Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

User:Janes8266

We have here Janes8266 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose singular purpose since arriving on June 11 seems to be a crusade to expunge all references to a particular book that's critical of the Alcor organization, famous for being the location of Ted Williams' remains. The editor claims any reference to the book is "advertising". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this appears to be the tip of the iceberg (ha!) of an ongoing edit war at the Larry Johnson (author) page. Johnson, a former Alcor employee, wrote a book called Frozen, which alleges mishandling of Williams' remains. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from WP:ANI. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Spring training stadia

Just an FYI, I cleaned up and greatly expanded List of Major League Baseball spring training stadiums yesterday. Please feel free to critique/expand upon/correct at your leisure. It was something that's been bugging me for a while.... ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 13:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Those ballparks (calling them "stadiums" is a bit of stretch) are an area that I had overlooked somehow. They do tend to come and go much more often than the major league facilities. One item I saw right away was missing: the Cubs long-time facility on Catalina Island. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call on the Cubs, Bugs! I completely forgot that one. I'm sure I didn't get them all, as you're right, they do come and go quite frequently (as a resident of St. Pete, I should know....*tear*). Yeah, I wasn't impressed with the term "stadium" myself, either, but I didn't create the page, just fixed it. I'll add the {{Incomplete table}} temp to it to solicit more help. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is, or was, a book about the Cubs' stay in Catalina. I think "Wrigley Field" was kind of an "informal" name, but it was the closest thing to a name that was indicated. Pinning down the location could prove interesting. It was kind of up the hill from the resort community, but I'm not sure it had any named streets. When I get the chance, I'll look into that a bit. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if, to enable filling in the gaps, it would be useful to list all the spring training cities, whether the ballparks are known or not? That would at least put a fence around the field, so to speak. For example, the Cubs held their WWII spring training at French Lick Springs, IN, if I recall correctly. Who knows what the ballpark was. But that could be separately researched. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, if only because the way I created the table was alpha by park. Of course that can always be changed, but I assume since the name of the page is "List of MLB ST stadiums" as opposed to just cities, it seems like it would be misleading to the average reader. However, I'll be more than glad to compile a list of cities for each team on the talk page this weekend, and as we figure out the venues, we can add them to the main table. Thoughts? ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 12:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a separate list of spring training cities? I'm not seeing one offhand. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not on the Wiki. I'd have to go online and compile a list, but I should have enough free time to do that. Maybe we should create an article for just the cities and list the venues we find, instead. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 15:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That might be easier. It's kind of a tradeoff, as it's often a many-to-many relationship, as teams switch cities and ballparks. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I got so far: List of Major League Baseball spring training cities. Whatcha think? I noted off the "former" section since I don't have as much time today as I thought I did. (Oh, and on a side note, I'm NEVER getting involved an Expos/Nat discussions again. Every time I say something, it just seems to make it worse ;-) ) ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on FAC image

Please could more people go to here to feedback and/or vote on the 2004 World Series.

We badly need more people to give feeback as its had nothing in 4 or 5 days and the FAC has had nothing new in 10 days. BUC (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Adenhart

Two things I noticed working on Nick Adenhart's page: Is it still correct to refer to the Los Angels Angels as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim? I don't see that anywhere but Wikipedia, and I think people need to stop referring to them as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and the infobox needs to be changed to Los Angeles Angels to reflect the change.

Also, is it a big deal to give a player who spent his entire career with one team (Adenhart, Kirby Puckett, Cal Ripken...) that team's infobox. I gave Adenhart an Angels one, and it was changed.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My take... (A) the official name of the team is the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim", as that's what Arte Moreno held a press conference to announce the team would be called. "Los Angeles Angels" redirects, so there's no problem. (B) Infoboxes mark current team only. As soon as a player is off the team, the infobox should revert to neutral. There was once a huge problem with giving a team for past players (you can imagine that got heated in some cases). --Muboshgu (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about in the states, but they are still refered to as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim on the sports channels up here in Canada. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sports media down here tends to be lazy, so it's one or the other (Anaheim or Los Angeles Angels), but the full team name is still LAAofA, and so that's the way it should stay. There's no WP:COMMONNAME here, so the full one (which isn't amibiguous at all) should apply. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, during Fox's coverage, they're still referred to as the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim", at least during the opening. Also, that teams name is listed here on Fox Sports, here on their official team page, and here on Baseball Reference, so the official name is still "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim", even if ESPN bastardizes it. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 13:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you were to go by "common names", then it would probably be just "Los Angeles Angels". It's typically abbreviated LAA (not LAAA). Their uniforms don't even use that phrase. In fact, all the uniforms say is "Angels". This writeup [1] calls them "L.A. Angels". However, their official name is what it is. And I still think the Dodgers should rename themselves the Brooklyn Dodgers of Los Angeles. Especially as they've been playing like "Bums" in the NLCS. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

May aswell stick with 'Los Angeles Angeles of Anaheim'. I'm loath to see the court battle over the name be a waste of time. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC needs feedback

It's now been two weeks since there has been any feeback on the 2004 World Series FA nominantion page (outside of of an issue with the lead image). Please go here to give it feeback. BUC (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Designated Hitter Page Debate

I would like other's feedback regarding the Designated Hitter page. It contains a quote section that contains many Pro-DH quotes and one Anti-DH quotes (I added it). In any case, regardless of Pro-/Anti-DH, my concern is the Quotes section. Is this section necessary? I would argue the information in the quotes is already present in the other sections and the quotes section is redundant. Plus, it would probably be better to add the quotes in the other sections it belongs to so that a better context for the quote is provided. I was just wondering if this is a valid concern or I'm barking up the wrong tree. Just trying to help... SF Gyros (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cardinals-Cubs Rivalry Needs Severe Updating

Please someone get on this. I want to know more about it but it only goes to 2005 and only sparsely. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, I didn't know there was a rivalry. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough history about that sort of thing to know if there was or wasn't. I personaly don't like rivalry articles unless they are ones that have been written about extensively like Boston-Yankees. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, most sports rivalries are media-created. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mets-Phillies rivalry wasn't... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I did say most. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you've never made the mistake of wearing a Cubs shirt in eastern Missouri / southern Illinois. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That bad, eh? GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Or a Cardinals shirt in Northern Illinois. Interstate 74 is like the border between North and South Korea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bartman? if you're out there? recommend ya don't wear a Cardinals shirt. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As a lifelong Cards fan, I assure you, there's a rivalry. (In fact, if you look at the facts, it goes back longer than the "vaunted" Sox-Yanks rivalry, apparently. I thought I heard 11 years, maybe more.) :p umrguy 42 00:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It goes back to the 1880s, but it really heated up in the late 1920s and through the 1930s, when both the Cubs and Cardinals were pennant contenders every year. It rekindled in the mid-late 1960s when both clubs got good again, and likewise in the 1980s and onward. Harry Caray is kind of a bridge between the two sides of the rivalry. Like any Cubs fan, I used to hate Harry Caray. The last thing I ever expected was for a statue of Harry to be placed outside Wrigley Field, fer cryin' out loud. After he went to the Cubs, over time I grew to hate him a bit less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

MLB's league wide retirement of #42

Why does the Yankees closer (Mariano Riveria) still wear #42? GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Rivera had the number before it was retired and any player who already had it at the time was allowed to wear it for the remainder of their careers and Rivera happens to be the only one still active.--Yankees10 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought that might've been it, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem--Yankees10 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

NLCS game 3 sentence

Explanation/revision of the following sentence: "Oddly,[sic] Lee batted in the bottom of the eighth stroking a single and scoring on the Victorino home run, but he did not start the ninth inning." - Lee batted because he was going to pitch in the top of the ninth, to garner the complete game. However, when Victorino homered, he made an 8 run game an 11 run game, and with Lee's pitch count at 114, Manuel/Dubee (who makes all real pitching decisions) decided enough was enough, and went to the bullpen. Maybe the sentence should read something along the lines of, "Lee, batting in the bottom of the eighth sroked a single and scored on the 3 run homer by Victorino. Victorino's shot essentially ended Lee's night, and Manuel went to the pen and used Durbin to mop up the top of the ninth." Btgildea (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)btgildea

That's certainly an improvement. The point the original sentence was trying to make, though, is that the pitcher batted for himself and was taken out anyway. However, your point is that taking the pitcher out was not a "given" until after the 3-run homer. Instead of "essentially ended Lee's night", maybe you could point out (preferably with some source to back it up), that Manuel figured he needed to keep Lee in there (perhaps hoping to avoid a rerun of the Pedro situation in Game 2), but that after the 3-run homer, he felt safe in lifting him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not the sports page. Just report what happened, no need to make it fancy or speculate that Lee was still in the game simply to get the CG or that he was taken out because of pitch count (which wasn't all that high). Now if things like these can be cited somewhere, then go ahead and add it, but remember to give the source credit. I'd go with something like: "Lee singled in the eighth inning and later scored on Victorino's home run. Durbin replaced Lee for the ninth inning, acquiring the save." black ngold29 05:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just kind of odd to have a pitcher bat for himself and then be lifted the next half-inning. It's possible to be factual without being fully informative. If a citation can be found where the manager spook to this matter directly, then it could be pointed out. Without such a citation, then it's just speculation. For all we know, maybe the pitcher told the manager he had a hangnail from swinging the bat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This [2] contains the following: "Lee appeared like he would go for the shutout, as he batted in the bottom half following a Ruiz walk. He singled, then scored on Victorino's homer to right. But Lee, having thrown 114 pitches, was removed for Chad Durbin, who worked a 1-2-3 ninth to end the game." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's fine for the sports page, but there's nothing there that says he was removed primarily because of his pitch count; we can't assume it like the newspaper can. Now if somebody in the post-game press conference says 'We took him out because he had already thrown 114 pitches' then fine, add it. He's not exactly exerting himself beyond normal capabilities. black ngold29 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think the press conference would have some coverage somewhere, and then the question would be answered. The writer of that article might have gotten that bit from the press conference, or he might have made an assumption. We can't tell for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My first choice would be to take it out. Who cares? It was totally inconsequential to a blowout game. Maybe it was because Lee batted .212 on the season and their bench sucks anyway. Maybe they didn't want to appear to be piling on. Maybe maybe maybe. Not even worth the discussion - just yank it out and move on. Wknight94 ^talk 16:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dropped third = stolen base?

