Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 31

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 25

←

Archive 29

→

First ejection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Williams - which one?

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

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

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

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

Rubén Rivera

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

Mnap25 (talk · contribs)

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

Carthage44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLC review/feedback urgently needed

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLB OriolesNationals

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

Keep an eye on the 1937 World Series

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

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

Carthage44 reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Baseball controversies

Come here[1] and tell us if you think the article should be deleted. Bringing your glove and bat are optional....William 00:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Major League Baseball controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I created the deletion discussion[2]. Creating AFDs I have a lot of experience with but this is my first baseball one....William 00:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

The article's creator is back and have to read his section[3] on the 1985 World Series. He added another section[4] about the Yankees which is almost as bad....William 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Vandalism from 24.184.231.115

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

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:NPB franchise and postseason

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

Recent changes page dead

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

Hunter Pence, Shane Victorino and maybe more coming

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

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

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

Baseball Digest

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

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

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

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

Babe Ruth League

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

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

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

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

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

A User-Incentive Proposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shot Heard 'Round the World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLB SoxCubs

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLB MarlinsRays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincecum GAR

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

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

Proposed deletion of Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets

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

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

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

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

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

Probably too much detail. A summary in the Mets History article would be good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As with the stolen base thing, and probably other such lists, the term "leader" is nebulous and frankly a POV nudge. It would make more sense to have some kind of cutoff based on the total number of wins or whatever, rather than some number of players. That's what other sources typically do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A 2007 publication called The SABR Baseball List & Record Book on p. 331 has "Most Career Stolen Bases", a list with 51 entries and which appears to use 450 as its minimum. The lowest number listed is 453, and the 3-column list has 17 + 17 + 15 entries, i.e. it left a couple of possible entries blank rather than coming up with some symmetrical block.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding users who edit only part of an article which is a list (such as editing on particular player's stats, or only players belonging to a certain time) rather than updating the entire list are incorrect in their edits, and thus, any partial changes to the article shall be reverted? The reason is the list is a snapshot of stats at the time identified on the "thru date" of the article, and updating only certain players/part of the list gives an incorrect snapshot. Am I correct here? Zepppep (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly a risk, and the longer the list is, the greater the risk is. That's another argument against such a megillah of a list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Splitter and forkball not really "fastballs"

I'm interested in removing splitter and forkball from the fastball section of Template:Baseball pitches. I think these belong under changeups. I have started a discussion on the template talk if anyone objects. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would think they're breaking balls, i.e. curve balls with something extra. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. The movement and speed of a splitter are most similar to a changeup. The changeup and splitter are both thrown with fastball arm action, relying on the grip to "choke off" the ball so it drops and slows down and breaks away from an opposite-side batter. Breaking balls use wrist movement and looser grips to generate topspin that forces the ball down away from a same-side batter. At the very least, forkball belongs in the changeup category. Here's a Sports Illustrated article from 1979: "The forkball is a slowpoke all the way to the plate. As noted, Sutter throws his pitch with a fastball motion, so that it starts out in a hurry and continues apace until the spin finally overwhelms it, causing it to slow up as it nears the plate and go into its drastic descent. Envision, if you will, an auto speeding on a pier, braking at the last moment and then plunging over the side into the drink."[6] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Spikes Award/archive1

I nominated the Golden Spikes Award list for FLC yesterday. It would be great if I could get a wide range of comments and feedback from members of our baseball community for this list. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pitcher Won-Loss Records

Correct me if I am wrong....if a pitcher is traded in the middle of the season to a team in the other league, his statistics are 'zeroed' out and his current record includes only statistics obtained during play in the new league. Should we apply that rule when updating the pitcher's won-loss record in the team results?Juve2000 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's not correct. I believe I have been seeing Anibal Sanchez's record as including both his numbers with the Marlins and the Tigers. AutomaticStrikeout 17:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In the schedule section of ESPN.com's MLB page, Sanchez is listed as "Sanchez (1-3)". On MLB.com's equivalent, however, Sanchez is listed as "Sanchez (6-10)". In the Baseball Reference box score for the Tigers game, Sanchez is listed as "Anibal Sanchez, L (6-10)". Seems that there is some inconsistency. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with MLB.com as that is the "official" source. It depends on where you are using the record... if its as part of a gamelog then use the full record, if its as part of a teams stats section than only include his stats with the team.Spanneraol (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say for consistency use whatever is in the box score that is linked in the article's log, but 2012 Detroit Tigers season doesnt link boxscores like some of the other team articles do.—Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any current problems with this, but if I remember correctly, Mark Mcguire switched teams in the middle of the 1997 season and his stats stats the same, at least in the newspapers.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rick Sutcliffe won the NL Cy Young Award in 1984, and his record is usually cited as 16-1 even though he won 20 games counting the AL that year. For leaderboard purposes, they are definitely not co-mingled. Not sure if trend has changed when stats are mentioned in writing.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

