Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 7

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

Help me prove The Baseball Cube is a reliable source

I have run into a problem with the Nashville Sounds FAC. I need to prove that The Baseball Cube is a reliable source. Can anyone show me a reliable independent source that testifies to the reliability of their data? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is copied from my comment at an open AFD: In my scan through 2000 single-A all-stars, I found the 2000 Midwest League all-stars which includes a pitcher named Chris Dilullo. But you click on the Chris Dilullo link and you get that he played at the University of Delaware in 2007 and 2008. Huh?! How was he a 2000 single-A all-star but then in college in 2007 and 2008?! Baseball-reference's search shows no Chris Dilullo and its minor league section doesn't show all-stars apparently so I clicked on every team individually - no Chris Dilullo. A long time ago, I sent an e-mail to the maintainer of BaseballCube asking what his source was and I got no response. My hunch is that the site is 95% accurate, but that's just a hunch, and that is not 100%. And if the other 5% include completely fabricated names - as opposed to small mathematical errors - that's pretty serious. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I checked the Sporting News Baseball Guide for 2001. They list all players in the Midwest League for 2000. There is no Chris Dilullo listed. The closest to it alphabetically is a David Dellucci. If Baseball Cube has either typos or fake names, that's trouble - in fact it would just about wrap it up for that site, especially if they won't respond to queries. You might want to propose withdrawing them as a valid source. This is a little off the track, but I had a brief but interesting chat with a guy at the Elias Sports Bureau the other day, in connection with whether they sell their record book in stores (they don't) and the question of the 1994 season (he told me 1994 does not break the Braves' division titles streak). I asked him about Cobb's 1910 season and 4,191 vs. 4,189. He said there are lots more mistakes than just that, in the history of baseball's stats, and until someone decides to do a comprehensive and official review of everyone's stats, MLB will continue to report 4,191 as the official figure. The reason I bring this up is that online sites that claim to have the "right" stats and put down MLB's stats are also subject to errors, and are thus just as shaky a source as they claim MLB to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, I was afraid of that. I've noticed before that some players have one profile for their minor league stats and another for majors. In that case, can anyone point me to a reliable indepednent source for pre-1992 (especially 1986-1991) minor league stats. I'm not interested in player stats, only team standings/records. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
From what I'm being told, old copies of Baseball America have such information. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Individual years of the Sporting News guides would have it, although finding them could be a different story. Baseball America started publishing an Almanac a few years ago that effectively serves as a replacement for the now-defunct Sporting News guides. The Almanac includes minor league standings. I would think the minor league pages would have standings for past years, but maybe not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
SABR has a minor league database here. BRMo (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! And no Chris Dilullo to be found. David Dellucci is in there, though, so they've apparently got the 2000 Midwest League covered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my opinion that TBC is NOT a reliable source. I use it all the time, and while it's a good resource for casual investigation, there are numerous errors. Not just transcription errors (which can occur anyone), but transpositions of seasons from one players' career into the career of a different player with a similar name. Caveat emptor when using it, and if you need to source minor league numbers, you'd do better to go with one of the end-of-season annuals discussed above. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor league teams under Major league team category

Has there been any discussion about, or is there any objection to, placing minor league affiliates of Major League teams under the category for the MLB team? For example, I'd like to place the article Las Vegas 51s under Category:Los Angeles Dodgers. I realized there is some maintanence involved as affiliates change and move, but I'd like to see all teams' current affiliations under the big league club's category. I'd like to hear other's thoughts and opinions because possibly taking on such a task. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea in the absence of a separate category for each MLB team's affiliates (which some may or may not feel the need for -- I'm undecided). Unless/until those new categories are created, I would support this suggestion. WAMCO1993 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FLC nomination

I've nominated Managers of the Philadelphia Phillies for WP:FL. I'd appreciate any and all support from WP:BASEBALL members. Thanks! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nomination's been open for five days now. I'd love to have some more members review it. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Though the first nomination failed (and disintegrated a bit), I believe that it's ready to go again, so any members who could come give input would be appreciated. Thanks! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

I've taken this recently failed Good Article nomination to WP:Good article reassessment/Lou Gehrig/1 for community reconsideration. JGHowes talk - 11:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Coco Crisp

Resolved: Someone moved the article back properly. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently noticed that the Coco Crisp article has been moved to his given name, Covelli Crisp, which is hardly ever used by any sources or by the teams which he has played for. Just wanted to get the group's opinion before asking an admin to move the page back to Coco. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This should DEFINITELY be at Coco Crisp, per WP:UCN. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should be... admin has to make the move though... don't copy and paste... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Certainly... and it will probably need a move protection at that time as well. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This is more of a mess than I realized because someone already did a copy and paste move. The Covelli Crisp redirect existed already, so now the talk page for Covelli Crisp is at Talk:Coco Crisp. Agggghhh... KV5Squawk boxFight on! 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a big deal - admin needs to just delete the current content of Coco Crisp, then make the move - someone already did that for the talk page but didn't finish the job... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor league notability - next steps

I've arrived late to this discussion. I think it's unfortunate that it seems to have split along the lines of most-or-all minor leaguers are notable versus no minor leaguers are notable. My observation from observing and participating in many minor league AfD discussions is that neither of these extreme positions is likely to prevail. Articles on minor leaguers who have distinguished themselves are likely to be kept, whereas articles on ordinary minor leaguers are likely to be deleted.

What this WikiProject needs to do is give the best possible guidance to editors participating in AfD discussions (including many who are not familiar with minor league baseball) about which minor leaguers are notable. While the WikiProject's current notability guidelines are a useful step in that direction, I think they can be improved. Some of the criteria are a bit vague or ambiguous, while others don't do a particularly good job of identifying notable minor league players.

Therefore, I've set up a page where I hope we can participate in a discussion to reach consensus about improving the notability guidelines. I'd prefer that it be an effort to reach a compromise on guidelines that can be acceptable to most members of the project, rather than a debate that doesn't move consensus forward.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. BRMo (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

These very guidelines you just described weren't followed in deleting my Miracle entries. An egomaniac just deleted them all without any concern for what anyone else thought.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I can tell you are upset about the deletions, but I respectfully suggest that name calling isn't going to accomplish anything constructive.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The closing admin in that discussion had a very difficult position to take with some incredibly diffuse proposals. I hardly think insulting him is proper. matt91486 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that insulting Wizardman isn't productive, but it was a bad close that went outside of site guidelines and didn't reflect the page consensus (or at worst, the lack thereof). And the initial nomination by Wknight94 was pretty bitey, in that Johnny has only been here for a little over a month, and no effort was made to communicate with him about the need for sources in his articles or the process involved in adding them (and there are/were numerous sources available for many of them) before nominating the lot for a confusing mass-deletion. He's not expressing it very well, but he's got a right to be pissed. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just think we're still ignoring the fact that minor league baseball leagues are feeder leagues ultimately. The same reason playing on a soccer reserve team doesn't confer notability should be applying to minor league players. Once again, there is still some media attention, but that's mainly because of the affiliation with the organization instead of the individual himself. matt91486 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No no no, this is the section for slapping people's hands. Bring notability issues to the nice new guideline page BRMo made.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Spasm is recruiting people to use DRV to get the deletions overturned. [1] This, for example: [2] I guess he forgot to post that notice here, or at least I'm not seeing it offhand. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I pointed out above, he's pretty new, so he may not understand how these things work. I'll tell him about canvassing. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