I was just at Stolen base#Stealing first, which strongly implies that a player who reaches first after a dropped third strike is credited with a stolen base. I've been a baseball fan a long time, but I have no recollection of that ever being the case. I am going to go back over and delete that, but thought I would drop a note to let someone restore it if I was going completely n-v-t-s. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a stolen base. Please do rewrite/delete. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, not a SB. To my knowledge it's a strikeout then a PB, WP, E, or FC. black ngold29 18:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  - "You can't steal first!" And even if you could, that play wouldn't work, as you normally don't get a stolen base on a passed ball or wild pitch, which a dropped third strike is necessarily going to be, one or the other, if the batter reaches base. Some editor applied a little "original thinking" there, it seems. And you're right, it's a strikeout on the batter. It counts as an at-bat but not a hit. If the catcher throws him out, it's typically a 2-3 putout. There could be an error on the play if the catcher throws it into right field. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fixed now ... certainly if anyone objects to the change, please change it/let me know/ etc ... LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Only that a little more explanation might be useful. Germany Schaefer's stealing first base was done to try to draw a throw, to allow the runner on third to have a chance to score, and according to this SABR writeup, the date is pinpointed to August 4, 1911. So far I am unable to determine exactly when the stealing-backwards rule was adopted. [3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Baseball

No help from you chaps (heh), but Portal Baseball is now featured! Yay. Seriously though, I posted here asking for reviews/help a couple times, I think we need to create a template for the talk page (or main page) that lists current baseball-related items under review. So any time a baseball article/list/picture/sound/portal/topic goes under a candidacy or removal candidacy (or a GA or peer review) we can track it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do all the "Team Specific" WikiProjects listed on the portal all point to the Boston Red Sox? Is someone trying to say somethin'? Spanneraol (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't look at me, although I *would* appreciate more comments on the Sox-related discussion I started above :p umrguy 42 22:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamelogs

I've been checking over a lot of the 2009 season pages and have noticed that many of them have partial or incomplete gamelogs... I've never really liked the gamelogs but if we are gonna have them on the pages they should be updated... Most of them seem to have stopped being updated in August or september.. Didn't someone have a bot that was gonna fill all those in? Spanneraol (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Does "Former NFL Linebacker" = notability?

I'm looking doubtfully at the new article Mike Leek. None of the links provided actually mentions him, not even the one to his business, and I think if he is notable at all it can only be because of his short-lived career with the Atlanta Falcons - I do find web references to him as "Former NFL Linebacker for the Atlanta Falcons". Is that a level that meets WP:ATHLETE? I notice that the same author has already had an article Mike Leek (Linebacker) speedied A7, which suggests maybe not. I have looked at WP:BASEBALL/N but I don't know enough to understand it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The NFL Is a football league... this is the baseball project.. but if he did play with the Falcons he is notable.. however, I think this page might be a hoax cause I can't find any reference to him playing in the NFL. Spanneraol (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the NFL point, but Pro-Football-Reference has nothing on him, so likely a hoax. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt response, and apologies for my ignorance - article has gone. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Padres

i invite all to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/San Diego Padres please join the project

The impossible dream? Expos/Nationals

Just a comment: It's quite frustrating to see 1 franchise (Expos/Nationals) being treated differently from the other 29 franchises. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh... we know. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Give it some time, and the articles will likely eventually be merged, especially as the Nats are now as bad or worse than the Expos were, and their supporters will say, "OK, yeh, whatever." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We can haz cheezmerger? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You get right over here and clean the tea off my monitor! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This might be a good time to propose it and see if it goes better than it did in 2005 when the D.C. fans were all giddy over getting an alleged major league ball club. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We did that earlier this year; it went over like a lead balloon. And though the MythBusters have built one, this one didn't fly. At all. I honestly think it's because there are a lot of hockey fans in the area and the hockey project doesn't do things the same way we do. That's just my opinion, though. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

With such lengthy discussion having already taken place it would seem that the only hope of getting them merged is to take the main objections to the merger and explaining what is wrong with them. Such as KV's point, simply explain this is a baseball franchise; we get it that different sports do things different ways, but this is how we treat baseball teams in this situation. black ngold29 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I got way too frustrated with that discussion to bother continuing with it. I think I was the one that proposed the original merge, but I couldn't stand the shouting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem blackngold is that its not just a sports team issue, this is how all articles in wikipedia work. It is actually baseball and some other sports teams that are holding out on what the rest of wikipedia does. It's not hockey that is different, its baseball. Yes in the sports article world it appears that hockey is the odd one out, but it actually matches the rest of the wiki, whereas the others do not. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are more likely to see the opposite happen than a merge (ie all baseball teams split eventually). Since the articles being seperate meets the criteria of summary style, while having one single article does not. Though a stalemate is most likely the outcome for a good long time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there, DJSasso. You very eloquently argued above that the team season pages are about the franchise history during a particular season. Now, if I understand you properly, you are promoting disassociating and disassembling the articles that make the franchises continuous. Summary style does not endorse splitting the teams; it would endorse splitting a team history article into time periods, if it should become too lengthy. Each incarnation of a franchise is a variation on a single theme. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No you don't understand properly. Splitting up a team history article into time periods is no different than every other history article on wikipedia that gets too big, you split it into more articles with a small summary on the main page. So you have a small paragraph on the nationals page mentioning the begining as the expos etc and then have the link to the expos article with more details. I am not sure why this is such a dificult concept to master. Some people only want a summary, which they get at the main page, others want more detail which they get by linking to the expos page. This is how a wiki works. Doing this in no way stops the franchise articles from being continuous. This is exactly what summary style is about, you split into two time periods, the time period of the expos and the time period of the nationals. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And to me, that makes no sense, because they are one continuous franchise. The more proper method, in my opinion, is to link into a team history article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's just agree to not agree. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much all we can do, because I know this is one thing I won't change my opinion on. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistancy across the MLB franchises are needed. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to get off the consistancy kick, nothing needs to be consistant because a wiki is ever changing and nothing will ever be totally consistant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear God...please NO!!! I started the last attempt a few months ago and I'm still paying for it! There are plenty of people that do want to, GoodDay, but they're usually out BS'd by the very vocal supporters of the Expos. One day, we'll get consistency in the Wiki, but until then, we just grin and deal with it. Besides, see what you started just by posing the question? ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 18:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, as the opening commentor, I recommend this be 'archived' or 'closed'. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We could take the opposite approach, and redirect the Nats to the Expos article, as a footnote that, "P.S. The Expos moved to D.C. in 2005, and are otherwise still worthless." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 19:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

haha :P -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Shame Loria doesn't still own the team. If anyone deserved that mess, he does. I do want to comment on one argument above though - the Expos article isn't just a baseball article. It's also a Canadiana article. It is not a topic that one project can claim ownership of. While consistency is good in most cases, a rigid stance on everything is not always constructive. In this case, we are in a compromise situation, which is more than fair. Reso lute 23:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You could convince more people to merge (well at least me maybe) if it wouldn't end up like San Francisco Giants and History of the San Francisco Giants. The New York Giants make up nearly 60% of the franchise's history (by years), won all five of the franchise's World Series and 17 of its 20 pennants, and featured the winningest manager in N.L. history. And yet it is relegated to what - about 30% of the two articles? For shame. 28 entire years - probably more than many of you have been alive - are smashed into a single two-paragraph section (History of the San Francisco Giants#1930–57: Five pennants in 28 seasons) - 8 whole lines on my monitor (3.5 years per line!). Another 10 pennants are condensed literally into a single paragraph - three sentences (with sloppy parentheticals mixed in). "So fix it" you say? I wouldn't even know how. I can't tell where the main article ends and the history article begins. It's a mess. If people were "allowed" to create their own shiny new New York Giants (baseball) article, I bet a baseball historian would jump all over that, and could probably create a featured article with little trouble. But by all means, let's turn another franchise's articles into a jumbled mess - or two jumbled messes. Wknight94 ^talk 00:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think thats a problem with all the articles.. they tend to be slanted towards recent events.. several of the team articles have long sections on the 2008 and 2009 seasons that are longer than most of the past history... Not sure how to resolve this but it is an issue that needs to be addressed.Spanneraol (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll bet there are plenty of people in Brooklyn that would be more than happy to write about the Brooklyn Dodgers. But if the Dodgers articles are in anywhere near the same shape as the Giants (I'm too scared to look), why should they bother? Wknight94 ^talk 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is why I advocate looking at the history as chapters in a book. The first chapter would be the Brooklyn Dodgers page. The second chapter would be the Los Angeles Dodgers page. This way it allows people more well versed in the Brooklyn history to expand on it without making the entire page too large. I have a feeling were Wikipedia and the internet around when the Dodgers and Giants move, there would be similar discussions regarding those franchises. I don't think this is an argument solely due to number of hockey editors around the Expos page, this is simply an argument because consistency does not have to be rigid. As I said in the season discussion, not every page needs to be set under rigid structure. We have a basic guideline, but it does give a clear break between chapters of history. I'd advocate breaking the Giants, Dodgers, Twins, Rangers etc. into two pages. I'm sure there are editors well versed in Washington baseball history that would gladly expand a Washington Senators article, but are not interested in really contributing much to a Twins or Rangers article. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always been disappointed that Wikipedia doesn't have separate, in-depth articles on the St. Louis Browns, Boston Braves, etc. It's a real gap in the coverage of baseball history. BRMo (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be opposed to completely separate articles on each team.. it makes more sense to split the "History of..." pages... one franchise page and then links from there to separate history pages that detail the history of the team at different periods.Spanneraol (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That runs counter to WP:MOSNAME, which tells us to use article names that are most commonly used, easy to find, and concise. BRMo (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It also says that they should be consistent, which this is not. It makes a lot more sense to change one article to the accepted consensus rather than splitting 29 articles into more than 50 under a new consensus which doesn't yet exist. Redirects can (and should, according to the above policy) be created to link to "articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names". Like these. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So far, "consistency" has been the only reason given for combining them. But to me, the rest of the baseball articles are consistently wrong. Besides, where are you getting "more than 50"? To me, the missing articles are:

