box to show what's currently at FLC. Comeback Player of the Year is the only article included in the topic currently that is not on the MLB awards page ([1]). The This Year in Baseball Awards are also there, but they are fan-only voting. Is it worth it to include them? I don't know. Just want to make sure we're all updated as to what's next for the topic. KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • This Year in Baseball is an MLB.com award, the 05 Press Release confirms Comeback Player is an official MLB award (and while not mentioned at the main award page it is on the individual yearly pages). I think we're fine as is. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, should I bother PRing my newly expanded and formatted Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award, or just wait til the 09 winners are announced so we have 10 items and can just FLC it? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think just wait. Not that long. If you want, I can do an informal PR for you. As to TYIB, what's the difference between an "MLB" award and an "MLB.com" award? Will FT reviewers recognize the difference when the time comes? KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it'll be all right, TYIB are really a separate entity. We still have the big project, the MVP award, before we worry about that anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, so we've noticed that KV5 is avoiding that one, eh? Hahaha.... KV5 (TalkPhils) 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I gave the first couple tables a proper make-over, but there's still major work to be done. Someone definitely needs to find a copy of Total Baseball for proper, printed sourcing on the history. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Would anyone be willing to copy-edit World Series Most Valuable Player Award? With high school and such, I really don't have the time to copy-edit such a huge lead. If you are interested in doing so, don't re-write a whole paragraph or more, since re-writing the article can be discussed in the future FLC...or here. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look, but I probably won't be able to get done with it until Thursday or so. KV5 (TalkPhils) 01:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
MLB.com's reporting and editorial coverage is supposed to be independent from MLB, so an MLB.com award is on par with an ESPN.com award. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

World Series Most Valuable Player Award now at FLC. The nomination is here. Still need referencing for the second paragraph, and alt text for all except one image. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I just took down the nomination for now. See Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Temporary limit on nominations until the number of reviews pick up and the FLC backlog decreases. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Nomination now back on! Read what I wrote on my previous comment. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Source alert - please help if you can

Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame is currently at FLC. However, I am having trouble finding sources to reference the Centennial Team displayed on the aforementioned wall. There are no reliable web sources outside of photos, and although I have seen the wall and know the inductees, I am unable to provide references at this time. If anyone (especially Phillies fans) has a published source stating the identities of the Centennial Team, or if your local libraries have a copy of "The Phillies Encyclopedia" (mine does not), I would appreciate any help anyone could give. Thank you! KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I found a Globe and Mail news article through LexisNexis that at least mentions Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Would you mind adding it to the section if you can find an appropriate place for the source? At least it verifies the existence of the team. KV5 (TalkPhils) 12:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New stadium

Do we have an established timeline for when a team's "new stadium" becomes their current stadium? I ask because there seems to be a rash of Target Field fever at Minnesota Twins. Obviously, with the tiebreaker game today, the Twins still play in the Homerdome, but if they lose (*I hope not*), does it get changed tonight? Or is it next season? Spring Training? Do we have a consensus on this? KV5 (TalkPhils) 12:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What did we do with the Yankee Stadium switcheroo? I've already forgotten. Definitely not yet, they have at least one more game to go this season. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What happened with Yankee Stadium is that it went back and forth all winter until the first event was finally staged at the new one. At least we don't have the endless debate about what to call Target Field, although that's brewing over the Metrodome, thanks to the Vikings' endorsement deal with the MOA. Target Field is about 90 percent done right now, maybe more, so there is no question of it's not opening. Technically, it seems reasonable to say it's their home once the team has physically moved out of their Metrodome offices and into their Target Field offices. To find that out, someone would need to monitor their website and see when their mailing address changes. Last I knew, they don't even have a mailing address for the new stadium yet. Let the sources be your guide. Once their website gives Target Field as their address, then it's a done deal. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The Metrodome controversy isn't really a controversy either; they did the Qwest Field thing. MOA is sponsoring the field ("Mall of America Field at the HHH Metrodome") like Microsoft did for the Seattle Sounders ("XBox Pitch at Qwest Field"). We could just set an arbitrary date like January 1, since it will be 2010. KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to happen often enough that there is an official date. I would probably say the first day that they actually play in the stadium (that's why they call it "opening day"), unless they knock down the dome before that (not sure what their schedule is on that). blackngold29 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Dome's not being demolished, the Vikings aren't moving yet. KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)'
In fact, the Gophers might be able to play an expanded indoor schedule next spring, what with not having to vacate for the Twins as they do now. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
When I called the Twins office yesterday, they thought the whole stadium was being renamed, but "we're moving, so we don't care". I did not ask them when they're moving, but obviously they're not yet done playing ball there. They might be, by sometime this evening. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Lulz. KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This could be in the realm of "common names". I think they mentioned it just once last night, at the start of the Vikings game. I don't know that the TV announcers today have called it anything but "The Metrodome". And how pathetic is it that you have to go begging for an endorsement from a shopping center? Delta Field? General Mills Field? Best Buy Field? No, it's Mall of America Field. And presumably all the amenities thereby. Maybe they'll replace Ragnar with that guy in the blue shark costume, or with Dora the Exploruh. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh God, a Brian Regan reference... now I'm really laughing out loud.... KV5 (TalkPhils) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
And there will be at least one more. The Twins were 0-7 against the Yanks in the regular season, and they could close out the Dome with an 0-10 overall. I did not see the start of the game, but otherwise I did not hear Chip Caray call it anything other than just plain "Metrodome". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rolaids Relief Man Award