One difference between these two examples is that 1997 was the first year of interleague play. That may have changed the way things are tracked. -Dewelar (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

National League and American League statistics are separate, and that includes win-loss records. Vidor (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn another one?

Sorry for the "forum" comment, but the third perfect game this season? So who's writing the article about it?--JOJ ^Hutton 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Already written. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to do a mathematical extrapolation and guesstimate by what year we'll be having one every week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

By my eyeballing it, about a hundred years from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 00:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

CWS MOP discrepancy

According to this and this, Charles Teague was the first CWS MOP, not Tom Hamilton. Other sources say it's Hamilton. Which is it? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

NCAA records says Hamilton, assuming Jack Diesing Sr. Most Outstanding Player Award is the same thing. But then The College World Series: A Baseball History, 1947-2003 says it was Teague. Does the NCAA issue the award or some other organization? If NCAA, I'd list Hamilton in the table with a footnote about conflicting sources.—Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cal-State Fullerton says Teague.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

According to College World Series Omaha, Inc., the NCAA recognized the award beginning only in 1999, so NCAA records before that probably can't be considered official. In the ten minutes I've searched, I've found more sources claiming Teague than Hamilton, but the discrepancy seems to begin with the book "The College World Series: A Baseball History." It names Teague and Hamilton the winner of the first CWS MOP award in consecutive paragraphs on the same page. This is not the only major editing error in the book. Considering that contemporary reports linked above mention Teague as the winner, I'm inclined to lean in his direction, with a footnote that Tom Hamilton is claimed by many sources to have also won the first award. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Go figure, here are some NCAA sources that list Teague in 1994, 1999 and 2000. Other sources include USA Today and ESPN.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

An article-improvement collaboration

I've been involved in an attempt to start a project called Today's article for improvement. While I am still interested in seeing that project get underway, I thought it might also be a good idea to propose something similar for this specific WikiProject. I see that we used to have the Article improvement drive, but that seems to be pretty much defunct at this point. I would suggest having a collaboration in which we choose one article, preferably a biography, to be improved per week. Of course, we can still work on other articles, but I think if at least some of us work together focusing on a specific article, we can bring significant improvements to that article in a relatively short time. If there is support for the idea, perhaps we should test it out by picking a random article, maybe Robert Fick (is that random enough?), and seeing how much improvement can be done. AutomaticStrikeout 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If such a drive was started, I might recommend going with highest-viewed articles rather than simply random articles. Zepppep (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good point, though several of those articles are more notable for non-baseball reasons. AutomaticStrikeout 01:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ccoffee99

I noticed vandalism from a contributor named Ccoffee99. I'm not sure if he's been blocked yet.--71.54.241.128 (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.

User has not been blocked but has now been warned. Appears all edits (a handful of them, all made on the same day) from this user are considered vandalism. Zepppep (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Um

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

Over the 135 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 23 official perfect games by the current definition.

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

Over the 143 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 23 official perfect games by the current definition.

The next sentence in both articles is:

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

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

During baseball's modern era, 21 pitchers have thrown perfect games.