Brooklyn Dodgers
Washington Senators (1st American League team)
Washington Senators (2nd American League team)
Boston Braves
Milwaukee Braves
New York Giants (baseball)
Philadelphia Athletics
Kansas City Athletics
St. Louis Browns

That means from 29 to 38. (Not that there's any rule against 38 or 50). The various 1- or 2-season teams (Seattle Pilots, 1st Baltimore Orioles, 1st Milwaukee Brewers) can stay combined. Wknight94 ^talk 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're endorsing that we selectively pick and choose? Talk about complete inconsistency. That invites so much argument and controversy that it's honestly not even worth trying. As to the arguments presented, if you all see is that "'consistency' has been the only reason given for combining", I haven't seen any legitimate reasons given that this merge should not be made. Just because this WikiProject chooses to treat its continuous franchises differently than other sports projects is not a reason that these two incarnations of the exact same MLB franchise should be separated in this manner. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "selectively pick and choose". Which are you saying I am missing? One legitimate reason given for separating is simply proper expansion. Wikipedia is not paper. It can be expanded as far as policy allows. But trying to follow this apparent consensus, you get messes like San Francisco Giants as I detailed above. I don't even want to read those articles, let alone try to edit them. Imagine a poor newbie trying to make sense of that? Where would I add details about the John McGraw era? Why is there so little there now? Obivously no one here cares about it so maybe I'm not supposed to. Etc., etc. Another legitimate reason for separating - as Resolute gave above - is geography. A separate article about an era of Canadian baseball is more likely to be edited by Canadian editors than an article about a (really bad) Washington D.C. team. Experts on early National League New York baseball are more likely to contribute to New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers articles than the messy San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers articles which are clearly dominated by recentism. Wknight94 ^talk 13:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

By "selectively pick and choose", I mean that you are endorsing only splitting articles that you feel need to be split. If one must be split, then all must be split. This is why the consistency issue hurts us so much. If you want to add information about the John McGraw era, you should put it in the appropriate section of History of the San Francisco Giants. Why? Because the New York Giants are part of the history of the San Francisco Giants, and will always remain as such, just as the Montreal Expos are part of the history of the Nationals, the Brooklyn Dodgers are part of LA's history, etc., etc., ad infinitum. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "All must be split"? How? Most of the current teams have never moved. I seriously don't follow. Wknight94 ^talk 13:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're claiming that one or two of these old time teams (or nine, or whatever) need to be split, then we need to split all of them. If we don't, if we pick selectively and treat some franchises differently than others, we invite controversy, further argument, and move/edit/revert wars. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, now I see. No, I'm not recommending splitting one or two - I say split them all. It's only nine new articles. Then they can all be expanded separately and cleanly. Wknight94 ^talk 14:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but I think you missed my point. There are tens and tens of other teams, no matter the length of their existence that would also have to be split, because otherwise it's an arbitrary choice of which articles are separated and which are combined. Then we run into the issue of alternate names: Is there a separate article for the Cincinnati Redlegs? What about the Philadelphia Blue Jays (which never technically existed)? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, splits would be along geographic lines - a natural inclination. The closest pro team for most of my life was the Hartford Whalers. When they left, I stopped caring. I'm not going to write content about the Carolina Hurricanes. That said, why would the Cincinnati Reds need to be split? Or the Colorado Rockies? If a team hasn't moved, no split is necessary. Wknight94 ^talk 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the first Orioles, the first Brewers, the Pilots: all of those teams would have to be split, and it doesn't make any sense to do so. If a writer wants to write about the Montreal Expos, then they should be able to type in "Montreal Expos", go to the article about the history of the current incarnation of the same franchise (because it is the same thing) and write. Just as you may want to type in New York Giants (NL), travel to the appropriate section of the history of the Giants franchise (since it was established above that the articles are about the franchises, not the teams), and write. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The 2- or 3-year-long teams - we are allowed to use common sense and not split those if we agree not to. The first Orioles and Brewers were at the dawn of the A.L. and didn't work out. The Pilots - well the book Ball Four contains material about them so you probably could split out an entire article about them. But there's no deadline to do that. Your "should be able to type Montreal Expos" logic cuts equally both ways, so that's a wash. That doesn't address the fact that if I wind up at the SF Giants history and find it a mess skewed towards recentism, I don't want to bother. Wknight94 ^talk 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not the fault of the article not being split; it's the fault of editors who haven't expanded on the work. If I was a Giants fan (from NY or SF), I'd worry about it. But I'm not. I'm doing my best to work on Phillies stuff. Every team has a lot to be done. Unfortunately, I can't do it all. I would if I could, but if you're concerned about the state of the article, fix it. If you "don't want to bother", that's no one else's fault. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.. rewrite the Giants history section so it is more balanced.Spanneraol (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, rewrite the Giants history section - and begin with a split into a separate little New York Giants article. Then the SF Giants people can continue expanding that as much as they want, while NY Giants historians can concentrate on a huge expansion of the vast history of the NY Giants. Everybody wins. Wknight94 ^talk 15:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And we complete the cycle, because the split is unnecessary, and here we go again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is necessary. That is why I think it is so unbelievable that there are some people unwilling to change. We are missing out on history and scaring off editors that would expand that missing history, just because people don't want to change. The clearly better situation for these articles is more information. But in their current form that won't happen. So we are in a lose-lose situation instead of a win-win situation. And I really don't mean this as an insult, but I think its completely a case of people being unwilling to change. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether you mean it that way or not, it can easily be taken as such. I am not "unwilling to change", but I am sticking to my principles on this issue. The franchise (which these articles are about, as you yourself have said, DJSasso) is one entity and should be treated as such. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And that is what I don't understand about your position. This is no way treats them as seperate organizations, you specifically state in them that they are the same as X. We split up WWII into many articles, but that doesn't mean it was seperate wars. Your position truely makes no sense. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I joked about this before, but I bet I could write a GA quality article on the Seattle Pilots, one season played or not. Hell, the Calgary Cowboys played only two, and I've got a decent article up using primarily just two books. Give me a couple months and a couple pictures, and I could make that a FA. The issue of recentism is a huge problem, and would especially be so on a merged Expos/Nationals article. 95% of that article would have to be about the team in Montreal, and I would be willing to bet my future on Wikipedia that very few people searching for the Nationals care about the Expos. They want to read about the team that came to Washington in 2004. The decision to bury the previous incarnations of teams under the current exists to serve editors of the baseball project. It not done to benefit the reader. Reso lute 16:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given the calls for consistency (and little else), I tend to agree with the unwillingness to change. If you broke out the nine teams into separate articles, I bet you would end up with nine more very nice articles eventually, instead of having them clinging to life amid ever-increasing recentism. And the nine nice new articles would be *gasp* stable! Wknight94 ^talk 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just putting my two cents in here. I don't really care whether the articles get split or stay merged, as long as we are consistent about it. If it's decided to split New York Giants from San Francisco Giants, one thing that would need to be decided is the criteria for splitting articles. Is it a name change? (In which case, do you split out the Chicago Orphans from the Cubs? AFAIK, that was never an official name, just a common nickname given by sportswriters.) Is it a move to a new park? (In which case, the 2009 Yankees get a new article) Is it moving to a new city? (In which case, what do you do if a team gets a new stadium in a suburb?) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Relocation between cities seems obvious as the ideal splitting point. A city-to-city relocation though is a defined break in the continuity of the franchise. As noted above, when a team leaves its city, the fans of the old often don't follow the fans of the new, while the fans of the new previously could care less about the old. A nickname change is just that, a nickname. Same with a ballpark change. The underlying fabric of the team remains the same. As I've noted above, the Expos have a significant place in Canadiana, and Canadian sports history. To bury that under the Nationals would be, in a word, offensive. The New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers have a place in New York's history that is defeated by forcing that history to be subservient to San Francisco and Los Angeles, etc. The current arrangement hampers the ability to focus on the full history of the teams. Reso lute 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Wknight94 is onto something. The "history of" articles began with wholesale copying of the original articles and then expanding. Unfortunately, they didn't always trim down the parent articles, and the articles started to diverge and contradict each other. The parent article should be a relatively short summary with just a few highlights. We also have reliable sources to back up such a split. The no-longer-published Sporting News Record Books in recent years had been separating out the records for the clubs that had moved, hence you had a set of club records set by the Browns and a set of records by the Orioles, for example. The Elias record books, which are still an annual publication, likewise separate a given club's records out by city. If you do it right, you could have one relatively small parent article and multiple city history articles. The Braves are a good example of that. They were in Boston a long time: 82 years. Their stint in Milwaukee was only 13 years, but it was filled with a lot of excitement and intrigue. They've been in Atlanta for 44 years. So even now, 59 percent of the club's history resides in Boston. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 16:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should keep the current franchise articles and split off the history section as needed so you'd have like three or four different history articles covering sections of a team's history which would link to the main franchise article.. but separate franchise articles with separate info boxes and nav boxes is just ridiculous. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at. Montreal Expos should redirect to Washington Nationals, and then you could link to "History of Montreal Expos" and "History of Washington Nationals". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 16:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