According to WP:ADVERTISING, advertising on Wikipedia is when articles are "written in an objective and unbiased style". Recently, User:Redwolf24 removed a sentence where he thought "sound[ed] like pure advertising and doesn't aid the article". I reverted his edit, but he again removed the same sentence. His edit is here. I don't have the time to argue on Wikipedia, but it wold be great if someone confronts him about this. Thanks in advance! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:International baseball

Someone removed the next tournament link on the international baseball template, which I quite liked. Can someone confirm what the next international even will be? I know the next worldwide one will be Haarleem Baseball Week, but the Caribbean Series are earlier. Perhaps some type of timeline would be handy? JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 11:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Postseason

A new editor added 2009 Major League Baseball Postseason with just about no content. In looking for a place to redirect this, there doesn't seem to be a single article that's a good target. While I don't think we need an article that duplicates 2009 National League Championship Series, 2009 National League Division Series, 2009 World Series etc., it does seem that postseason might be a valid search term. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dabpage. "The 2009 Major League Baseball postseason may refer to:" and list all parts. I think that's probably an easy solution. Postseason should be uncapped too, to match naming conventions. KV5 (TalkPhils) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Good idea -- I'll get on it this morning if no one beats me to it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I win. LoL. KV5 (TalkPhils) 14:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Given my day at work so far, that's more true than you know. ;-) Thanks! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Happy to help. KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tommy Lasorda's Kingman rant

OK, check out the following three links: [2] [3] [4]