External links in rosters

I noticed that {{Kinston_Indians_roster}} has external links to the baseball-reference "Bullpen" wiki. Should this be allowed/done? I was under the impression that external links should never be in templates, including rosters. Thoughts? Metros (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no. In fact, why do we need any reference to that site at all anywhere? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh-oh. Why do we have so many links to that site? Don't tell me we're citing a wiki that doesn't usually do a good job of citing anything. We could be citing Ron liebman (talk · contribs)! For shame. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Liebman (or his online version, anyway) is just about as unwelcome at Bullpen as he is here. They don't really have formal banninating procedures, but anytime he tries to make one of his changes, he's reverted on sight. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Liebman's last edit from his main account at Bullpen was made on July 17, 2007. He continued socking from library IPs for a few months after that, then apparently gave up. Note that I'm not necessarily saying that we should be linking to Bullpen entries... just that Liebman shouldn't be represented as an active, trusted member of the project over there. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec - and maybe you answered my questions...) Yeah, because I told them about him. That aside, do they have as coordinated an effort to deal with him? Do they run checkusers? Do they have a dozen people watching every article he obsesses on? If I weren't deleting his socks here per WP:DENY, he'd be in the hundreds by now. And that's just one troll. We at least try to make sure every little piece of information is cited and easily verifiable. Unless Bullpen has changed recently, I think they make no such attempts. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There aren't any formal mechanisms like checkuser in place, but people know which articles he's tried to work his misinformation into, and they've generally done a very good job of reverting him on sight. I just think it's unfair of you to implicitly tar everyone over there with the Liebman brush, when it's not like we've entirely licked the vandalism thing ourselves... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the KTribe roster, these are links to articles that are not allowed here due to the elitist attitude of this wikiproject towards articles on minor league players. If they were allowed here, I would have had no reason to post them on another site. Is it not preferable to have links to actual articles so that information can be gained or do you prefer thousands of red links? Kinston eagle (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to argue that point, Eagle, go to the notability guidelines link above, not here. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not arguing notability. I am explaning to Metros why there are external links in the roster. Had I thought that the players were notable by this wikiproject's lofty standards, I would have written the articles here. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of templates is to provide easy access to navigate through Wikipedia articles, not to link to outside articles. Metros (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Kinston Eagle, make a list page here and write as many mini-articles as you want. Don't subvert the process here by linking to some other wiki site, esp. when it has no hint of even trying to be reliable! Wow. You spout off about vandalism here and then direct our readers to a site where community-banned misinformation mongers like Ron liebman (talk · contribs) are known to run amok and unchecked. Unreal. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
At the core, this truly is a notability argument, because the reason these articles are not included in the first place is because of notability. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the core of this is the purpose of templates. Having a roster template filled with dozens of red links, with articles that will never be written, is not what a template should be used for. Metros (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You're both right! And it's also an issue about where the links were going. What a terrible idea. There's no real reason to link to that site at all, let alone this way. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there some policy somewhere about links in templates? I don't really have a problem with Kinston linking to pages he created on the Bullpen... it provides a way for people to get the information on the players, which isn't provided for them on wikipedia. Where is the harm in that? Spanneraol (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Asked and answered. See above. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like any real policy exists.. mostly personal preference it seems... I don't know this guy you people are talking about.. must have been before my time... Spanneraol (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Pick one. WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V. What could possibly be appropriate about linking from here to a wiki site with no hint of reliability where at least one known community-banned user comes and goes as he pleases. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
So the issue isn't really the links, but where they link to... if he had the template link to the players bios on the team webpages that seems like that would be allowable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be as horrified but then you'd bounce over to Metros's original question above. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nashville Sounds FAC

Please weight in on the Nashville Sounds FAC nomination. This article seems to have a decent chance of becoming the first Featured article for a modern baseball team. Kaldari (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Minnesota Twins managers

We have another new FL candidate for the WikiProject, and in-project contributors would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of game log templates?

What is the point of having the separate template pages for 2008 team game logs (such as Template:2008 New York Mets season game log) when they are now writting into the article? Shouldn't these extraneous pages be deleted? -- bmitchelfTF 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they probably ought to be, unless they need to be kept around for after the season is over. I know that these articles will be quite long at the end of the season, probably 40-45 KB, and a template would keep the size down if anyone is going to push their team's article for FA or GA status (I know I was thinking about it). I don't have any problem with this one being long. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this was discussed before, I didn't think they're necessary because they are only used on one article and templates are usually used for the same info that is on multiple pages. I moved the Pirates back because I update it everyday and nobody opposed it, although I can see what KV5's saying about the size; that's the only logical argument I've heard to separate them. Blackngold29 17:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a question. How is a template going to keep the size of an article down? You still have to load the template with the page. —Borgardetalk 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Because when you use the temp it is put in the article as {{Phillies 2008 schedule}}. Blackngold29 17:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that's only the size of the raw text and not the total page size after templates and images are included. I myself would prefer if all game log templates were just in the articles instead of being separate. —Borgardetalk 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Meh... I say the templates are pretty much extraneous at this point. I think I may have been the one to open the discussion of why they weren't in the pages in the first place, so I'm with whichever way we decide to go at this point. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The only legitimate reason to keep the templates is if there are plans to use them in multiple places. I heard someone (maybe here) propose to keep templates like these to make it harder for vandals to find. That was the most unwiki thing I'd heard in quite some time. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Tables, lists, references, etc... are not included in determining whether a page is too long by wikipedia standards. You should only worry about the length of the "readable prose" when determining whether something is too long for GA or FA status. See: Wikipedia:Article size Kinston eagle (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Old school ballparks

I was going through the Pittsburgh Pirates' (who usually shared with the Steelers) home stadiums and re-writing them. For the earliest parks, info is sketchy as the events happend over 100 years ago, but this is what I have. This is where it gets confusing... The Pittsburgh Alleghenies date back to 1876 they played at Union Park, which had a capacity of 2,500. They played in the International Association league. They were rejected from entering the National League and disbanded for four years, returning in 1882 to the American Association (19th century). In 1887, the Alleghenis joined the National League and technically became the team that are the Pirates today. They played games in Exposition Park for two years, but when the river overflowed and flooded the field, the team moved back to Union Park, which was now called Recreation Park; although I have no sources about the expansion, the park's capacity is now 17,000. While they were are Recreation Park the Pittsburgh Burghers built a second Exposition Park right next to the first; when the Burghers collapsed the Alleghenies moved to Exposition II. At some point after that a third Exposition Park was built and played in. In 1909 the Alleghenies moved to Forbes Field and the confusion ceased. The only problem is, the articles are about the "parks" and not only the teams that played in them, however, I don't know when Recreation/Union Park was actually built, hell, I don't know if anything was actually built; although with a 2,500 capacity I assume there was something. Perhaps that's my problem, assuming that it was a stadium and not just a ballfield. I also don't know when it was torn down after the Bucs left and it was turned into a motorcyle racing track of some sort. So basically, I'm asking if anyone has any sources with info about Recreation Park or Exposition Park (any of the three); because currently the articles aren't sourced, and from what I'm finding aren't correct about some things. Black ngold29 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any refs myself, but I did find a couple of promising leads. Ballparks of North America : a comprehensive historical reference to baseball grounds, yards, and stadiums, 1845 to present is available at 390 libraries in the US. The book listed in the Recreation Park (Pittsburgh) article is also available in many libraries.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