already discussed and rejected, repeatedly. In addition, I am at a loss to understand the purpose in creating three articles where two currently suffice. Reso lute 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea (mine, anyway) would be to keep the parent article relatively stable and cover all the history chronology in the spinoff article(s). →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 16:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a history fork on a team with only five years history. So merge that back into Washington Nationals. Redirecting Montreal Expos to the Nationals article is a bad target, since very few people wanting to read about the Expos care about the Nationals. So you would target the redirect to the history article instead. And then per WP:COMMONNAME, you reverse that redirect, since Montreal Expos is the more obvious choice, and nothing has changed. Reso lute 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the Expos no longer exist, that's why. They are, for better or worse, the Nationals. To ignore that link by compartmentalizing each team (paying lip service in a single sentence may not be enough for some people that scan articles) does a disservice to the entire history of the franchise. I personally don't think it should be this way in the NHL articles for the same reason. (The NBA and NFL do it like MLB, BTW. Give Los Angeles Rams and Philadelphia Warriors for an example.) ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Expos do still exist, they just have a different name. The problem is when fans fall victim to the marketing hype, and think that the name matters. The name is just a marketing tool. The organization once known as the Expos now has its headquarters in D.C. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 16:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Their history does exist, and frankly, you do not own it. But we've been through this a dozen times now, and it is not likely to change. The second you slap a merge tag back on the Expos article, you will find the people that do not kow tow to the baseball project will continue to oppose, and the current compromise will remain. This is a silly, and pointless debate, especially so soon after we just resolved this, yet again. Reso lute 16:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Not only that but they exist as history. The history didn't just disappear. And per WP:COMMONNAME the name of any history article about the expos should be Montreal Expos. Secondly the NFL and NBA also have split articles. There never was an actual decision to merge the teams, it just happened that way through natural wiki article create, what there has been however is a no-consensus to split them situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Djasso your common name argument makes no sense, we already have history articles for many of the teams.. we have a History of the San Francisco Giants article, so how is adding a History of the New York Giants article a violation of any regulation? Spanneraol (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion above was to redirect Montreal Expos to Washington Nationals and then have a seperate article called History of the Montreal Expos. WP:COMMONNAME says that you should name an article with what the most common search term would be. People looking for the history of the montreal expos are going to type Montreal Expos not History of Montreal Expos. See what I am getting at? -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. History of the San Francisco Giants exists because San Francisco Giants has grown too large, and is a child of that article. History of the Montreal Expos would be a child article to Montreal Expos, but is unnecessary given that the Expos article is not likely to become so large as to require a split. As such, the article is properly targeted towards Montreal Expos. Reso lute 17:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a significant argument in 2005 as to whether to keep one article or two, and the Expos fans (or was it the Nats fans?) won the argument - and will probably continue to filibuster it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 17:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There was alot of non-sports fans that also argued keeping them seperate because as mentioned above articles about history in every other subject except a couple North American sports leagues seperate them at signifcant turning points in history. A move between cities is a significant turning point. Even alot of the north american minor leagues seperate teams this way. To be honest MLB and some teams in NFL and NBA (note not all) are the only place on wikipedia that tries to merge everything the way they currently are, making it extremely difficult to find the information you want, if it is even there at all, which in alot of cases it isn't because of the current setup of many of these pages. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(Whew, went outside to weed for a bit and missed a lot!) To an earlier point about "History of the Montreal Expos", you don't need to do that since the Montreal Expos literally are history. They are a part of the history of the Washington Nationals. Just like the New York Giants are a (significant) part of the history of the San Francisco Giants. Wknight94 ^talk 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In effect, History of Montreal Expos and Montreal Expos are the same thing in this context, yes? Yet we have a single page for the Browns and the Orioles. I think the difference is "recentism". If we had the internet in the early 1950s, the St. Louis and/or Baltimore fans would have been arguing for keeping the Browns page frozen and separate. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, "History of Montreal Expos" is redundant to me. It's like "History of Colonial America". As opposed to "Current Colonial America"? No, you have an article called "United States" and an article called Thirteen Colonies. Wknight94 ^talk 17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That opens the door to arguments that New York Giants and History of New York Giants would also be redundant. One difference, though, is that there is plenty more to be written about the N.Y. Giants, whereas there's not much left to say about the Expos beyond "they gone south". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 17:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth re-emphasizing that the Giants still have 75 years of history in New York, and only 52 so far in San Francisco. The Athletics have 108 years of history, of which even just the Oakland part is longer than the entire history of the Expos. So I reckon I'm again making the case for a merger. The only reason to keep the Expos article separate is "not wanting to let go." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 18:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep (to the NYG part, not the merge part), and a new NYG article could actually mention all of the pennants they won - imagine that? Like I said, a lot of work could be done on a separate NYG article and there would be enough content to warrant a WP:FA if people were so inclined. If you can turn a single subject into a FA, then it should be a separate article. Wknight94 ^talk 18:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The question, then, would be whether that spinoff article should be called "History of N.Y. Giants" or simply "N.Y. Giants". Complicated by the ironic fact that New York Giants, who were named for the baseball club, is now the common name. Similar oddity with Toronto Maple Leafs, who were preceded by decades, by Toronto Maple Leafs (International League). →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 18:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, I don't like "History of X" for any X that is only in the past. History of the Hartford Whalers, History of George Washington, History of the dodo, etc. So it would be "New York Giants (baseball)" or "New York Giants (National League)" or "New York Giants (whatever disambiguation that doesn't have the content shoehorned into a tiny portion of the History of the San Francisco Giants article, which is clearly only maintained by San Francisco Giants fans)". Wknight94 ^talk 18:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so it would be just plain "Brooklyn Dodgers" instead of "History of Brooklyn Dodgers?" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 19:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Split proposed

I am now sufficiently convinced of splitting that I've proposed a split of the SF Giants history article at Talk:History of the San Francisco Giants#Proposal for split into New York Giants (National League). Please partake. Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Note there is already a New York Giants (Baseball) which shouldn't have "Baseball" upper cased. Its originator had a similar idea in Talk:San Francisco Giants. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I saw that. Wrong caps and too ambiguous so I proposed this other. The one with wrong caps could be used as a starting point if anyone wished. Wknight94 ^talk 19:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to rename it as New York Giants (baseball) and make it a disambiguation page between the PL and the NL clubs. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 19:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This would still leave us with separate histories of the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, etc. However, I don't think those clubs are going anywhere anytime soon. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. You mean separate articles for the histories of those teams? That's mainly due to size. A lot of those splits are a mess too. The history articles get forgotten because newbies don't make it that far. They see history snippets in the main article and just start typing. Wknight94 ^talk 19:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Are these separate articles going to be just history articles that branch out of the current franchise article? Or do you intend to make them separate franchises with their own info boxes and nav boxes? Because that would be simply wrong because it is still the same team.Spanneraol (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out the NHL franchise articles, these worries have been dealt with. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus you're being answered (I think) on the SF Giants page. Wknight94 ^talk 20:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any necessity to split a franchise article just because the team moved location. The article is about the franchise and the franchise hasn't changed. On the other hand, when the volume of information is large enough to flirt with article length guidelines, an article should be split (whether or not the team ever moved). And if a split is warranted, then the most logical place is at the point of a team move. There is clearly adequate information to warrant an SF/NY Giants split. I suspect the same for the Dodgers, Twins and Orioles. I doubt a split is warranted for the Senators/Rangers and I am certain a split is not warranted for the Pilots/Brewers or Orioles/Yankees (although if the Yankees article gets too long a more reasonable split location would be warranted). And the Browns/Orioles split should not be split further into Brewers/Browms/Orioles - the Brewers section will fit comfortably within the Browns article. There is also probably enough information to warrant a two way split for the Braves and Athletics, but I doubt a 3-way split is warranted. Unless a lot of information (e.g., 30K) is developed for the Kansas City Athletics or Milwaukee Braves, there is no need for a separate article on those transitory locations. I am indifferent whether the Kansas City or Milwaukee history is included with the original or current location. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Split them all, as there's no limit to numbers of articles on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no limit to numbers of articles on Wikipedia, but the articles should be presented in a manner that is useful to readers. It may well be useful to give readers 56 years of (current) Baltimore Orioles' history in one article and 53 years in a St. Louis Browns article. But splitting that St. Louis Browns article so that a reader would have to jump to a separate Milwaukee Brewers (1901) article to get the first year of the team's history serves no purpose. Rlendog (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote to split them all. As an aside, if you want to see a recent non-MLB example take a look at how the WNBA's Detroit Shock and their new home in Tulsa are dealt with. As you can see the current team keeps a cliff notes version of the Detroit era, but the Detroit page is much more indepth as far as the history goes. This is how I envision each of the pages going. The only somewhat disambiguation problem I see is with the original Baltimore Orioles and the current Baltimore Orioles. Since they were both AL teams, you can't simple disambiguate that way. The only way I could see it working is Balitmore Orioles (old) and Baltimore Orioles (new). Plus when we start splitting off the turn of the century teams, where does the Yankees begin and the Hilltoppers end? Are they the same franchise or two franchises? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you oversimplify the Orioles' situation. Baltimore Orioles (old) would have to be Baltimore Orioles (19th century). With the current Orioles' taking up Baltimore Orioles (new), the original Yankees would have to be Baltimore Orioles (middle). But since there was also a minor league Orioles team (and a very important one at that) between the original Yankees moving to NY and the Browns moving in, the original Yankees would have to be Baltimore Orioles (early middle) and the monir league team could then be Baltimore Orioles (late middle).