Three different sources (all seeming fairly legitimate) claiming three different games as the source of Tommy Lasorda's "What did you think of Kingman's performance?" rant. I always thought it was the June 4, 1976 game with the Mets.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The guy who actually asked the question is now the P.A. guy at Yankee Stadium [Paul Olden]. It was the Cubs game in 1979. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess we can check BR for three homer games to narrow it down. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Kingman had a 3-homer day twice against the Dodgers, one in 1976 when he was on the Mets, and one in 1979 when he was on the Cubs. The one in 1979, in particular, he was a one-man wrecking crew against the Dodgers, and that's what prompted Lasorda's outburst. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
June 4, 1976 and May 14, 1978 both check out for 3-homer games against the Dodgers. Wizardman 21:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, 1978, not 1979. Kingman did it twice in 1979, neither of them against the Dodgers. The June 4, 1976, game was lopsided, as the Mets beat the Dodgers 11-0.[5] The May 14, 1978, game was another story.[6] It was a close game. Kingman hit a solo shot in the 6th for the Cubs first run. He hit a 2-out, 2-run shot in the 9th to tie it. Then the game dragged on another 6 innings, and in the top of the 15th, Kingman did it to them again, hitting a 3-run dinger that proved to be the game-winner. In both the 1976 and 1978 games, Kingman drove in 8 runs. But without any other facts, logic would tell you that the 1978 game would be particularly galling to Lasorda, having yielded the lead and then the game to the big guy. Along with that, you have this writeup about Paul Olden, who asked Lasorda the fateful question after that game.[7] It's from the L.A. Times, so it's to be expected that they might have gotten the facts right. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The other sources are an Associated Press article reprinted by NBC Sports and Sports Illustrated. All three articles cite fairly reliable sources. I don't think you can say the L.A.Times is the most reliable of the bunch.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Except you're weighing random information against an interview with the guy who asked the question. And as I say, logic tells you that the Cubs game would be the one that would really get Lasorda's goat. The Mets game was lopsided and forgettable. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, look at the NBC writeup. They've got their facts mixed up. They say June 4, 2006, was the 30th anniversary. But their description of the event (other than mixing up which team he was on) is about the 1978 game: "Dave Kingman had just led the the New York Mets to an extra-inning victory at Dodger Stadium with three home runs and eight RBIs, when a young radio reporter named Paul Olden asked him, 'What did you think of Kingman’s performance?'" →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a Google books reference that talks about the Cubs/Dodgers game, mostly about Lasorda's being somewhat red-faced for cursing so much: [8]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a blog entry from 2006 that openly states they got it wrong about 2006: [9]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The NBC one also has Lasorda saying it was a 15-inning game. Wknight94 talk 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is stated to be Lasorda's own description of the event: [10]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Basically, somebody got it wrong somewhere along the way, and now google is full of the two versions, for example if you enter [lasorda kingman olden]. But they all say Olden was the guy who asked the question. The sources closest to the situation say Cubs/Dodgers 1978. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
After the Mets game, the Dodgers had the third-best record in baseball. That's not a scenario that would spawn a meltdown. I think we can call this one, eh? Wknight94 talk 01:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
My intention in posting this was to get an answer. It seems as if Bugs did his home work. I'm satisfied with calling it the Cubs game.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ASG templates

  • {{2008 MLB All Star Game, AL Team}}
  • {{2009 MLB All Star Game, AL Team}}

Do we really need these? Or do they need a TfD? KV5 (TalkPhils) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd TfD; we gonna be adding 10 templates onto people who already have 10-15 on their page? Wizardman 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Just think of Pete Rose's navboxes... I'll take care of it... KV5 (TalkPhils) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Definitely TfD. The only use is at the article itself, where there is a table of these guys. For individual players, election to a particular ASG is not notable enough for it's own template nor does such a template add any useful info or navigation ability for the article. The ASG election is already in the prose, likely, anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of these at all (nor their NFL counterparts). The only issue I have with TfD is if it gets spun into a larger discussion regarding chapionship templates (which I know have been a bone of contention between different sports Wikiprojects in recent years). The discussion seems pretty dead, but the result of this TfD may shed some light on the issue. In theory I would support a TfD of these, assuming the scope remains limited. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Now featured at TfD: the above two templates. Contributor notified. KV5 (TalkPhils) 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Farm system

Whose terrible idea was it to list a franchise's farm system in each season article for each team? Awful. What does the list of Tampa Bay's minor league franchise have to do with how the Rays did in 2008? Why must we clutter up the season articles with mountains of pointless information? Vidor (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's standard information in baseball guides. For a given year, it might make it easier to review the progress of a farm team's players or the team itself. As a recent example, the Rays top minor league farm, the Durham Bulls, won the minor league championship this year. So if the Rays experience another boost next year, someone might want to go back and check it out. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The season articles are not "baseball guides". They are summaries of the events of the season. For the example you cite, the success of the Durham Bulls in 2008 had absolutely zero to do with the lack of success of Tampa Bay in 2008. And, further, the "farm system" sections don't have any information about how the minor league teams actually did: they're just lists of affiliates. That kind of material is appropriate for the overall article about a franchise, not the article dealing specifically with how the major league team fared over the course of a specific season. Awful. Vidor (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly not married to it. We'll see what other viewers have to say about it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I personally have the same view as Baseball Bugs. That information is integral to the season article. As there is at least one franchise that moves or experiences an affiliation change, the list of minor league affiliates is a must on a season article. I'm willing to concede that a well done season article, does not need the round up of how each team did as it would become weighty. However, I would think each team should have a 2009 Washington Nationals Minor League Affiliates season article. If you take each minor league team and write a couple paragraphs on each, it would be a good page. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I say it is relevant in the sense that we're not just looking at how the major league team did, but we want to know about the major league franchise. Most of the article remains focused on the major league team, but it's helpful to have a context of the farm system. I do agree that it shouldn't get bogged down with too much info on the minor leagues, and I don't know if separate pages for each teams farm system is really necessary. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The articles just list the names of the affiliates, who the managers were and mention if they won the league championship. This is helpful information for the context of the major league franchise and is included on all historical season articles. Spanneraol (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Like all articles that get too long, eventually there may be separate pages for chapters like Farm System, or even statistics. The practice began in the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers season page, and I have added data for other teams. Would it be better to suspend work on these chapters until we resolve whether this information should have its own page, linked to the MLB teams' season page?McGill1974 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would either want to see a blurb like we have for the farm system notes (minor league teams frequently change affiliations so this would be nice to document) or have that noted in the minor league team articles themselves. Creating seasons for minor league teams is going too far in terms of information we'd have to keep up with. Let's not overextend ourselves. Wizardman 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
For the most part I'm gonna agree with Vidor. Unless there is something that's big news then we can mention it in the article (though I don't think it needs its own section). To have an extra section in there just because we can seems like too much. Sections for draft picks seem like enough to cover franchise development. We need to actually put some effort into making reasonable coverage of the major league teams before we start throwing the minors in there. Articles with a two sentence intro and a game log are getting ridiculous. blackngold29 20:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