HOF in LEAD debate

At, Talk:Walter_O'Malley#HOF_in_LEAD_debate there is a debate going on about whether Hall of Fame should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD of a biography article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should. It's the most prestigious honor in the game. You need to know in the lead that this is not just Joe Schlobotnik. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I third. Blackngold29 22:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Should be a snow to close the debate with speedy keep. The HoF is the most important honor organized baseball in the U.S. confers, reserved for only the most distinguished contributions to the game over a lifetime. Omission of its mention in the Lead, which is supposed to cover all important points of the subject, would be a serious shortcoming and unworthy of a FA/GA-class bio. JGHowes talk - 23:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 9

In that day's discussions, I've proposed a category rename that would affect over 6000 baseball articles. Due to the sheer size of the rename, I invite all to comment here. Wizardman 22:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

List of baseball parks in Chicago, Illinois

What does anyone think of the general format of this article/list? Be brutal. :) I've started just a few of these and I don't want to go too far down the wrong path... especially if someone else is already doing this already, though I doubt it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Would a table be easier to read? Something about the current format isn't inviting to read, and I'm not 100% sure what the problem is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the current format isn't bad, but putting it in a table format would make it a LOT easier both on the eyes and on you in case something needs to be tweaked. Wizardman 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought that too but wasn't sure it would look good since there would be whole sentences in some of the cells:
Park Occupant Location Currently Notes
Dexter Park Chicago White Stockings, independent professional club (1870) Halsted Street (east), between 47th Street (south) and the imaginary line of 42nd Street (north). Adjacent to Union Stock Yards. Uniform services plant. Later: site of International Amphitheatre
Ogden Park Chicago White Stockings (1870) - some games East of where Ontario Street (at that time) T-ed into Michigan Avenue.
Union Base-Ball Grounds Chicago White Stockings - National Association (1871) Randolph (north), Michigan Avenue (west) Northwest corner of Lake Park (now known as Grant Park) a.k.a. White Stocking Park
Well maybe it's not too bad. Hmmm... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The variable-lengthy nature of the cells is one reason I wouldn't be too keen on the tabular format. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename team seasons lists?

At the New York Yankees seasons FLC, two reviewers have recommended moving the page to List of New York Yankees seasons. If such a change is made, it would mean that the other team season lists would need to be moved to match. One of the reviewers asked me to bring this up here for discussion. I have no real preference, so I want to see what everyone thinks on this. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to leave them as is, due to the fact that several reviewers have been recommending a higher level of creativity in leads, and I think that this should be reflected in titles as well. Precedent is not law, but I think in this case it's OK. I do know that Chicago Bears seasons, which is what Philadelphia Phillies seasons was based on, has been listed for removal, so I don't know what we should follow. Since I'm an FL reviewer myself, I'd like to see what others in the community think. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
My pref is to go with List of New York Yankees seasons. It definitely tells the reader right up front what they are getting - a list, and the list is about the New York Yankees seasons. But it's not a big deal either way.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed an innaccuracy on Wikipedia

In 1979, it says:

  • September 26 - Phil Niekro of the Atlanta Braves earns his 20th win of the season in a win over the Houston Astros. the losing pitcher is his brother, Joe Niekro who picks up his 20th loss of the season. Joe is the last pitcher of the twentieth century to earn both 20 wins and 20 losses in a season, and is the first National League pitcher to do so since 1905. The Brothers Niekro also join brothers Jim and Gaylord Perry as the only brothers to both win 20 games in the same season.

In actuality, Phil was the brother who lost 20 games that season. I don't know how to correct that particular entry. Would it be correct to change it to read:

  • September 26 - Joe Niekro of the Houston Astros earns his 20th win of the season in a win over the Atlanta Braves. the losing pitcher is his brother, Phil Niekro who picks up his 20th loss of the season. Phil is the last pitcher of the twentieth century to earn both 20 wins and 20 losses in a season, and is the first National League pitcher to do so since 1905. The Brothers Niekro also join brothers Jim and Gaylord Perry as the only brothers to both win 20 games in the same season.

My guess is yes, but again, it is just a guess. I opt for removing it entirely.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

According to baseball-reference, you are right. Joe did win 21 games that season, while his brother also lost 20 games. I guess the confusion maybe due to the fact that Phil also won 21 games that season. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Without a source, I'd recommend removing entirely. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it entirely.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrosheet shows Phil won his 20th that day, which brought his record to 20-20. Joe had already won 20, and this was his 11th loss. [3] Joe actually won his 20th a week earlier, against the Reds. [4] Obviously someone got confused. But this is where baseball legends begin, with messed-up facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed another innaccuracy

Under Davey Johnson, it reads:

Johnson's best statistical year came in 1973 when he broke Rogers Hornsby's record for most single-season home runs by a second baseman with 43.

In actuality, he hit one of those home runs as a pinch hitter, and was only ever credited with tying the record.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can find inaccuracies, and you find references that corroborate the correct facts, then simply fix it. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The Sporting News Baseball Record Book for 2007 (the last year it was published) confirms the matter on p. 23. Unfortunately, Elias does not appear to carry that level of detail. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Baseball Reference may seem to disagree; apparently only 41 home runs were hit from the second base position for the 1973 Braves. [5] KV5Squawk boxFight on! 15:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Baseball reference seems to have a problem with Johnson's stats.. they say he hit 43 Homers.. but under splits it says 41 as a 2b and 1 as a pinch hitter... leaving one mysterious homerun unaccounted for. Spanneraol (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Read the page carefully [6]. Notice a 'I' next to the defensive stats (notice he started 155 games - but only 150 at 2B) - check the bottom of the page: "An I indicates that the split may be incomplete due to a few missing play-by-play accounts." The defensive breakdown is incomplete when you go back that far. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrosheet shows 42 at 2B and 1 as PH. They show 156 games at 2B and 2 as PH, over 157 games, so presumably he entered one game as PH and stayed in the game. [7] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Johnson's daily record [8] one of the two games where he came in as a pinch-hitter was June 17 [9] where he homered and then stayed in the game at 2B. This is where the figger filberts' get carried away. His normal position was 2B, he pinch-hit and then stayed in as 2B, yet he's not credited with breaking Hornsby's record due to the scoring rules. It's stupid. The other game where he came in as PH was May 27 [10] in which he batted for the pitcher but did not come into the game defensively. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And retrosheet's season splits obviously don't agree with baseball-reference, but they do account for all 42 homers at 2B. [11] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at Davey Johnson's entry, and saw that Baseball Bugs corrected it. Crisis averted; problem solved. Thank you, Bugs--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And as I indicated above, I don't agree with it. But MLB defines what the records are, so dat's dat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Coincidentally, Johnson agrees with you and thinks it's BS that he was never credited with sole possession of the record--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor league players' AFDs closed. My proposal on disputed notability guideline.