But I am actually more concerned with the suggestion of splitting between the Yankees and Hilltoppers. Are you suggesting a separate article every time a team changes its nickname? That would be useless from an historical perspective and very annoying to readers. Taking a team that is germane to this whole conversation, someone reading about the Brooklyn Dodgers, would jump from a Brooklyn Atlantics article covering a couple of years to a Brooklyn Grays article to a Brooklyn Bridegrooms article covering three seasons (1888-1890) to jump to a Brooklyn Grooms article covering 1891 to 1985 before jumping back to the Brooklyn Bridegrooms article which cover the next three seasons, making its scope 1888-1890 and 1896-1898. Then after a detour to the Brooklyn Superbas page they go to the Brooklyn Trolleydodgers for two seasons (1911-1912) before finally getting to the Brooklyn Dodgers page for 1913. But then he'd have to leave that page after one season of history for the Brooklyn Robins page before coming back to the Brooklyn Dodgers page (covering 1913, 1932-1957) for the rest of Dodgers' history. Or would the 1913 Dodgers be Brooklyn Dodgers (old) and the 1932-1957 Dodgers be Brooklyn Dodgers (new)? Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And going back to the Orioles for a second, if we split team articles based on nicknames, the St. Louis Browns that became the Orioles would have to be St. Louis Browns (new) since St. Louis Browns (old) would have to be used to cover early St. Louis Cardinals history. Rlendog (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue against any split. Like it or not, MLB treats the history of every franchise as continuous (ie: the SF Giants have the rights to all the history of the NY Giants from founding until the move in the 50's). Wikipedia by extension should treat them no different. The Expos right now exist as an abberation as they were the only franchise moved in the Wikipedia era, but eventually the Expos should and will be folded into the Washington article as they are one in the same franchise. The Nationals have the rights to and are recognized as having the Expos entire history (undistinguished as it may be). Similarly to answer your question, the Hilltops and the Yankees are one in the same franchise and are treated as such by MLB and the team. Also looking at the Shock situation, I'd oppose that if it came up for discussion. The Tulsa team is the Detroit team, period. The team was moved and took the records with them. This is not a situation like the Cleveland Browns, Seattle Sonics or San Jose Earthquakes where the original city retains the team's records, history and honors for use later. Gateman1997 (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...and Constantinople is Istanbul, period. But those aren't getting merged together. Splitting into a separate article doesn't make them separate things, it just means there is some sort of division (geographic and chronological in this case) and can be written about separately - in this case with plausibly different audiences and editors. Anyway, the latest proposal at the SF Giants is to split the New York portion of the Giants history into an article titled History of San Francisco (New York), i.e. as a phase in the history of the San Francisco Giants franchise. Not my first choice, and likely not yours, but something I can live with in this case. Wknight94 ^talk 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support this move, and would even support this renaming convention (though I wouldn't have a problem just calling it New York Giants (baseball)). Rlendog notes that there is no necessity to split an article "just because the team moved". I agree with this, as I think all knowledgeable baseball fans would. However, since the history portion of the article is long, and will be getting longer, and there is (IMOATOOO) a need for a split because of the current length, the use of the franchises relocation is a convenient place to make the split. The history of the New York phase of the franchise is finite, and makes for an easy to focus topic that is not arbitrary (vs. say picking a number out of the hat and writing "History of the San Francisco Giants prior to 1950" ... with 1950 being a random selection. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with your comparison is that it is irrelevant. Istanbul is not Constantinople. One was founded under the Roman Empire and remained so under the Byzantine Empire, the other was formed under the Ottoman Empire from what remained of Constantinople. Yes both occupied the physical space, but both were under different national entities. By comparison the NY/SF Giants are one continuous entity in one continuous baseball league. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the same thing....the equivalent would be that there were different owners over the years. In this case Owners would be the equivalent of Nation. The teams are different but have occupied the same franchise slot. It was one continuous city under different nations which "owned" it. Just like the team is one continuous franchise under different owners. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Philadelphia Phillies

I could use some help with this template. There is an IP user who pops up about once every few days or so and continues to insert non-contextual links in the team's navbox. I'm not always around to revert this junk, and I could use a hand from other editors. He/she refuses to discuss, despite having received multiple warnings. I've gotten to the point where I've given a level-4 warning, but it continues. This isn't something that WP:AIV will handle because it's not rampant vandalism; it's just once every so often. However, being the person who's always reverting it, I see that it's the same edits over and over, the same spurious and pointless links, etc. I don't even think a block of the IP address would help, because it just keeps happening, every so often. Thoughts, suggestions, comments, etc. are welcome. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing it's the same IP, a 1-month block would sufice. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so not really blockable unless they violate 3RR which they haven't since its only once in awhile they make the change. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and revert edits I think are inappropriate, but actually I am not sure why Whiz Kids at least shouldn't be included. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no article on it. All the IP is doing is pipelinking season articles, which duplicates content that's already in the infobox. It's redundant and unnecessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a month break from IP editing anyway. Hopefully he'll discuss. Wknight94 ^talk 21:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I'll drop a line to try and spur some discussion some point this evening. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the Whiz Kids, though, Rlendog brought up a good point. I went digging for some sources today, and there is a ton of material on the Whiz Kids. So, we're gonna have a new article at Whiz Kids (baseball) sometime soon. Watch that red link; it will turn blue within a week or two. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now blue... see? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting time of games

I've noticed (at TSN) that games are usually posted as starting at (EST) 8:57pm or 9:07pm, etc (for example). Why aren't the games started at the top of the hour? GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because MLB is crazy. Truly, it's a marketing technique to get people to remember the game time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky bunch, MLB owners. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My assumption, based on observation over the last few years, is that they start all the various ceremonies (and TV coverage) on the hour (or whatever), and that way, for example, "first pitch" is at 9:07 after the national anthem, ceremonial first pitch, etc. and so forth. But, that's just a guess umrguy 42 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's true. Now, if only we could convince the American owners to built retractable roofs on their stadiums; then there'd be no more delays. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about the retractable roof thing - I mean, yeah, okay, no rain, but still, Busch Stadium would lose a great view out of center field (see File:Homeplate.jpg) (having been to a game there, I promise the view's even better than those pictures make it out, especially at night with the Arch all lit up ;D) umrguy 42 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It likely won't happen, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe only for the stadiums in rainy climates... we almost never have a rain out in Southern California.Spanneraol (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an Angels/Dodgers WS would've been drier. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hockey does the same thing (games generally start at 7:08 or 7:38) so they can have an intro, maybe an interview, commercial break or two then the game instead of just: PLAY! black ngold29 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's for intros, commercials, etc. In short, it's for TV. Even during the regular season, typical scheduled starting time for night games, for a number of teams anyway, is at xx:05 or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's the Blue Jays that start at xx:11. Or maybe it's Tampa. I know one of them does xx:07 as well. I remember the weird time from my last trip across the northern border. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when the xx:05 starting times first came about, but it's possible it was encourage in this direction by TBS, which used to start its shows at 5 past the hour, on the theory that people who were disappointed by what they found on the regular channels would still have time to get to TBS before the next show started. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This much I can tell you, from checking my Cubs media guide from 1988: The 5-minutes-past starting time was already well-established at that point. The other 11 N.L. clubs had either an xx:05 or an xx:35 starting time for night games - with one exception: Atlanta, with their games on TBS, started at xx:40. The Cubs first night game would be scheduled for August 8th, but when the book went to press, apparently night baseball had not been approved yet, as the time was given as 3:05. The Cubs had a lot of 3:05 starts during 1981-1988 (and maybe some since), as part of their kind-of pushing for lights, as if to demonstrate that late-in-the-day games would not cause undue stress to the neighbors (the Cubs themselves might, but that's another story). Ironically, 3:00 was once the standard starting time for games. As an example, the famous 26 inning game in 1920 ran less than 4 hours, yet it was called by darkness - due to a 3:00 start. The New York Yankees were sometimes called "5 O'Clock Lightning", due to the "thunder" from their bats in the late innings of a game that would have started at 3:00 and finished around 5:00 or 5:30. The many Cubs home day games, at least once WGN-TV started broadcasting them, typically started at 1:20. That allowed 15 minutes for "The Leadoff Man", a pre-game interview conducted usually by the "second man" in the booth; and 5 minutes for the broadcast intro itself, the main broadcast starting at 1:15. That was how WGN-TV did things for many years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Union Association and Players League article mergers?

Looking through various articles for the old Union Association teams, it seems like each of the teams that was in that league got an article for the team, and an article for the season. However, that was the only year the Union Association existed. Wouldn't it be simpler to just merge each of the articles? For example, there is the article for the Cincinnati Outlaw Reds and there is the article about the 1884 Cincinnati Outlaw Reds season. But that was the only year that league existed. So shouldn't the articles be merged?

Also, I suppose the same logic applies for the 1890 Players League teams as well.DandyDan2007 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For leagues that only lasted 1 year (like the UA and the PL) and the one that only lasted 2 years (the FL), it would seem reasonable to merge the "season" article into the team article, and make the "season" article a redirect. That would also afford the opportunity to expand a little bit on clubs like St. Paul, which was actually a minor league club that joined the "Onion" near the end of its miserable existence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the season articles have more content (like rosters, stats and info boxes) that is more matches with the other season articles more than the team articles. I wouldn't want to lose that stuff... I'd especially oppose this move with the 2 year league...Spanneraol (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't lose it, it would just be in the same article. How much can you write about a team that existed for one year? Probably less than you could write about the Seattle Pilots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Two All-Star Games in one season

I'm starting to fill in infoboxes for Negro league players. One season (1946), the Negro leagues held two All-Star games. If a player appeared in both games, I've been counting them as two All-Star appearances, but I just remembered that a similar situation occurred in MLB during 1959–62, when two games were held each season. It looks like we've decided to treat that as one All-Star appearance, even when a player played in both games. Is that correct? BRMo (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a fantastic idea. If one appears in the both all-star games, one is a 2-time all star. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If the rosters were identical in both games, that would be one thing. It would be like a doubleheader or something. As I recall, the 2-game experiment of 1959-1962 had similar but not identical rosters (keep in mind the fans did not choose the players then, it was done by baseball people). However, if you play in a doubleheader, that counts as two appearances. In fact, the notion of 2 All-Star games = 1 appearance, I suspect is original research. It should count the number of games a player appeared in, not the number of season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What Bugs said. A sentence might read "Was elected to an All-Star game in one season of his career," but if discussing ASG elections/naming it should be the count of GAMES not SEASONS. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a few more players, it looks like the treatment isn't consistent. For example, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, and Willie Mays were each selected for all eight All-Star games from 1959–62. Aaron's infobox treats them as eight All-Star game selections, while Mays's and Mantle's infoboxes treat them as four. What I don't know is whether there were actually two distinct processes for selecting players, or if there was really just one selection covering both games. The rosters for each pair of games aren't identical, but there's usually quite a bit of overlap. BRMo (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at my 1960 baseball guide, initially the squads were to be the same, except that the managers were given some latitude regarding pitcher selection, and were also allowed to add three more players, to the second-game squads. Additionally, there were substitutions due to injuries. The reasons for having a second game had to do with additional money going to charities such as a retired players' fund. Indications are that it was criticized right away as cheapening the event. None of that is of any use in determining how to count them. However, the players where initially chosen to be in both squads, so does that count once or twice? In effect, they were chosen only once and played 2 games. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates in footnotes