and is included on all historical season articles Circular logic. Putting them in season articles does not justify putting them in season articles. The name of the New York Mets' AA team has nothing to do with why the Mets were terrible in 2009. The name of the Dodgers' rookie league team has nothing to do with why they will be playing in the NLCS. This is general information about the franchise, not information specific to a year and the events of that year. Therefore it should not be in the articles. Vidor (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is why we have pages like List of Philadelphia Phillies minor league affiliates, which show the progression of said affiliates from year to year. It should be accessible from every team season article, because it should be part of the franchise's navbox. That's all from me. KV5 (TalkPhils) 22:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The affiliates change every year and the affiliates from 1969 have a correlation to the 69 major league clubs from that year. The information should be included in the articles because it ads further understanding of the state of the franchise durring that season. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Then link to the affiliates list. It shows you exactly the same thing, while keeping the relevant information together and the irrelevant info out of season articles. 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, a GA, does not contain this information. KV5 (TalkPhils) 13:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

it ads further understanding of the state of the franchise durring that season. No, no it does not. It adds nothing. Saying that the AAA affiliate of the St. Louis Cardinals in 2009 was the Memphis Redbirds tells me absolutely nothing about how the Cardnials did in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nil. And as pointed out above, this information could be put in the navbox. Vidor (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. KV5 (TalkPhils) 13:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, now, I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I must say that the minor league table is a bit incongruous. As Vidor logicks, it is the previous years of the minor league teams that are potentially relevant. The minor league teams are available in the navbox, and the very rare user who is interested in the performance of the minor league teams can get there by clicking. Really, all the average user needs is the name of the team, should it have escaped their memory for a moment. Abductive (reasoning) 06:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It might not tell you how the Cardinals did in 2009, but it tells you what their franchise was like in 1960, 1966, 1970.. etc. It is more valuable for past seasons than current ones but current seasons will fairly quickly become past ones. Spanneraol (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