It's clear that some discussion needs to happen regarding the recent AFDs of minor league players, one of which resulted in the deletion of over 30 articles. As I've stated, I think there is a clear dividing line between major league players and minor league players. A major league player who played a single game in 1932 has been thoroughly researched with full name and dates of birth and death, etc. clearly established. Minor league players who played for 15 years at the AAA level in the 1960s, meanwhile, disappear into obscurity. It's just a fact. If I had my druthers, I might even move the line higher and group single-game players into one list article a la List of one-gamers in the National Hockey League.

Nowadays, certain periodicals and web sites devote large amounts of time in reporting on minor league players, but many of them are specialized to that task and, even then, they may have a single article devoted to reporting on the "farm" in general, with little emphasis paid to any particular player. But, as one user pointed out, it is much easier to find minor league information on players while they are in the minors, rather than wait until they are in the majors. But, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTEMP, we are not supposed to be creating articles with the expectation that the subject will one day become notable.

I have a proposal. How about we create a list article called List of baseball prospects and collect all information on likely future major leaguers there. When the player gets to the major leagues, the information can be split from the list into its own article. Per WP:NNC, this a perfectly acceptable use of content. Even I can agree that a list of baseball prospects is a noteworthy list, it's just that each individual player is not notable enough for a separate article at this point. This would allow us to report on and collect information for players while they are in the minors, while not clogging up the baseball space with players that the general community is unlikely to ever hear of or care about.

Thoughts? Opinions? This only covers part of the guideline at WP:WPBB#Players, which I find to be flawed and have marked as disputed. I have not been impressed with the discussions that gave rise to the guideline. I was not made aware of the discussion and many folks I see around here on a regular basis were also absent. The overall proposal, Wikipedia:Notability (sports), where the discussion occurred failed to gain consensus but an hour-long discussion here resulted in the guideline being rushed into place anyway. Enough people unfamiliar with the guideline and subject came to the AFDs and voted delete to make me continue pushing this issue. We are clearly not in tune with the community on this subject. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree with the idea that we should go back to where only major leaguers were notable... Plenty of minor leaguers these days get lots of press coverage and the Futures Game and AAA All-Star games are broadcast nationally. Now, After the recent group of AFD discussions, I'd probably agree to moving the bar up a bit to AA-AAA All-Star games instead of Single-A or rookie league all-stars... but your proposal would result in the deletion of hundreds of worthwhile articles. Spanneraol (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"Hundreds"?! Are they categorized somehow? That's another problem with the current situation - I haven't been able to even locate players who are in the minors but not yet in the majors. I looked through one minor league category and found it was chock full of major league players. Wouldn't it be nice to have them all in one big list article? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Category:Minor league baseball players[12] is inconsistently used, but it does have a number of current players who have only played in the minors. Some players listed are retired, and Clayton Kershaw probably doesn't belong now. WAMCO1993 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is unnecessary instruction creep. If there is a sufficient amount of information to make an article, then thats fine. If not, then don't. A players status as "prospect" is debatable. Was Ryan Ludwick a prospect last year? Is Brad Eldred still a prospect? At what age does a player lose their prospect status? "Prospect" isn't a well-defined term, so I think a list is problematic. Wickethewok (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Press coverage", otherwise known as "hype", does not make a player "prospect" notable. Actually getting into the big leagues, or doing something extraordinary at the minor league level, would do so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Bugs on this one, unless he has an extremely large amount of coverage due to some talent of biblical proportions at an early age. Although it would be interesting to make a list of One game in the majors ballplayers; is there one already? Blackngold29 19:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"clogging up the baseball space"? WTF is that supposed to mean? Is Wikipedia only alloting a certain amount of "space" for baseball articles now? If you don't like the articles on minor league players, then don't read them. It ain't using up any space from any of your precious major league articles. They can coexist just fine and have for quite some time now. I think elitists such as yourself should branch off and form a new Wikiproject called Wikiproject:Major League Baseball since that's all y'all care about. Kinston eagle (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So, if some guy plays 1 game for the Kinston Indians and therefore merits an article, then retires to work on his uncle's tobacco farm and never plays ball again, does the article stay? If not, who's going to delete it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, there's no "alloted baseball space", but that doesn't mean that the baseball coverage is unlimited either. That's why there are Notability guidelines. If you start letting in all minor leaguers, next it'll be "This kid's a really good Pony player", then down on the line and kid who has hit a baseball off a tee will have their own article. We should concentrate effort on improving the articles that we already have, there are thousands of excellent Major leaguers who deserve better articles than they have; not starting new articles about every Minor-League Bob. Blackngold29 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To Wickethewok, how is my proposal instruction creep? If the person has played in the majors, they get their own article, if not, they go in the list of prospects. That's it. If the list name is inappropriate, propose something else. List of minor league prospects? List of current minor league baseball players? Additionally, your notion of "sufficient amount of information to make an article" does not equate to notability. Local newspapers frequently run entire news stories about local people who have overcome adversity or done something good in the community - and a single news story is more of a source than many of the articles on Wikipedia. We would wind up with thousands of articles about everyone who ever saved a cat from a tree, so to speak. Such reasoning is why the WP:NOT#NEWS policy is in place and why the WP:NOTNEWS essay was written.

To Spanneraol, you hit on an interesting point - it's called "The Futures Game"! But we don't include content on people based on their "future" notability per the WP:CRYSTAL policy. I also wonder where you're seeing the nationally-televised minor league games. ESPN? It seems to me that ESPN also broadcasts championship college lacrosse games and such - does that mean every member of those games should get an article?

To Kinston Eagle, the fuck that is supposed to mean is that I already hear, now and then, people complaining about trivial one-game players on no-name teams. It makes me think we're already pushing the limit on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Don't you think it would be a bit silly to have a disambiguation page for a common name looking like:

  • Jack Smith, 1990s AA left-handed pitcher
  • Jack Smith, 1980s AA right-handed pitcher
  • Jack Smith, 1990s AA right-handed pitcher
  • Jack Smith, 1990s AAA outfielder
  • Jack Smith, 1990s AAA left-handed outfielder
  • etc., etc.