Hi. Question for the crowd. Is there a view as to what date format people would prefer to see most in footnotes about baseball players/baseball issues (e.g., May 9, 2009 vs. 2009-05-09? A few days ago the 5/9/09 format used by MLB.com, the official baseball site, was deprecated in a change to the MOS. A number of bots have been changing dates to the YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes. There is a discussion about a proposal right now to make clear that the YYYY-MM-DD format should not be used in footnotes, just as the format is forbidden in text (the main arguments being that some of us feel that the YYYY-MM-DD format is more ambiguous and less user-friendly than spelling out the month), but that proposal has not to date attracted a consensus. My question is, given the change that now says that the MLB.com format of 5/9/09 can no longer be used on baseball articles, do we have a view as to which of the remaining formats we would prefer? If we do, we should probably inform the bot people. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer "Month Date, Year" as that's what I'm used to, but I'd be open to discussion. --Muboshgu(talk) 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always used YYYY-MM-DD in references ever since I started doing FL work, so that's my preference. KV5 (Talk •Phils) 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference, for what its worth -- I prefer Month DD, YYYY (same as Muboshgu), as more reader friendly (it is how we say it), and less ambiguous (no one can be confused if we write the month in letters). I don't care if we abbreviate or spell out the month, as long as it is not YYYY-MM-DD (btw, I preferred the MLB.com approach until it was deprecated).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As of the time I made this comment, 2000-01-01; 1 January 2000; and January 1, 2000 are all acceptable formats, but the key is that an article should be internally consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87--By that do you mean that the date format of the text of the article and the date format of the footnotes should be consistent? That would mean not using all-numerical formats in footnotes, as they are forbidden in the text of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that the MLB.com format is deprecated now, given that as an Australian reader/editor/general participator that format can be a little confusing: to us 5/9/09 means the 5th day of the 9th month (5 September), not the 9th day of the 5th month (9 May). (I believe this is the case for the UK as well.) I think as long as the whole article - text, infoboxes, tables, captions, footnotes, and anything else - follows the d month yyyy format, or follows the month d, yyyy format, and whichever format used is appropriate for the article and if at all possible is consistent with the version of spelling, then there shouldn't be a problem. Afaber012 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Two-man baseball

Is Two-man baseball notable? It's only source, http://www.thegameoftwoman.webs.com , appears to be a personl website used to promote the "sport". Looks like a Prod or AFD candidate. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a clear-cut case of "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball navboxes

There is a debate going on now about navboxes within navboxes. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Links to navboxes within navboxes. The issue is, after I created several baseball navboxes, I places links between the ones I created and several existing ones within the navboxes, something I felt was and still feel is really necessary. Discussion on this is strongly encouraged. Hellno2 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability of international baseballers

Probably a noob question, but under the wp:baseball notability guidelines is a player who has represented their national team notable if they haven't already played professional baseball?Hack (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:ATHLETE, someone is considered notable enough if they "... have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." My interpretation of this would mean that anyone who has competed in the Baseball World Cup, World Baseball Classic or Baseball at the Summer Olympics would be considered notable, irrespective of professional experience.

I don't know how others would see it, but I would also expand that to other international tournaments, on the assumption that the standard for selection is the best available players, rather than a type of "residents" side or a type of all star side from the respective national competitions. I suppose what I'm saying is, if the IBAF include the tournament in their rankings system - and the tournament is for senior teams, as opposed to an under-16s or similar - then I'd consider all players in the tournament to be notable for an article. Obviously though, the more sources and info available, the less likely someone will be to question or delete it. Afaber012 (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The AAA tournament and World University (U-23) counts towards rankings though, doesn't it? I wouldn't consider these athletes notable. JRA_Westy Qld2 ^Talk 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what I was trying to say was that it should only include the senior or open teams, and not include some sort of subset based on age, location, etc. So I wouldn't consider the AAA or World University tournaments as ones that would qualify a player, but I would consider continental or regional tournaments. Unlike other sports, where international tournaments are schedules so as to allow all players (or at least as many players as possible) to be available, or where elite domestic competitions are suspended for the duration of tournaments, generally speaking the Japanese and American professional competitions do what they like, and the IBAF is forced to work around them, meaning that the top players in those leagues are generally unavailable. With the exception of those players and any who are injured or are otherwise individually unavailable, if the best players from the nation in question are selected to participate, then I think they qualify as being notable. Afaber012 (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the comment about continental championships, would someone who has represented their country in tournaments like the Oceania, the European or Asian championships be notable?Hack (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes. I'd go back to one of the things I said first up. Basically my thought is that if the IBAF generally include the tournament in their rankings, then the players involved would be considered notable. If not included, then not notable. I suppose this would include a form of invitational event where not all teams follow the same selection standard. For example, the Australian team has played trial/warm-up games against local/state sides: players who would have otherwise been selected for the Australian team actually played against Australia. I would not consider playing for Australia in such a game as enough to warrant the player's notability, though obviously if they met some other notability criteria, or met this criteria at another event, it would make sense to include their participation in the appropriate articles.

I think the thing to remember would be to treat this as a guideline, rather than a hard and fast rule. At the moment, I wouldn't consider just participation in the Claxton Shield (the top competition in Australia) as making someone notable. But if a particular player had a dominant season this year in the Claxton Shield and won an MVP-type award or broke a long-standing record, was someone who has also had similar success in say AA in the States, and played on a team referred to Australia but that team and/or tournament didn't meet the above standards - so in other words, someone who doesn't meet the automatic standards for notability on any one point, but almost meets the standard for a few different criteria and would therefore seem likely to meet the criteria soon - I wouldn't immediately call for that player's article to be deleted. Likewise, someone who is selected for a World Cup squad, but is injured during a training session after the tournament has started but before they actually take part in a game, that player probably isn't notable enough on those grounds to have an article about them.

To me, the overriding thing to consider is: "Are there multiple sources for information about the person? Are the sources both reliable and credible?" If the answer is yes, then its probably going to be easy to justify having an article about that person, regardless of whether or not they meet the notability criteria. Afaber012 (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratings question

Hi! I'd appreciate your opinion. I've posted a question to Talk:2009_World_Series#Ratings about which sourcing/definition for the World Series ratings we should use, any opinion you could lend would be appreciated! Staxringold _talk^contribs 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Busch Memorial Stadium/Curse of the Bambino

I'm bringing this here for more eyes and opinions. User:SNIyer12 seems intent on adding that Busch Memorial Stadium (BMS) was where the "Curse of the Bambino" died in great detail. The information is in both articles, which I have no problem with. HOWEVER... S/he keeps adding the Red Sox navbox and the Red Sox - Yankees rivalry navbox to the BMS article (despite having been reverted, and asked not to). In addition, in BOTH of those navboxes, SNIyer12 added a link to BMS with a parenthetical statement "(where the Curse of the Bambino died)". When questioned about the prevalence of BMS in Red Sox lore, they reverted those edits... only to put them *back* in a few days later.

I'm asking, particularly of those Sox fans, does Busch Stadium have a big enough place in the "Curse of the Bambino" lore that it needs to be in the navboxes (and conversely, that those navboxes need to be included in the BMS article), or is it more of a historical footnote, and its treatment in the BMS and Curse of the Bambino articles is sufficient? umrguy 42 00:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I advised Umrguy to bring it here after he asked me about it, in part because it doesn't seem important enough to have an edit war going. I don't have any strong opinion either way. SNIyer wants to make a big thing of Busch being the place where The Curse ended. ~~It occurs to me that SNIyer may not know about this discussion, but he will soon.~~ Umrguy notified SNIyer about this thread. His responses is awaited. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's only one reason why I've been adding details about Busch Memorial Stadium being the place where the Curse of the Bambino died and it beingpartof Red Sox lore: The 2004 World Series ended in a sweep and the Red Sox had home field advantage, because the American League won the All-Star Game earlier in that year. That's why I feel that Busch Stadium has a big enough place in the "Curse of the Bambino" lore. That's the only reason why I've added Busch Stadium in the navboxes. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 12:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the information is adequately covered in the stadium and curse articles. I think that navboxes should pretty much stick to the major, primary topics, which I feel Busch is not for that area (hence my comment of "historical footnote"). However, I'm really hoping we can get some extra opinions and determine a consensus, and not have to go back and forth. umrguy 42 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with not adding those infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that those navboxes do not belong in the BMS article. Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series now FA, but still not perfect

Even though 2004 World Series is now a FA I am still not happy with the lead image. If anyone has a better free use image which looks fairly neutral (such as a photo from one of the games with at least one player from each team). Please let me know.

Also even though this was 90% my own work I'd like to thank a few users for there help:

KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! for detailed feedback on first PR.
Giants2008 (17–14) for general feedback.
black ngold29 for feedback on FAC.
Staxringold _talk^contribs for support on FAC as well as general feedback.
User:SNIyer12 the only other major editor of the article.

BUC (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact we have to resort to the trophy photo is perfect, in a way, because it indicates wikipedia's highly restrictive attitude towards photo usage. Also, the Series was anticlimactic compared to the Red Sox beating the Yankees. It was kind of like 1980 when the US defeated the USSR but still had to beat Finland to win the Gold Medal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I series was a bit of a bore. What's your piont? BUC (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Either of the pictures in the "Aftermath" section would also be fine as lead images; 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season uses a press picture from the White House after 2009; previously, it was a picture from the parade. I like the trophy image, though; I think it's probably the best image that we have of the trophy itself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of after-the-fact photos and personal snapshots subliminally tells the world how lame wikipedia's photo policy is: not a single photo from the Series itself. Pathetic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The image needs to be neutral so no Red Sox image is any good. What we need is a photo from the series itself. BUC (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether I agree with you or not, there are probably better places to discuss that particular issue... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is NO place to discuss it. It's a dead issue. And I understand why they have their rules, I just think those rules make wikipedia look amateurish. In any case, either the group photo or the trophy would work in the infobox, but maybe the group photo would be better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with any free picture, and I agree that the White House shot would look better. But Y2kcrazyjoker4 objected on the talk page becasue, "The Red Sox may have won the World Series, but the Cardinals played in the series, too!" Actually, I don't even think we need a picture in the infobox. It's understandable because the whole free pictures thing wasn't as prominent then. This year is a different story though. black ngold29 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the White House picture would be a terrible lead image. As well not being neutral, you really can't tell what the image is without the caption. It's just a bunch of guys in suits, the last thing you expect to see in a baseball article. BUC (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it not neutral? American sports champions often get invited to the White House. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't feature the Cardinals. What we need is an image that acknowledges both teams. BUC (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The group shot is legitimate for the infobox because getting invited to the White House was an effect of winninng the series. If there was a free image of the Red Sox celebrating on the field that would be an ideal image, even though no Cardinals would necessarily be in it. Rlendog (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Standard practice is to glorify the winners. As an example, the back cover of Who's Who in Baseball for 2009 has a photo labeled "2008 World Champion Philadelphia Phillies". Not a word about their opponent (Tampa Bay, right?) Actually, if someone could find a photo of Ortiz and Mueller nailing Suppan after he rounded third base too far, that would be the perfect image, as it encapsulates the fortunes of both teams in that Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good for a magazine or a book.Not an encyclopedia. BUC (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I detect a frustrated Rays fan. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The image needs to acknowledge the event - the 2004 World Series. It does not need to acknowledge every participant in the event. Rlendog (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It needs to do both really. And the current image does neither. BUC (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Predictions

Just summarizing and moving this conversation to this pg in the event that others wish to share their predictions as to the WS winner/in how many games.