appears there, while on "List" we see

During baseball's modern era, 19 pitchers have thrown perfect games.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest deleting the List of Major League Baseball perfect games article and merging its content into this article as appropriate. The "list" article is pointless. Vidor (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The best bet might be to simply put it back the way it was. The split was done on the grounds that there could be other leagues' perfect games listed. Never mind that MLB is the top league in the world. Well-intentioned, but not really a good idea in the longer term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell that to the people in Japan or Korea. The way the no-hitter thing is handled is that we have a no-hitter page that describes it and a List of MLB no-hitters page for the, well, list of MLB no-hitters. I'm assuming other leagues have had perfect games, and so for the global perspective, we shouldn't restrict the perfect game article to MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure we should. Major League Baseball is the highest level of baseball play on Earth. So the Perfect Game article lists MLB perfect games. Japan, Korea, whatever, can have their own list articles. Agree with Baseball Bugs above that we should revert to the way it was. Vidor (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The page should definitely not be restricted just to MLB. The list of players should be removed from the perfect game article since they are in the more appropriate list article. Top league or not, the perfect game article is about the subject in general and the list is about the MLB players specifically. -DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We got to remove list of perfect games contents from perfect game article per WP:Duplicate. Planet Star 18:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It was all in one article and someone decided to split it out, on the grounds that other countries might have lists also. So who's writing those other list articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Check in revision history of list of Major League Baseball perfect games, it was Muboshgu (talk · contribs) who duplicated on 2 December 2011 @ 20:41 UTC. If we already have that listing page, I would delete duplicate from perfect game page, just like we don't have list of Major League Baseball no-hitters in no-hitter article. Planet Star 21:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot more no-hitters than there are perfect games. And are there companion lists of no-hitters from anything other than MLB? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Birth dates

Look at Vladimir Guerrero and Wilton Guerrero's birthdates. They are clearly indicated as brothers, but their birth dates are 108 days apart. I don't even... --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{06:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)}

Are you suggesting only those born from the same mother can be classified as brothers, ignoring the paternal commonality possibility? I hadn't even heard of Wilton so I'm certainly no expert, but being born 108 days apart or 1,080 days apart wouldn't prohibit or conclude they are brothers. Best way would be to check with a reliable source, preferably more than one. Zepppep (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference at least lists them as brothers. [7] [8]. As does Baseball Cube. [9] Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A Sports Illustrated story also claims they are brothers, in the context of brothers who homered in the same game. [10] Rlendog (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I read from one source somewhere that Vladdy was born in 1975. They could be brothers with one lying about their age. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{19:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)}

Yes, the article says that Vlad was born in 1975. As for the possibility that he would be lying about his age, that would never happen! AutomaticStrikeout 20:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir already lied about his age; 1975 is (supposedly) the correct birth year. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant 1976. There was one important point I had to make and I screwed it up. I'll punch myself now. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{03:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)}

Nobody in little league lies about their age either....William 23:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Or the simpler explanation as someone else mentioned. One father two different mothers. Relatively common....especially if you watch Maury Povich. -DJSasso (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Two mothers would make them half-brothers, not just plain "brothers". Retrosheet also has Wilton as Oct 24, 1974,[11] and Vlad as Feb 9, 1975.[12] Yes, one or both could have lied. But don't rule out the possibility that somebody messed up and that Vlad's birthday might have been recorded as "2-9-75", which could be Sep 2. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The source I linked to specifies February 9 as his birthday (as reported by the Angels). isaacl (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The 1997 Sporting News Baseball Register lists Wilton's birthdate as indicated above, and also Vladimir's except it says 1976. Googling this didn't turn up anything really useful, although a forum someplace just assumed, with no direct evidence, that it was Sep 2 instead of Feb 9. Hard telling who's fibbing. Maybe both of them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes they would be step brothers, but often people who are step brothers still call each other brothers and papers are likely to not get so detailed in a simple news bite. -DJSasso (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've found no indication that they had different mothers and/or fathers. I think this is likely either an honest mistake or a fib. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's probably more likely that Wilton's birthdate is incorrect. Most sources refer to him as being a year older than his brother.. and that was when Vlad's birthdate was 1976.. they probably both were a year off originally but no one corrected Wilton's birthdate cause he was out of the game by the time it was discovered. By the way, I remember Wilton's debut with the Dodgers.. everyone had such high expectations for him but he couldn't hit very well, even with a corked bat. Spanneraol (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Brother mentions by LA Times and OC Register Angels blog. Full brothers? Half-brothers? These sources don't specify. Zepppep (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly certain, at this point, that the answer is not likely to be found on the internet. Possibly some private research would be needed. And then we'll know the answer, but we can't use it unless it's a verifiable source. But it would be interesting to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Might try checking Spanish-language sources. Zepppep (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hardly uncommon to refer to a half-brother as simply a brother. Vidor (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition of active player