That's the type of thing that WP:N and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are supposed to cure. Limit the scope to people that are most likely to be read. I can't say it much better than Blackngold29 did. I've often asked the question: why are we even writing articles about A-level minor league players when there are so many all-time major league roster pages flooded with red links? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I think there's a strong case to be made that anyone, at least in the modern era, who made it all the way to AAA is notable in some fashion (appeared in All-Star games, did something amazing in college ball, played in the Olympics, spent time on a 40-man roster). For my part, I'm fascinated by minor league ball and would rather write about that than the pros. Below AAA I would argue that there's no presumption to notability. Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You would rather write about minor league ball than the pros? The minor leaguers are pros. And the colleges are another area you could extend this ever-expanding oil slick into. But even AAA is not the majors. If a guy plays 10 years in AAA and never makes the majors in some way or another, he's not likely notable. Not that a guy would play 10 years in AAA, because it doesn't work that way anymore. But until they make the majors, they are not in the majors, and the majors are what count - they are the cream of baseball. The rest are only "potential cream", which is a huge difference. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, forgive, by pros I meant majors. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, Mackensen. Would you say you'd accept anyone with even a single game at the AAA level? There are zillions of folks who poked their heads up into the AAA level only to be Whac-A-Moled back to AA. Just want to make sure you are represented accurately. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. My argument is that there's presumptive notability for people who make it to AAA--anyone who got that far has probably done something noteworthy. The subjunctive is important here--one game at AAA (say an end-of-season promotion) isn't impressive. I'd want to investigate the individual circumstances. In writing about people in the Tigers' AAA organization I run across all kinds--guys who played for an Olympic team, a guy who struck out 21 people in a high school game--these things aren't immediately apparent but they're important in establishing notability. As an aside, given the deplorable state of Detroit's bullpen, they have an excellent chance of making it to the pros right now. I'd say anyone who played a full season at AAA is worth consideration. In my experience, you can find multiple reliable sources which discuss such players. Whether an article is possible is another matter. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So you're going more for notability on an individual basis rather than a blanket declaration in a guideline like we currently have. I can get behind that, but I usually find I'm in the minority on that issue. People like guidelines so they can go to AFD and quickly say, "Keep. Meets the guideline." with as little thought as possible. I can see a tremendous number of AFDs opening without some guideline since that will be the only place where people can argue, "They were named a AA All-star so of course they're notable!" - and they will argue it - over and over and over, even if seven consecutive AFDs result in delete... —Wknight94 (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Allowing minor leaguers to be considered "notable" is a huge can of worms. The reality is that unless you make the big leagues, you're nothing as a pro baseball player, no matter how proud your friends and relatives are. AAA is not the big leagues, and realistically, the national media seldom pay any attention to AAA unless something bizarre happens. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats a matter of opinion. Top minor leaguers do get attention.. Top draft picks get notability.. players who participate in the Futures Game get press coverage... the AAA All-Star game as I noted above is broadcast nationally on ESPN, some of these players are on the 40-man roster of the Major League clubs.. and as such get lots of press coverage in those markets... etc.. And what about players who play in the WBC or the Olympics or in the Japanese leagues.? Many of these guys have not made the majors yet... yet do you think they aren't notable? WP:BIO's only criteria is that the person play "professional sports." The minor leagues are definitely professional and all the players in the high minors receive enough national coverage to pass the reliable sources criteria. There is no need here to take a step backwards and delete all of these worthwhile articles simply because WKnight doesn't like minor leaguers and doesn't want to read about them. Spanneraol (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A problem with allowing lots of minor leaguers in as being notable as it smacks of recentism. There's plenty of cites out now that provide research for minor leaguers, yet it's very difficult if not impossible to find info on a guy who played AAA for 6 years in the 50s. If newspapers start covering the rookie league heavily are they going to be notable too? Wizardman 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you have to throw it open to every professional baseball player, because until they make the big leagues, there's no way to know if their attendant hype will bear fruit. Have fun writing thousands more articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point, that's why minor leaguers need to be on a limited basis. Wizardman 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Coming from WP:HOCKEY (where I wrote the project's notability criteria myself, come to that), you would find a great deal of resistance elsewhere to the concept that minor leagues are prima facie nonnotable, as well as from the soccer folks, where subnational leagues are abundant and longstanding, and from the basketball and football folks, where they'd laugh themselves hoarse at the concept that celebrated college players were automatically non-notable. My advice to WKnight is to hit up WP:BIO / WP:ATHLETE and try to swing consensus around to the concept that minor leaguers are non-notable. That being said, while people are talking about how awful it would be for Soandso AAA-scrub in 1950 to have an article, the bald fact is that if that fellow played today, he'd be in the majors.
To meet Wizardman's comments, in point of fact, it's quite easy to find information on a player who played AAA for six years in the 1950s, as it is in other sports; the Web is a wonderful place. As far as BB goes, well, Wikipedia is not paper. You might not be interested in thousands of articles about obscure species of plants, but plainly there are folks out there who are and who are willing to write them. No one is going to force you to write any articles about AAA players.  RGTraynor  14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Nor do I intend to. The burden is yours. However, as Wknight94 pointed out, there are countless stubs of actual major leaguers that need work, and they should take precedence over anyone who is in the minors, because until they make the majors in some capacity, they're not important players. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And like any other area of Wikipedia, those who want to work on said stubs can, and those who don't won't. In any event, your POV that minor league players are "not important" is not, so far, shared by WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's beside the point. The existence of Task A does not preclude working on Task B, if Task B is what I'd rather work on. Nor should guidelines be shaped in such a manner as to coerce people to work on one rather than the other. The question is, rather, whether one can establish notability for X minor leaguer. I find this slippery slope unconvincing; establishing individual notability does not confer automatic notability for an entire class of players. Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • By way of contrast, here is WP:HOCKEY's notability criteria:

Ice hockey players shall be considered notable for purposes of the hockey project's scope if they fulfill one or more of the following and if they otherwise fulfill the requirements of WP:V:

That's a pretty good approach, to weed it down to those who've actually done something. Watch ESPN's Baseball Tonight sometime and notice how many minutes are devoted to minor leaguers. Not many. Also, how many career minor leaguers are in the Hall of Fame? None that I know of. The minors do get some airplay, like when there's good footage of a brawl. Sorry, but if they never make The Show, then they're just another ballplayer, no different than if they stopped playing in junior high school or Little League - unless they do something exceptional, like hitting 72 home runs one season. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm no more keen than you'd be on the concept of a kid who played a single inning for the Pittsfield Mets in 1991 getting an article. But it's a bit of a straw man argument to suggest that baseball players who aren't featured on TV or are in the Hall of Fame are thereby automatically nonnotable.  RGTraynor  14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that way too much significance is being pushed for minor leaguers. Until they get to the bigs, they really haven't done anything yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And when you say that, you're wrong. They've played in front of thousands of people, and their performances have been shared with thousands more via radio, TV, print media, and the internet. Just because you, personally, are not interested in something, doesn't mean that no people, anywhere, are interested in that same thing. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen epsisodes of "Baseball Tonight" that don't show any clips from games between two small-market teams, like the Pirates and the Royals. Are those two teams also, then, non-notable, by your standard? Never mind that prospects receive coverage on other ESPN programs (like their broadcast of the Futures Game), or that there are many better sources than a TV program for the purposes of citing and determining notability... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Heck, the Buffalo Bisons have outdrawn major league teams some years.  RGTraynor  15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02: Trying to make a list of "minor league prospects" is a ridiculously unworkable notion. It'd be frickin' huge. There's nothing wrong with creating individual articles for minor league players who have proven themselves notable AS minor league players - by winning awards, setting recrods, etc. There's no shortage of published material available on them, so that objection's right out the window. Even if you wanted to write about a significant prospect from the 1920s, you could probably come up with coverage from the back issues of The Sporting News (a.k.a. the "Bible of Baseball)... and since the full archives of TSN are available in a free, searchable online archive at paperofrecord.com, you probably wouldn't even have to drive to the library.