but it tells you what their franchise was like in 1960, 1966, 1970 That has nothing to do with 2009. The relevance of the minors to the majors in season articles, such as it is, lies in which players were promoted to the big-league team to contribute. But you deal with that by writing about it in the article. For the Cardinals article, I would write in the text that Mitchell Boggs was promoted from Memphis after Wellemeyer lost his spot in the rotation. Listing the Memphis Redbirds in a table does not add to understanding. Vidor (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.Spanneraol (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Why? The article is not the "2009 [team] franchise season;" it is the "2009 [team] season". Using one team as an example, it is an article about the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies, not the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies and their farm teams and their coaches' kids and so on, ad infinitum. KV5 (TalkPhils) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A small section on the farm system ads information about the franchise during that season.. Several of us have been working on historical season pages and this information has been included on all of them.. it's not just a list of teams but lists the managers of the teams and if they won the league championship during the season. The farm system is part of the franchise. It has been a lot of work to add and I feel adds to the value of the historical season pages. Just cause Vidor had a problem with it on one page is no reason to throw out all the work we have done. Spanneraol (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What Spanneroal said. The franchise includes the minor leagues, and basic info on MiL seasons tells you about that franchise. More minute detail deserves it's own article, but at least summary info should be there. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we're missing my point here. First off, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so just because it's been done doesn't make it right. Second, season articles are not about the franchise. They are about the team. Teams and franchises are two completely separate things. KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That's your opinion, KV... the team and franchise are the same. You don't want it on your 2009 page fine.. but it is valuable on the past season pages. Spanneraol (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I would have to say that is your opinion. In my view the season pages are about anything notable that happened to the franchise during that season. New affiliates, new owners, name changes, game outcomes, trades, callups, special promotions etc etc etc. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it's fact or opinion, but I agree exactly with what KV said. The New York Yankees are a franchise, the the 2009 New York Yankees are a team. blackngold29 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A Major League Baseball franchise is made up of 1 major league baseball team which signs affiliation agreements with a variety of minor league baseball teams at different levels. They are two distinct and separate entities. And that's a fact, not an opinion. KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
And no one has disputed that, but the agreements and affiliations that a franchise makes are notable to the business of that franchise. Just like major business partners would be to an article about any other type of company. My point about your opinion was about the articles being about the team not the franchise.-DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If the articles are about the franchises, then they should be entitled as such. We have completely separate articles for franchises (the San Francisco Giants are a franchise) and teams (the 2009 San Francisco Giants are a team). KV5 (TalkPhils) 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
They are titled that way 2009 San Francisco Giants season is the name of the article, indicating the article is about what happened during that season to the San Francisco Giants. What you list above is a redirect. If it was just about the team it would not have the word season at the end or would have the word team at the end. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, but I'm obviously in the minority, so the hell with it. KV5 (TalkPhils) 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
To see how farm teams can be talked about on a season page an example from another sport is 2008–09 Calgary Flames season. While hockey doesn't have nearly as many minor teams per team as baseball does, something similar could work. I personally like this way of doing it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The question then becomes: what's the limit? Do we have minor league blurbs for every single team? Are there reliable sources to support doing such a thing? How do we use and present the information efficiently while still satisfying the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS, as well as not being redundant to the minor league affiliates lists? I have no problem with prose like is shown in the Flames article; I just think listing the teams is pointless and redundant, and I thought that's what this argument/debate/brouhaha was about. KV5 (TalkPhils) 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right, the number of teams in baseball does make it much harder. Reliable sources shouldn't be hard to find as baseball is hugely written about. Redundancy I don't know. I am just about showing as much relevant information as possible. There may be better ways I am sure. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
So I can add a game log for the Pirates A, AA, AAA and rookie league teams to every article in the history of the franchise? With winning and losing pitchers, location, attendance, opponent, score... I can cite it all to a WP:RS. Obviously I'm being facetious, but the point is just because it's out there in RSs doesn't mean it should be in the article. As I said above, why are when concentrating on minor league teams when—to put it frankly—the coverage of most MLB teams for this season sucks? blackngold29 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that game logs was the idea; I think that giving the minor league teams their due weight was the concept they were going for. In the grand scheme of the franchise, if these are indeed franchise articles, the minor leagues would get their due in terms of weight if they got a paragraph or two, compared to the size of an article like the 2008 Phillies season. I don't think this is nearly as important until the major league seasons are actual articles, and not just game logs with rosters and a paragraph. As you mention above, completing the seasons themselves properly should be a higher priority than adding minor league teams, especially if they are nothing more than a list of teams. KV5 (TalkPhils) 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Listing game logs is a huge jump from the mentioning that the teams were affiliated that I was suggesting. If you really wanted to list game logs you would probably do a see also link at the top of the section mentioning the affiliation to a season article for that team. However, that isn't part of whats being discussed. All I was suggesting was that the affiliation itself should be mentioned, and any news relevant to both the major and minor league team. -DJSasso (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
the affiliation itself should be mentioned, and any news relevant to both the major and minor league team The question becomes what is relevant to both. If it is relevant to the major league club then it should be in the article anyway, and so it should not require its own section. What I don't like to see is an entire section dedicated to the farm teams which simply lists them off year after year; that info should be elsewhere. This is why every franchise has its own template. I always give more leeway to well thought out, well written, and well cited sections; I don't think that farm team sections should be required in any way though. blackngold29 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to toss a suggestion out there to jump-start a possible discussion. Since most players that would be involved with the major league club at some point during the season would come from AA or AAA, how about a blurb about the seasons of the AAA and AA clubs? Leeway can be afforded for lower-level clubs that win a championship. KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If the section is going to resemble this (though it still needs improvement) then I have less problem with it than this. Just listing the teams off accomplishes nothing, as they should already be listed in the franchise's template and main article. blackngold29 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind adding the additional info but I still feel listing the teams accomplishes something. The franchise's template only lists the current affiliates, not the past ones and doesn't list the managers or league champs like the season articles do. Spanneraol (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