Featured list article Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award states an active player is: "A player is considered inactive if he has announced his retirement or not played for a full season." I believe this definition shall be applied to other articles, such as List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits. Please post your comments here or to the article's Talk:List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits where a thread has been started. Zepppep (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Some extra eyes are appreciated, as one editor has been reverting without discussing.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Mathews

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

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

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

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

Quick question Dewelar, as per the article, it states

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure what some of you folks are looking at. MLB.com lists Beckley with 2,930 hits. Bobby Mathews is listed with 166 wins, counting his AA career but not his National Association career. MLB does not recognize the NA as a "major league". There is no need for any footnote; simply conform to MLB's policy and do not include National Association statistics. I have written more below. Vidor (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Second update

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

That was a heck of a lot of typing for no purpose. There are six leagues that are considered official "major leagues". The National League, the American League, the Federal League, the Players' League, the Union Association, and the American Association. Here is the player page for Monte Ward, which includes his Players' League season. Fred Dunlap's page includes his 1884 Union Association season. Dummy Hoy's lists the AA and PL. Chief Bender's lists the Federal League. What is NOT counted is the 1871-75 National Association. Cap Anson's page does not list his five seasons in the NA. It appears as far as MLB.com is concerned that they only host team statistics for MLB franchises that still exist; Monte Ward's page linked above contains hot links to his seasons with the Dodgers and Giants but does not include his Players' League team or his time with the Providence Grays.

(continued) I might add that this comment above, "it was neither a confirmation that they are "part of Major League Baseball" as requested above, nor a document usable as a reference." holds no significance, as being a major league and being part of the modern day entity known as Major League Baseball is not the same thing. There was no entity that can be called "Major League Baseball" until the AL and NL signed their agreement in 1902 and arguably none until Bud Selig merged the AL and NL in 2000. Vidor (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if "for nothing" means "for the purpose of informing the group of the status of my ongoing discussion with MLB regarding the matter", then sure. Given MLB's nebulous stance on its own history, which the original question underlined, I took this as a legitimate, good faith concern, which I made my best efforts to address, even if, as your statement might imply, you think nothing of those efforts.

I do agree, however, that the discussion in general was a waste of time, because it brought us right back to what I said several replies back, and you have reiterated. Now, the question is, is it proper for us to start differentiating between "Major League Baseball" and "major league baseball" for the purposes of the thousands of articles to which the distinction makes a difference? -Dewelar (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

is it proper for us to start differentiating between "Major League Baseball" and "major league baseball" for the purposes of the thousands of articles to which the distinction makes a difference? No. Because there aren't very many articles where the distinction makes a difference, or at least not an interesting or important one. Well, except maybe for the Major League Baseball article, which devotes itself to the history of the current entity. To recap: Major League Baseball currently consists of two leagues. It recognizes as "major leagues" for statistical purposes four more leagues: the American Association, the 1884 Union Association, the 1890 Players' League, and the Federal League. It does not recognize the 1871-75 National Association. A player's season and career stats include stats from any of those six leagues, but not the National Association (see Cap Anson as noted above). Nor does MLB have a "nebulous stance" on its history. This is how the numbers have been counted. Some sources count the National Association, like Baseball Reference and Retrosheet, but MLB does not and their statistics at MLB.com reflect that. Vidor (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, "nebulous" was perhaps a poor choice of words. I'll rephrase to say that MLB has a stance on their own history that flies in the face of facts, given their claim to have been established in 1869, as well as their stubborn delays -- and sometimes outright refusals -- to fix or even admit to errors in their statistical records. This makes it more difficult than necessary to draw a bright line as to what is MLB and what is not, as evidenced by the confusion above. I don't disagree with the rest of your points, though. -Dewelar (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think one could make a pretty solid case that the National Association should be included in career totals, and many websites do that, like Baseball Reference, which vaults Cap Anson all the way to sixth in career hit totals. But to date MLB does not. I guess it would be worth noting in pages with players like Anson who straddled the NA and later leagues. Vidor (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How (and when) to update article lists

The purpose of a list, IMO, is for readers to be able to compare "X player" with their peers (the others in the list). However, it is not an uncommon thing to see article lists receiving only partial updating, thus causing the articles to not be accurately organized. The two most common partial update examples are one player's stats (while the other active players get ignored) and players with a current team (typically the editor's favorite) consistently updated. Meanwhile, the other active players in the list languish and receive no updates until an editor comes along to update the full article, such as with this article.