Our current guideline was formulated after a lot of thought and discussion. It's actually MORE restrictive than the standards at WP:BIO, which simply call for widespread media coverage. There's no reason to carve out large swaths of material that meet current community standards and retroactively declare them out of bounds. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from that baseball's relatively unique in that almost without exception, every single player came up through the minors and rookie leagues. Even as I type, there are hundreds of minor league ball players who are certainly going to reach the Show at some point.  RGTraynor  15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's part of the point I was trying to make. If you were to make a list of all legitimate ML prospects at all levels of the minors (i.e. guys with at least, let's say, a 10% chance of making the majors at some point in their careers), you're probably talking about 50-60 players in each of the 30 franchises. Unless you restrict it purely to names, which would be dumb, that's an enormous page. And you're going to have endless arguments and counter-arguments as to whether this fringy guy is, or is not, a prospect. Better to have a uniform set of guidelines for individual articles, so that people can find what they're looking for, and so it's easier to sort the sheep from the goats. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a rather trivial edit history so I realize my opinion probably doesn’t carry much weight, but my preference would be to keep the current guideline of having spent at least a full season in AAA or won a legitimate award of some kind. AAA baseball, while it doesn’t get a significant amount of national attention, it does get a fair amount of local media attention. It is the second-highest level of professional baseball in North America and arguably the third-highest level in the world, with guys usually taking several seasons in the low minors to get there.

I would even suggest opening the criteria up to include players who were selected in the first round of the draft. Those guys are considered top prospects from the moment they’re selected, and usually get quite a bit of attention in the market that the parent club plays in. With the draft now being televised, they’re also getting more national attention.

I don’t believe that everyone who has ever played professional baseball is notable. A lot of guys are drafted/signed simply to fill out minor league rosters, and as a result I would not object to leaving these players out of Wikipedia. WAMCO1993 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that ALL minor league players are notable. The only dispute is whether some are, or none. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to RFC I think that, aside from people in the majors, those of us who aren't baseball fans are unlikely to ever hear about any of the baseball players from the lower leagues. They are not notable, any more than, say, the "teacher of the year" in calculus at any particular college is -- they may be of some importance locally, but no more than that. Such exceptions who do get lots of notice will have the press to qualify for notability under other provisions of WP:BIO. RayAYang (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't heard of many of the academics or authors that have pages on Wikipedia, nor am I well versed in all the congressmen or european politicians that have pages... but just cause "those that aren't fans" may not have heard of someone doesn't mean that they don't deserve a page. Wikipedia provides a purpose of providing information to those that do care to look up information on someone who is a prospect in such-and-such an organization. Ray's point that he doesn't care about knowing about these guys so no one should be able to find out about them... is a silly argument. Spanneraol (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The notability guidelines exist for a reason, to differentiate between those of lasting historical interest and those who do not. In that light, your argument that we should be able to look up anybody who's a *prospective* rather than established figure is bizarre. Every postdoc is a prospective professor. Every ADA is a prospective district attorney. We only put these people into Wikipedia when they garner sufficient attention to pass the notability threshold; we do not put all of these people on Wikipedia. The same standard should apply to baseball players. Groups of players who are not likely to get anything other than incidental mentions in the press should not be considered, a priori, notable enough for wikipedia. RayAYang (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The same argument applies, just as readily, to fringe major league baseball players. Someone whose accomplishments involve ten at-bats in September in a single season will garner little more than a note in boxscores and the obligatory "Joe Shlbotnik was recalled from Springfield yesterday, and may see some action tonight if Ty Prider's hamstring doesn't show improvement."  RGTraynor  17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I think the purpose of a specific notability guideline is to create reasonable, quick-and-dirty approximations to the general guideline, to save us work and make things easy for people to understand. In this case, I think the current guideline distorts the notion of notability beyond recognition, allowing any professional player to write himself a stub. I think declaring major league players notable a priori is a reasonable compromise. RayAYang (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with letting some minor leaguers in and not others is that you will always get players who are on the edge of being notable and people will start comparing whose this minor league award to that one, and if Guy A is notable for that, then certainly Guy B is notable for this; and if that happens based on the amount of players who have passed through the minor leagues for the past 50 years that's quite a lot of arguing over something that can very simply be avoided. Blackngold29 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
And that's the nature of the beast. AfD is filled with discussions as to whether Soandso passes the applicable notability criteria or not. I'm a frequent flyer at AfD, and have a few thousand AfD-related edits; if and when getting involved in such debates bugs me, I can just stop.  RGTraynor  17:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I only think saying that some are notable and some are not is a bigger mistake than letting them all in (though at this point I'm still agains that too). Blackngold29 17:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I don’t share your concern that allowing only certain minor leaguers will lead to endless discussions on the topic. The current criteria are clear for which minor leaguers are notable. A minor league player needs certain achievements to receive a page in the encyclopedia. The only point that isn’t well defined is awards, but I don’t think it would be too hard to come up with a list of awards that are eligible for a player’s inclusion. WAMCO1993 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To RGTraynor, your NHL guideline has much nicer detail than what we have here. A few questions though: how many articles do you have for first-round draft picks who never made the NHL? How many articles do you have for players that never got past the ECHL but met the 100-game requirement? More to the point, how many articles do you have like Marc Magliarditi? Unless he makes the NHL - and he's been trying for around a decade now - is there any chance of that article ever getting expanded beyond its current state? That article has become nothing but a category farm with more categories (19) than Harmon Killebrew (18). It's not even accurate as I had to fix a typo just now that has gone unnoticed for literally a year (in fact exactly a year!). If my hunch is correct, there are hundreds or even thousands more articles just like it. Similar to the countless copy/pasted articles under Category:Communes of Landes. Pointless. Shouldn't we be striving to create articles that people put real work and care into? And not just create like a bot and then forget and neglect forever?

To another RGTraynor comment, if you'd like to raise the bar even higher than major leagues, I'm okay with that too. If the person had one at bat in 1912 and disappeared and not even SABR can find a birth and death date, etc., by all means, delete. The fewer unexpandable stubs, the better.

To all, can we at least agree on a few things? The list of leagues used for all-star team tests needs to be pared down. Even Spanneraol and Hit bull, win steak have agreed that the Arizona League should not be used for determining notability. So which others? Can we have a fully-inclusive list that can be put in place now? After that, we can discuss A-level leagues. Hit bull, win steak did a nice run-down of A-ball All Stars and found that around 50% of the members ever make the majors. I don't find that particularly convincing but maybe others do. As I said above, shouldn't we be avoiding the creation of Calvin Chipperfield articles somehow? Chipperfield was one of the top RHP in the Midwest League in 2000, even throwing a no-hitter, and was named to the all-star team. So what? He played a single game at AA in 2002 and then disappeared. What is someone going to write on him? I see no write-ups anywhere, here's one "farm report"-type rundown mentioning his name in two sentences. That's it. No idea why he never made it past AA, no other mentions where his name is not part of a computer-generated database report (i.e., what Baseball Cube is) or a recap of a particular game. Hell, a Google search for him shows a construction worker's LinkedIn page at the top of the list! And this is an Australia native who one would think would get more press coverage for that reason alone.