So far we have:

Yanks in 6 (Baseball Bugs, Yankees10, Staxringold, Wknight94, GlassCobra),
Yanks in 7 (Epeefleche, GoodDay),
Phillies in 7 (Soxwon).
Phillies in 6 (KV5, Wizardman, Umrguy42)
Phillies in 5 (Spanneraol, PhilliesFanInTampa)

(up until urmguy42 below).

--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)done umrguy 42 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Phillies in 6. Woot. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Phillies in 5. I hope. God, I hate the Yankees. Spanneraol (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Phillies in 5! Hate dem Yankme$$!!! ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 15:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yankees in 5 or 6, I'll say Yankees in 6. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Phillies in 6, maybe 7. Go Phils, ick Yanks. Wizardman 13:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pains me to say it but Yankees in 6. Wknight94 ^talk 13:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Srsly, is this conversation really happening? My prediction is that I hope both teams somehow lose. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a prediction, it's a hope. And I share that hope with you 100%. Wknight94 ^talk 13:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The predictions here may or may not represent hopes. For example, my hope is that they will get to Game 7 and then an east-coast blizzard will rage for 10 days and they'll have to relocate the final game to an indoor stadium someplace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Psshh, what are they gonna do, go to Toronto? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps the nearest convenient parallel dimension. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear the Metradome is looking for baseball games to host. black ngold29 17:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as there isn't a conflicting boat show or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I both hope and predict that the Yanks will take it in 6. :) GlassCobra 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At least the Yankees' presence evokes strong passions. If it had been between the Dodgers and Angels, most of us here probably would have been like, "Whatever!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Except everyone that lives in LA; they probably would have gone nuts. :P Yanks fans would have preferred a Yanks-Dodgers Classic for the Torre-Girardi matchup; not to mention the fact that I know we can beat the Dodgers much more easily than the Phils, heh. GlassCobra 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is part of the media East Coast bias that LA fans whine about? :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Phils in any number of games (although I won't pull a Tony Kornheiser and say "3!"), but if they have to, Yanks in 4 or 5 (call me selfish - I want my Cards to remain the last team to win a WS in their new ballpark ;p) umrguy 42 15:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As the Yankees did in 1923, and the Cardinals did in their first full season at Old Busch, so that's with an asterisk. The others were the Red Sox in 1912 (and with an asterisk in 1915); the Pirates in 1909; and to go really far back, the Giants in 1889. What is it about those New York teams, anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't the Cards at Old Busch, but in 2006, first season of Busch III, they won AT Busch III. I thought I read that the '23 Yanks actually won it on the road... yes, they did, and that the last to win it AT HOME in their new ballpark was the Red Sox (I thought maybe 1918, but it coulda been 1912... nope, definitely 1912). umrguy 42 21:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, I was talking about merely winning the same year as inaugurating a new ballpark. So you're right. Details: 1909 - Pirates opened Forbes, won Game 7 at Detroit; 1912 - Red Sox opened Fenway, won Game 8 (there was a tied game) at Fenway; 1923 - Yankees opened The Stadium, won Game 6 at the Polo Grounds. Asterisk for Braves Field, 1915, opened by the Braves mid-summer and used by the Red Sox for the Series, defeating the Phillies; and another asterisk, for the Cardinals in 1966-67, who opened Old Busch partway into 1966 and won the Series in 1967, Game 7 being at Fenway. 1889 was an odd one, a best-6-of-11 matchup. The Giants won Game 9 at the Polo Grounds, clinching the Series at 6-3, against the Dodgers (then known as the "Bridegrooms"). That was in a sense the first "Subway Series", except the subway hadn't been built yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you want a number, I say Phils in 6 :D umrguy 42 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone here is so smart. Two games into the WS, and all the above predictions are still in the running.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I hardly think not predicting a sweep makes us smart. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a proper prediction. Chase Utley will be the series MVP whether or not the Phillies win. One caveat, if this goes to 7 games and CC is brilliant in a Game 7 win, CC is the MVP. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Rivera wins it if the yankees win it in six and CC if they win it in seven (but we wont have to worry about that, Yankees finish it in six)--Yankees10 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no way a player on a team losing in 6 games is going to get the MVP. The Bobby Richardson vote in 1960 was bad enough, but that at least went 7. However, at this point, the Yanks in 6 prediction is looking pretty good. The Phillies nearly gave it away tonight when they had a lock on it. And Hamels starting Game 7, if there is a Game 7? I don't think so. They'd better bring back Lee on short rest and hope he can do a Mickey Lolich, and meanwhile maybe send Hamels to a therapist in the off-season. I've been watching the Series for a long time, and I don't ever recall a participant saying he just wanted it over with (assuming he wasn't quoted out of context, which is not necessarily a safe assumption). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No way Lee pitches on only two days rest. Even if he did he would be shelled--Yankees10 05:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"No way Lee pitches on only two days rest. Even if he did he would be shelled" - Not necessarily. It is his side day, and even if he gives them four good innings, it's something. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also I hardly think giving it to Utley, an underappreciated Philly (best player on the Phillies in 08 despite Howard's 2nd place MVP finish), would be crazy. He tied Mr. October's Mr. October record, and they were meaningful home runs that were the margin of victory in two separate games including a potential clincher? Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of when Andre Dawson won the MVP for the Cubs, who finished last, and people said, "Where would they have finished without him? Worse than last???" That's the dilemma with giving anyone on the losing team the MVP. So instead of losing 4 of 6 they would be swept and that nets an MVP for Utley? Maybe only if the writers split votes somehow. The Phils dodged a bullet tonight. You could see it coming: If Teixeira gets on, then A-Rod knocks it out, Rivera comes in, and the Yanks win the Series on the road, in 5 games. Then they probably have to decide between Rivera and A-Rod for the MVP. Which they still might. Now, if Utley's batting heroics force a Game 7, then he might be in the running. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I just have to say Tex is really pissing me off this postseason, he continues to strike out and no one is saying anything because of his glove. A single was all he needed, but no he swings at the ball right in the dirt. He should have known it was going to be there again.--Yankees10 06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate hate hate the "they could finish last without him" argument against MVPs from bad teams. Players contribute individual value through offense, defense, pitching, and baserunning. Period. That is it (and positional value, I suppose). TEAMS win games. If you have a jar with 100 pennies ($1 jar), a jar with 100 quarters ($25 jar), a $1 bill, and a $5 bill the $5 bill is the most valuable object no matter which jar it is in. Yes, if you put the $1 bill in the $25 jar and the fiver in the $1 jar the OVERALL VALUE of the larger jar is way more, but that does not in any way speak to the value of the individual object. I don't like wins above replacement player a ton (certainly not the B-Prospectus version with uncertain definitions, Dan Rosenhack's is better), but if you are worth say 10 wins (right about MVP range) and no one else is worth more you are the MVP whether your team wins 10 or 162 games. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- That argument can be justified during the regular season, where the MVP often comes from a team that finishes out of the running. But there's only one stat that matters, especially in the post-season, and that's winning. The MVP should go to the guy who contributed the most to his team winning the Series. And typically it does, except in 1960. Sometimes it's hard to pick a winner. My guess about 1960 is that they took the vote during the 7th inning stretch of Game 7. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  - I'm reminded of a few Mets fans 3 years ago who were going ga-ga over that one catch in Game 7, somehow trying to compare it to the Mays catch in 1954. No. The catch by itself means nothing. Winning or losing the game is what matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But the original fact I stated remains the same, players contribute NET RUNS through offense, defense, baserunning, and pitching. Since no pitcher has ever had a 27 strikeout perfect game which he wins 1-0 on a solo home run he hits, no one player has ever individually won a game EVER. We fall in love with walk offs, but being the last in a series of events doesn't make it MORE valuable. Chase Utley has far and away been the dominant player of this series, contributing the most value. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You've touched on another point, in that the nature of baseball prevents any one player from truly dominating in the way that a basketball player can, or even a cricket batsman. Utley could hit 5 home runs in one game, and the Phillies could still lose 6-5, so what good did the 5 home runs do? And unless the Phillies come back and win the final two games, then Utley's stats are merely a footnote to what could have been a sweep otherwise. Willie Mays made the most celebrated catch in the history of baseball, yet if they had lost that game, and particularly if they had lost the Series, it wouldn't have mattered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all what I touched on. That's the opposite of what I touched on? What good would 5 solo home runs do? 5 runs worth of good. Again, teams win games, not individuals. Don't bring team results into individual awards, it makes no sense. An individual MVP award means you alone did the most to help your team win, the actual result for your team doesn't matter towards that statement. Again, if you are worth 10 wins (and no other player is worth more) you are the MVP whether your team wins 10 games or 162. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rendering the MVP award meaningless. Winning is what matters. "Did the most to help your team win.'" But if your team didn't win, then your stats really don't matter. If the Indians had come back to defeat the Giants in 1954, you wouldn't see Mays' catch played ad infinitum. If Dusty Rhodes, that Series' MVP, had done everything he did, but the Indians had somehow won 4 games and the Giants 3, Rhodes' heroics would mean nothing except for having extended the Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, rendering them accurate. An individual actor can win Best Actor even if the film he is acting in doesn't win Best Picture. His individual performance can be measured independent of the success of the body overall. If Utley is the most valuable individual player then he did the most to help his team win. Again, it's most valuable player, I do not get the obsession with team results for a blatently individual award. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's based on stats, then just have a computer issue the award. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you forgot to link something there, Bugs: "just have a computer issue the award". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The irony of that was indeed in the back of my mind. I think the real problem is the title of the award. The Sporting News used to select a "player of the year" and a "pitcher of the year" in each league, which leaves room for guys like Dawson and McGwire, who had great individual years but their teams didn't win anything. This section is supposed to be about predictions, so here's one: The World Series MVP will come from the team that wins the Series. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, they helped their team win the games they won. Because teams win games. Once again. Player of the Year means the same thing as Most Valuable Player. If anything, Player of the Year is the award that could be more easily steered the way you want it to be, because there's no guarantee in the title that it will have anything to do with overall value. Mark McGwire helped his team win games more than any player in the 1998 NL. The fact that his Cardinals as a TEAM didn't win enough to make the playoffs is an indictment of everyone else on that team, not of McGwire. Ted Williams only made the playoffs once and was terrible there, was he of no value? I guess Bernie Williams is the Williams OFer who should be in the HoF, not Teddy? Afterall he got his team to the big dance 6 times and won 4 titles. Bonds' Giants didn't make the playoffs in 2001, what a terrible season for him, right? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* There's no need for reductio ad absurdum. In 1998 Mark McGwire had 100 points of OBP and 80 points of SLG over Sosa (despite a slightly lower batting average, so 90 points of ISO) to the tune of McGwire leading the NL in OPS with 1.222 and a 216 OPS+. Sosa was fourth in the NL in both categories. There is no question McGwire was the best individual player, yet Sosa is recognized as the most valuable individual player... because his team did better. How does that make sense? As one of my favorite Fire Joe Morgan blog posts read, I guess Albert Pujols wasn't a good enough pitcher to win the 2008 MVP award for some sportswriters. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the real reason these awards were invented is precisely to foment these kinds of discussions and stimulate interest in the game. And it's important to keep in mind that the regular season is one thing and the post-season is another. I read something today that the World Series MVP actually is voted upon during the 7th game, if it comes to that. Which is how Bobby Richardson managed to win it in 1960. Someone mentioned Ted Williams. He was injured for the 1946 Series and was ineffective. Ernie Banks won the MVP twice with cellar-level teams. And Big Mac probably should have won it in 1998. They really should have awarded a co-MVP to Mac and Sosa, because they were the show, all that summer. Little did we know it was fueled by steroids rather than Flintstone vitamins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Ted Williams, going to the point that so many sportswriters make the argument I hate "Oh, they could've missed the playoffs just as easily without Player X, so how much value did Player X provide?" Williams brought his team to the playoffs just once, and even recognizing that was in the original 1-team playoff structure those Red Sox teams were pretty terrible. Yet you don't hear those same sportswriters saying Teddy Ballgame shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Why? Because they can recognize his individual value separate from his team. As for the postseason MVPs, they're mostly mumbo-jumbo anyways, like the ASG MVP, given for a random memorable moment. The series are so short you really get no meaningful info about players, you're mostly just rewarding variance (like David Eckstein's WS MVP). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now. YANKEES IN 6! GO ANDY! (I did think it would go 6 or 7 from the start.) --Muboshgu (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopfully, it's over tomorrow. I'm quite concerned about Sabathia. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Yankees ace against the 3rd Phillies pitcher or a from-the-pen sub? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've lost confidence in 'baggy pants'. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He seems like an odd player to lose faith in. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Game 7's are always unpredictable. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Game 7s are 9 inning games of baseball where the goal is to score more runs than your opponent, making them precisely as predictable as any other baseball game. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When ya put it that way, I feel more secure. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite the same level of unpredictability. Through Game 6, there is a degree of "pacing" - holding back to some extent. Come Game 7, normal managerial rules are out the window, because there is no Game 8. If they need Cliff Lee, they'll bring him in, just like they brought Randy Johnson in as a reliever in Game 7 in 2001. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Yankeees missed the oportunity last night. They shoulda 'beaned' Lee, as they were allowed a 'warning'. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Triggering a riot in Philly certainly could have had some good impact on the TV ratings. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was anybody (other then me) getting annoyed with the sports commentator guy, who kept asking about how ineffective Andy might be in Game 6 (due to 3-days rest), following AJ's falling apart in Game 5? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit. It's a semi-valid worry, but that game wasn't going to be won by AJ. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Recently someone accused Joe Buck of being "biased" during the ALCS because of his comment "here come the Angels!" What people like that editor missed is that broadcasters are in the entertainment business, and it's part of their job to keep the viewers wanting to come back. If the announcers were to say, "It's over, the Phillies have no chance," how would that help the TV ratings the next time? But by raising doubts, by raising the possibility the Yanks' apparent ace might lose, and that they might then also lose Game 7, it's intended to keep the viewers interested. It vaguely reminds me of Sparky Anderson, on the verge of a 4-game sweep in 1976, talking about how worried he was about the Yankees. That was before he became a broadcaster, and he was already practicing for the job, playing the right cards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, Buck was attempting to keep the interest (and ratings) up. It was annoying though, particularly when trailing 8-2. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If Joe Buck's job is to keep people coming back, FOX is doomed. He and McCarver both suck horribly, just slightly above the horrendousness of the TBS crews for the LDS and LCS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There aren't that many Vin Scullys out there anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I know. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Aj was ineffective not because of three days rest, but because that is the type of player he is. Inconsistant.--Yankees10 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still annoyed the Yankees paid that kind of money for AJ Burnett when they could've gotten Randy Wolf, who I wanted, for so much cheaper and he's basically just a quieter version of Burnett (similarly somewhat above average with past injury concerns, difference is doesn't have the gaudy K numbers you pay for). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gotta love the Yankees fans. They won't be satisfied until they go 173-0 for the season. We Cubs fans are happy to just be in the race after Labor Day. The Yanks are the Team of Destiny for 2009. (If I'm wrong about that, well, that's show biz.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee hee, we demand perfection from Steinbrenner's franchise. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How does my pointing out a flawed Yankee contract = Lulz whiny Yankees fans? Obviously we're a good team and have done well, that doesn't magically mean nothing's wrong though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that there is no perfect team. Casey Stengel had lots of funny comments in his time (Yogi Berra carries that torch now), but possibly the most insightful comment he ever made is when he took the reins of the 1949 Yankees, and said, "There is less wrong with this team than any other team I've managed." He took that team to 5 straight World titles. "Less wrong", indeed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Raise your hand if you predicted "Yankees in 6"