is no reason to throw out all the work we have done Well, the reason to throw out all the work that you've done is that your work was a pointless waste of time that makes the article worse. Look, this is not hard: the season articles are articles about the season. Lists of minor-league affiliates are not appropriate or useful in an article about what happened to the major-league team over the course of 162 games. Vidor (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you really think a small section at the bottom of the article makes it worse than you have a lot of problems.. The information ads to the article and improves it.. despite your idiotic opinions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we all agree that saying things like "your work was a pointless waste of time" and "your idiotic opinions" are maybe not by the letter of the law violations of civility .... but they are not conducive to a working environment. Please fellow baseball fans ... a little peace. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, he set me off a bit by his tone.. I apologize.Spanneraol (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>I have a few points regarding what is mentioned above. The way I look at these season articles is that they are about the franchise, not a "team." Basically the Washington Nationals page is a brief version of the history of the franchise (in Washington as I picked a controversial team), if you want to know what happened to the franchise in 2009 you go to the 2009 Washington Nationals season page. As such, everything about the franchise should be mentioned including minor league teams. If these pages are about the team, then the only things that should be on said page are about the 25 men on the roster and the coaching staff. Nothing should be mentioned regarding broadcast information, attendance, ownership changes, new stadiums etc. It should only reflect the actual games the team plays, which sounds ridiculous right? I believe these pages were designed with the franchise in mind as the team's main page cannot encompass a detailed history of each season. As a 2009 Gulf Coast League Nationals season would get deleted pretty quickly, the only way to detail even slightly what they did is on the parent's club's main page. I'd say a simple box with the team, manager, record and playoff data is the easiest way. However, being a stats junkie I'd be in full favor of adding everything about all the minor league teams with game logs, stats etc. But, of course I can't be a bull in a china shop and unilaterally decide what happens with these pages, which is sort of what Vidor is attempting to do.