In general, if we'd like to put the bar at "Only people who have had their biographical information detailed - beyond stub level - in a reliable source story where they were featured", then I'm good with that. If that lets in single-A players who have real non-stub information available but keeps out AAA players who disappeared in 1950, so be it. I can listen to an argument like that. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How many hockey articles do we have for first round draft picks who never made the NHL? Some. How many articles do we have for career minor leaguers who never made the NHL? Some. Where we obviously differ is that I see nothing wrong with that. I've been called a deletionist by a lot of people, but Wikipedia is still not paper, and if you want an encyclopedia where only Hall of Famers need apply, it already exists. There are people in Buffalo, Sacramento, Durham, Pawtucket, Omaha, Indianapolis, Albuquerque and Sacramento who think a great deal of their local players, who have reliable news media of their own, and have media coverage which would satisfy WP:V about said players.  RGTraynor  18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, Chipperfield went back to Australia and played pro ball there for some time after Detroit cut him loose. He didn't exactly disappear - he was just playing in a league that's not tracked by the common online stat databases. I think that with some library work it'd be possible to generate an article for Chipperfield of the sort that you're describing... and honestly, his notability probably shouldn't depend on participation in the organized minors anyway, since he was on Australia's national team during a major international competition (the 2001 Baseball World Cup) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Big section and I'm coming into the discussion late, so pardon me. Generally, I'm in favor of limiting notability to major league players in any sport, because the minor leagues are nothing more than a feeder league; I think top level league players from Japan, etc. should be notable, because it's a standalone entity, but the minor leagues are subordinate to the major leagues and those players should only be notable once a certain level is attained. I can see valid exceptions to this rule as well: being on a 40 man roster or an Olympic team. But generally speaking, I don't think just playing at a AAA level should confer notability. I could get on board with a hockey-like criteria if it's strictly listed and enforced, but that would be difficult. If a player yo-yos between AA and AAA for five seasons, would that be counted as AAA or AA time? etc. Those are just my thoughts, though: absolutely exceptional media coverage beyond coverage of the team in geneal (like Freddy Adu level), 40 man rosters, and Olympics or WBC for minor leaguers, that's all. matt91486 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: Any sort of guideline that we have should not trump the WP:BIO guideline, it should be subservient to the guideline.
The guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources". If anyone meets that criteria they are notable (for Wikipedia purposes) no matter where or what they are playing. Pretty much all current Major Leaguers meet the wp:bio criteria. The problem is - and this is where the Project's guideline is important - old Major Leaguers. Although Major Leaguers in the 1930's received significant coverage in reliable sources, those media sources are not available to the masses, making it difficult for the old-timers to meet the wp:bio guideline. As not to arbitrarily discriminate between current Major Leaguers and Major Leaguers from the 1930's, the guideline comes along and requests that the Wikipedia community to consider old Major Leaguers notable even though significant coverage cannot be found, since there's an assumption that at one point there was significant coverage. This guideline does not trump the wp:bio guideline, it goes along with the wp:bio guideline. This is what the Projects guideline should be limited to: making up for people that are truly notable.
If a minor leaguer meets the wp:bio guideline, then good for him, he should have a Wikipedia article. But if a minor leaguer is simply not notable, the fact that he managed to make some all-star team in a six team Single-A conference shouldn't make him notable.
The big concern that some have mentioned here: truly notable first-rounders or major prospects won't be considered notable, is not a problem. If they truly are notable, they won't need the Project to make them notable, they should be able to meet the wp:bio standards on their own. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We've now had a few people remind us (or remind me anyway) of the core principle of WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis mine) For the recent Miracle players that were deleted, where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources? From a random check, they appear to have been sourced from pretty much nothing, with links only to the front pages of Miracle web sites. And Kelley Gulledge? It was sourced by unreliable bloggy web sites and fan sites.

So, how about going back to basics? If folks can't find significant coverage in reliable independent sources, then the article gets deleted. Forget all other guidelines. Hell, I'd even apply the same rule to major league players! If we can't write a proper article, then it goes. Otherwise, we're essentially doing bot work and creating articles based on database reports, and that smells a lot like a violation of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy. If you think you can find significant coverage, then do so or it goes. Per WP:V policy, the burden of proof lies with the author. If it gets deleted and you find significant coverage later, it can always be restored.

The next step would be to define "significant", "reliable", and "independent". "Reliable" is pretty straightforward and there is even a WP:RSN noticeboard available. "Significant"? As I've alluded to a few times, I am looking for a news article or write-up devoted solely to the article subject. Several publications have regular "farm reports" which run down hot prospects, maybe per parent club or per league, etc. A short blurb in such a write-up would not count as significant coverage. If a particular player is the lead to such a section, there may be some biographical information, but that still doesn't count as significant coverage by itself. Maybe a few lead sections in a few different independent sources could add up to "significant" coverage but, again, it may have to hold up to AFD scrutiny. Mentions in individual game recaps would count for nothing. This is a tough one but inclusion in a list of all-stars or award winners is not significant coverage - it's just a name on a list.

That leaves "independent". "Independent" wouldn't include team web sites. Team web sites are expected to have write-ups for one if its own players. A player's own web site wouldn't count and I'm not sure even a league web site would count!

I'm good with this approach. No more mass-creation of stubs filled with nothing but stats dumped directly from a database. No more blindly applying guidelines that we seem to be incapable of agreeing to. The only guideline is essentially whether or not you can write a real article. And not in the future - can you write a real article about the player now. Thoughts? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A league site would probably qualify in terms of reliability (as per WP:SELFPUB, but be more questionable for the purpose of determining notability. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
My concern with just throwing it back onto WP:BIO is that a lot of people at AFD and such aren't going to be willing to do the legwork to determine whether a minor league player has received significant media coverage or not (particularly if they aren't familiar with baseball, as many are not). Having a notability guideline with specific benchmarks simplifies the task for them. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, if a guy never gets promoted to the big leagues in some capacity, the club itself doesn't consider him "notable". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


Its time we stopped talking about what the guidelines make us do. We here at Wikipedia make our own guideline. We decide what to do, and then write the guideline to match., Needless to say, "we" here refers to the entire Wikipedia community. It will be necessary to convince people here generally that minor league players are, or are not, appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Personally I have no opinion, but to decisde it on he basis of the erraticness of web sourcing doesn't seem sensible. Nor does reliance upon :professionalism: if a guy makes $40000 and manages to live on that, the fellow is notable, but not if he has a winter job also? Just a view from a total outsider. DGG (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor league notability - draft now available