Additionally, the overall "updated through" date becomes null in void, since the article contains stats that have not in fact been updated (or the date is left unchanged and readers are left to think some players have advanced further in the list than might actually be factual). Failing to do so appears to violate NPOV as it appears to make a player look better amongst their peers than he may in fact be and might raise verifiability issues from readers. Some of the articles could be argued to be drifting towards opinion pieces with the targeted updating. (Some users have pointed to lengthy lists perhaps being one reason why editors choose to only update some of the listings within the article. While I might agree it could be one reason, most of what I've seen comes from favortism displayed towards players and/or teams, not editors updating half of the list and then coming back later to finish the other half. There is no doubt an issue with length with some article lists, however.) Zepppep (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up why the hockey project puts something in the lead of the list mentioning this list is as of the end of x season. That way players can be compared against each other without one player having been updated and another not. This complies with a number issues in WP:NOT, where we aren't a sports almanac or team site where its expected we would be up to the minute current. Most pages this is all it takes to have people not update the statistics. However the odd page like records pages we have had to put in edit notices that put up big box when they go to edit indicating they are as the end of the previous season because it seems a lot more people want to update records when their favourite team/player breaks them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are editors willing to update the full article, I don't have a problem. Whether hockey has editors who would be willing to do such, I don't know. As a reader, I'd rather look at an article I know is correct but perhaps outdated than look at an article that has been selectively updated, thus not in fact updated at all. I have to think this thought is not of whack with verifiability standards. Any others have thoughts? Zepppep (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this does seem to be a problem. Perhaps these lists should simply be updated on a monthly basis if a better solution is not found. I don't know if there is a way to enforce that, however. AutomaticStrikeout 00:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as information is being sourced from reliable sources, I don't believe there is anything that limits when an article can be updated. Right now what's happening is information on article lists are being cherry picked for updating, thus making the numbers on the list incorrect and therefore the article, irrelevant. Zepppep (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, several of the article lists get more page views than biography articles and hence, reaching a consensus would prove helpful to the articles within the purview of this project. Several days have passed and there is nothing being shown to counter the arguments presented, either because there aren't any or out of apathy (or perhaps some are just hesitant to forma consensus for fear of blowback from some of the editors who are edit-happy when it comes to several article lists?), but I raised this issue because I thought it was an important one and thus the outcome will affect the editing of several baseball-related article lists. Like the info box discussion above, consensus on this topic will benefit a lot of articles. Zepppep (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition to a reader looking at an article that is factually incorrect for any period of time (because the "stat date" does not in fact line up with the stats provided), the immediate updates some articles are receiving is putting a strain on WP resources and efforts should be made to reduce such strain (instead of 18 edits in one day). Additionally, sometimes in an editor's haste to make an edit (to be the first one), errors are made (like this one) which impact the article in a negative way (such as an error to table alignment, positioning, notability of other players). Zepppep (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to get a consensus to

pick one source that this article will use for updates
agree on a maximum update frequency (daily, weekly, monthly, annually)
add the edit notcie that DJSasso suggested.

Personally, I'm not as interested as I usually go to another site like espn or baseball-reference if I wanted accurate in-season stats.—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Leads in article lists give a "updated thru"; is this what you are referring to in regards to a notice? Re: frequency, no higher frequency than daily. Zepppep (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in the lead you put that it is as of x season or the all star break or whatever. But the edit notice that he mentions is a box that pops up on the top of the edit page when and editor goes to edit that says something along the lines of "Do not edit this article update stats from x season". To see an example here is the notice for the stat leaders page for the NHL. Template:Editnotices/Page/List of NHL statistical leaders. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks to you both! Shall we get consensus nailed down here and have the decision article-wide, or go about doing this on each article's talk page? Zepppep (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Try a project-wide proposal for all related articles. If it gets shotdown, you can go piecemeal. Having a mockup edit notice that people can see might help as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Curt Roberts/archive1‎ and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philip Humber/archive1

These are the two baseball articles currently up for debate in WP:FAC, if anyone is interested in commenting. Thanks Secret ^account 17:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Spikes Award/archive1

This FLC was nominated 10 days ago and there still aren't a considerable amount of reviews. I think it would be great for WP's baseball community to have an active say in this. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)