As I am more heavily involved in the hockey side of things, we've basically have a general format for the season pages, but allow so variance. You will see the game logs look different in some cases, certain teams track more transactions than others etc. etc. I'd say there doesn't need to be a set format for these pages, if there is no basis for adding the minor league affiliates to the Rays' article and no one sees fit that it does so be it. But since I feel the Nationals should include these, then it will. We don't need rigid guidelines based on one user's complaint. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should be mentioned regarding broadcast information, attendance, ownership changes, new stadiums etc..... But that info does have a direct relation to the major league team. It's the guys on the 25 man roster that are broadcast on TV and radio, it is those guys that draw the crowds, etc. There is a difference between those 25 guys and the ones in the minors. More importantly I think you bring up a good point about WP:HOCKEY, which is a project that is losely guidelined—we have had discussions about uniforming game logs and the like, but they've never gotten anywhere—yet it remains one of the best working WProjects out there. I thought that having a template like guideline for similar articles (ie seasons) was the best route, but I have realized that leaving it up to the major contributors to each individual article is actually more beneficial. The only problem with that will be—and hopefully it never happens, but you never know—when GA or FA reviewers start saying, "Why didn't you follow the other FA season articles as a template?" The only thing that should matter is if the individual article meets the criteria, but it doesn't always seem to play out that way. blackngold29 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
First, this whole thing is much ado about nothing. It is five or six lines buried at the bottom of some of the baseball season articles. It seems like a totally appropriate use of such a small amount of out-of-the-way space. Second, the way this issue was brought up was totally over the top. Whose terrible idea was it so start a discussion with "Whose terrible idea was it to..."? Wknight94 talk 03:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wknight94. While I personally don't think these lists add very much to the articles, neither do they detract. Part of working cooperatively in Wikipedia is allowing other editors to add things to articles that they think are important even if I may not think they're that important (provided they are verified and NPOV, of course). How about we declare a truce on this issue and move on? BRMo (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I concur on moving on with this. Just to illustrate my idea, I noticed after I posted above that nobody had added anything to the Nats' page. So I added my little bit, the tiny lead in does need some work, but I was attempting to justify why that's there with it. Take a look (2009 Washington Nationals season) and see if that at least is sufficient and too weighty? Feel free to edit the lead in or whatever if that sounds bad or whatever. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Whose terrible idea was it so start a discussion with Mine! Because the list of minor league franchises is, in fact, a terrible idea. I believe in candor, and I also believe in trying to make an article as good as you possibly can. No legitimate arguments have been presented for including a list of minor league affiliates in articles dedicated to an individual season of the big league team. I refer you to the title of the articles in question: "2009 St. Louis Cardinals Season". Namely, the history of the St. Louis Cardinals in 2009. Not the Memphis Redbirds or any other minor league affiliate. Vidor (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument was presented above and, though I disagree with the consensus, a majority of commenters here have noted that the page is about the "franchise's season", not the team's. As a side note, Vidor, believing in candor is not carte blanche to insult other editors' ideas or belittle their work. KV5 (TalkPhils) 18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Vidor: How about one of the most basic arguments: it's a web page - web pages link to other related web pages. Where else would you provide links from the parent 1967 Boston Red Sox to the minor league teams which were affiliated at that time? Maybe a List of Philadelphia Phillies minor league affiliates approach would be better, but there should be some mechanism for linking from a parent team to the affiliated minor league teams. Would you prefer a navbox? And KV5 hit it on the head with regards to belittling other people's efforts. I know we have a time-honored tradition of drowning out a good message with a terrible tone..... Wknight94 talk 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
a majority of commenters here have noted that the page is about the "franchise's season", Well, anyone who believes this needs to actually examine the articles and read them more closely. Just because a majority might believe this (which I hope is not the case) does not mean that they are correct. These articles are about the big-league teams. In fact, the phrase "franchise's season" is meaningless. Franchises don't have seasons. Individual teams do. Where else would you provide links from the parent 1967 Boston Red Sox to the minor league teams which were affiliated at that time? Nowhere. The names of the minor-league affiliates of the Boston Red Sox in 1967 are no more relevant to how the 1967 Red Sox fared than the 2009 Pawtucket team is to how the 2009 Red Sox fared. The names of the minor-league teams are relevant to the franchise, not to any one season. The article that should directly deal with, or link to, the minor-league affiliates of the 1967 Boston Red Sox are Boston Red Sox, History of the Boston Red Sox, and an article that appears to not exist, List of Boston Red Sox minor league affiliates. Vidor (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You can't fully separate the farm system from the major league club. This is not like college football, where you graduate, you get drafted, and you're part of the major club, with no connection to the college team except for your trophies. In baseball, there's a pyramid, with the major league club sitting on top of it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
And by clicking the link to Boston Red Sox, you can find out about all their affiliates. Vidor (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Vidor, I think the point they are trying to make is that, because affiliations change over time, those links are only relevant now. By not including the information pertinent to the timeframe of the article, we are encouraging recentism, which incorporates bias into our articles. KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly the point, we need to know the affiliates at that point in time, because the affiliates today are not necessarily the same affiliates for 1984 or whatever. And yes franchises do have seasons, as does every company, we just tend to call them fiscal years when talking business. You really need to get over the idea that the articles are about how the team fared, the articles are about the history of the franchise during the 2009 year etc. These are history articles about the major events that happened to the franchise. The statistics etc are only one part of the picture. And that is not even getting into the arguement that how the minor teams do can have a big impact on how the major team does via the sending up of players and how well those players perform once up. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the converse, in that the fortunes of the major league team and their need for call-ups has a big impact on what teams win championships and fare well during the season. DJSasso and co. have made some really good points in this argument and have definitely convinced me of the value of these sections, as long as they are prose and not lists. KV5 (TalkPhils) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)