Wknight94 ^talk 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yo! I'm guessing that gif raises its hand, but doesn't work on my PC. It's too bad they didn't pitch Cliff Lee in Game 4. It might have made things more interesting. But there aren't that many Mickey Loliches and Bob Gibsons out there anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you need a new PC! Wknight94 ^talk 05:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'd never sell Annabelle. [If you remember that reference, you're good.] This TRS-80 was handed down from generation to generation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In 5. SO CLOSE. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

CALLED IT in six. Yankee pride, baby! GlassCobra 05:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh sweet, looking up apparently I said 6. Thought I had said 5. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured it woulda went 7. Of course, I was being generious to the Phillies. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening new stadium and winning World Series same year

Probably covered elsewhere, but here goes:

1889: Giants, Polo Grounds #2
1909: Pirates, Forbes Field
1912: Red Sox, Fenway Park
1915: Red Sox, Braves Field (borrowed for the Series)
1923: Yankees, Yankee Stadium
2006: Cardinals, new Busch Stadium
2009: Yankees, new Yankee Stadium

Near misses:

1910: Athletics, Shibe Park (1909)
1963: Dodgers, Dodger Stadium (1962)
1967: Cardinals, Busch Memorial Stadium (May 1966)
1971: Pirates, Three Rivers (July 1970)

Almost the trifecta - new ballpark, All-Star Game, World Series host in same year:

1970: Reds, Riverfront Stadium

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The New York Yankees, World champions; yahoooooo. Giradi, don't forget to change your jersey number (to 28), in 2010. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Just bringing to your attention that Template:2009 New York Yankees has been listed for deletion. Discussion here. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course... this is going to happen every year until those people outside the project get what they want... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I get that too many templates can be a bother, but why do people get so up in arms about their meaningful use? I fought the hockey people about deleting their Stanley Cup templates and lost. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just hockey thats been deleting them btw. Soccer has been deleting them lately as well, as have a number of other sports. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good for them. Let them do as they please. It doesn't make them right. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It does when the existance of them violates both WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED which means there is a larger wikiwide consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You think they are a violation. Obviously, we don't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how much more clear cut the guideline can be when it pretty much says in order to be valid the links should be expected to appear on the page the navbox is being used on. Certainly you agree that every player that a player played with is not going to be on his own biography. As for the other it specifically mentions navboxes shouldn't be used for championships. Not really sure how that is questionable either, though that on is an essay rather than a guideline. It appears to me that its more a case of people wanting to ignore the guideline rather than thinking it doesn't violate them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. NAVBOX is an essay; it's not policy. And EMBED says that embedded lists (as which these barely qualify) link together "related topics - topics similar to that discussed in the article". But I'm not going to discuss this further, because I've made my views clear now and before, and obviously you are never going to change your mind. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was policy, but there is a point where this project needs to stop with their ownership issues and realize that the greater population of wikipedia thinks otherwise. I would note as far as embed goes, that the section I am quoting is about "navigational lists" which a navbox obviously is. Hence why its called a navbox. links in these sections should have been featured in the article -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And if you want an actual guideline. WP:CLN says As with categories, all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Winning the championship should be mentioned on all these players articles.Spanneraol (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but would all the players be mentioned on each others pages. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I may be reading that wrong, but I don't interpret what you quoted above to mean "all the players [need to] be mentioned" in each article. It says "subject" of the box. The subject in this case is that WS Championship team. So the answer would be yes. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But you are right, no point in arguing with someone who never changes their mind. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)