Our discussion of the criteria for minor league notability has made good progress, and we now have a draft set of revised criteria. Your review and comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines#Draft guidelines. BRMo (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the WikiProject's notability criteria to reflect the consensus that was reached in the discussion. BRMo (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Notification of new helpful template

Hi all project members. Just wanted to let you know that I created a template, based on {{by|YYYY}}, to address one of those tedious coding problems we all have when making articles (especially those of us pushing FLs). Now, if you want to input a Major League Baseball season, instead of just a "year in baseball", you can use the template {{MLBY|YYYY}} (can be caps or small letters), and it should give you a link to the MLB season, as follows: 2008. Hope this helps everyone out! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we input this template into the MLB infobox? Since it's only for MLB teams, it will give links to the appropriate MLB season instead of year in baseball. This could be a problem for anyone who wants to put a team article through GA or FA. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I Need Your Help

I added the following to John Stearns' Wikipedia entry a while back:

During the first-ever fireworks night hosted at Shea Stadium on July 4, 1980, Montreal Expos Rookie Bill Gullickson sailed a pitch over Mets first baseman Mike Jorgensen's head in the second game of a double header. Jorgensen didn't appreciate this as he had been the victim of one of the worst beanball injuries in baseball history the previous season with the Texas Rangers, and motioned toward Gullickson his disapproval. Stearns, who wasn't even in the line-up for this game, charged out of the dugout and welcomed Gullickson to the majors by slamming him to the ground.

Someone added [citation needed] to it. I can certainly respect that, however I'm having a little bit of a problem. I remember reading about the Jorgensen beaning back when I was a kid when it happened. I also remember watching the game in which Stearns attacked Gullickson on TV when I was a kid. I've looked all over the web for a credible source to validate my memory on either subject (including Jorgensen's own Wikipedia entry). I've found neither.

You guys seem better than me at finding this stuff. Can anyone help me out?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty obscure one, hence the need for a fact tag; and of questionable notability, as fights in MLB are not uncommon. The retrosheet entry doesn't say anything about it except that Gullickson got shelled in the first inning and was taken out. [13] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look for Gullickson and Stearns in tandem in Google, you'll find some references, though I'm not sure they're "admissable". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Jorgensen was beaned in 1979 seems to be the more important fact to verify, but I can't find that ANYWHERE. for that matter, it would be nice to gather more information on the subject (ie_ the pitcher, opposing team and circumstances). Oh well, the search continues. Again, if anyone can find anything that lends creedence to this story, please help.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Best I can find is this source here: [14]. Jorgensen was hit by two pitches in 1979, and he was only replaced in one of those two games. Assuming this was quite a nasty beanball incident, that one would make sense, but that's quite a bit of speculation on my part. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd agree that MLB fights are common. Have there been any this year? It seemed like you could go a whole year without one - even back then - but I don't have stats to back that up. I'd be curious which happens more often, baseball fights or no-hitters. (BTW, I'm not just saying that because I initiated the Stearns article. I wasn't nearly as careful back in those days). —Wknight94 (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
There's been at least one fight this year. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The first time he was hit by a pitch was against Toronto on April 23. He sat the next day, but was back in the line up the 25th.

On Monday, May 28, 1979, Mike Jorgensen was hit by a pitch from Boston Red Sox pitcher Andy Hassler. Pat Putnam took over at first base after that. Jorgensen pinch hit on May 31, but that's it. He didn't play again until July 1. His plate appearances also severely diminished after that.

My guess is that this is the incident I recall from my childhood, but I'm not comfortable posting it as fact on Wikipedia. Mad props for finding that, though.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think any decent library will have access to newspaper archives. With my library card to the San Francisco Public Library, I get online access to ProQuest which allows searches of a pretty extensive newspaper database. I found the following re Jorgensen from the Toronto Globe and Mail, June 4, 1979, pg. S.9:
"Jorgensen in hospital
Monday, June 04, 1979
Arlington TX -- ARLINGTON, Tex. (AP) - First baseman Mike Jorgensen, who was hit in the head by a pitched ball earlier in the week while playing for Texas Rangers, was placed in the intensive care unit of Arlington Memorial Hospital on Saturday night.
Doctors said he was in fair condition. ''His condition is now stable. He is conscious. He will be here for an undetermined length of time.''"
A previous blurb in the Globe and Mail from June 2 indicated that he was hit in the head the previous Monday, which would indeed have been May 28. I also found Globe and Mail articles the following year about the Jorgensen-Gullickson-Stearns incident. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

These protect template need Interlanguage links and Template documentation.--Kanesue (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question of Appropriateness

I thought it might be cool to add flags to indicate foreign born players on the Miracle roster, but I wasn't sure if that was something that was acceptable for Wikipedia. This is just here; I did not change the team template. I'm at the stage where I like to check these things first--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fort Myers Miracle roster
Players Coaches/Other

Pitchers

Catchers

Infielders

Outfielders


Manager

Coaches


Injury icon 2.svg 7-day disabled list
* On [[Minnesota Twins |Minnesota Twins]] [[Template:Minnesota Twins roster|40-man roster]]
# Rehab assignment
∞ Reserve list
‡ Restricted list
§ Suspended list
† Temporary inactive list
Roster updated 2008-08-16
Transactions
More MiLB rosters
→ [[Minnesota Twins minor league players]]


WP:FLAG - Flags were once part of the rosters. They were taken out after it was decided that they did not fit this rule. Basically - since it's not international competition, the flags are not appropriate - they are not playing to represent their countries. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Squads on association football team articles all have flags indicating the players' nationalities, so I don't see why baseball rosters shouldn't have them. The flags should be included for everyone though, including Americans. - MTC (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In reading WP:FLAG, it seems pretty clear that neither the MLB rosters nor the association football team articles should have flags. But, as MTC pointed out, if we're going to ignore the WP:FLAG guideline (not that I think we should), we should be consistent.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What part of WP:FLAG are you interpreting in that way? WP:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspeople seems to imply that using flags in team squads/rosters is acceptable. - MTC (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading #3: "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent sporting nationality, not nationality." They aren't playing for their countries.... that's all. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have to confess I didn't get down that far. I was looking at Wikipedia:FLAG#Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason. However, WP:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspeople says "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad or sporting nationality." and "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent sporting nationality, not nationality." Wouldn't the "sporting nationality" for any Fort Meyers Miracles players be US, as they are playing for a US team? (As opposed to, say, an article on the 2008 Olympic swimming competition, where different competitors represent different countries, and so different flags are appropriate). If that isn't what's meant by sporting nationality, then please enlighten me, because I can't think of a different meaning. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Their sporting nationality in this case is the national baseball team they are eligible to play for, that is, the nation they could play for (or do play for) in the Baseball World Cup, World Baseball Classic, Olympic baseball, etc. In most cases this will be the same as their actual nationality. The same applies for the association football example I gave earlier, their sporting nationality is the national football team they could play for in the FIFA World Cup, etc. - MTC (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Trying to compare the WBC with the FIFA World Cup is apples-and-oranges. MLB is the real thing, those others are little more than exhibitions. The "national team" concept has very little meaning in baseball, contrasted with its high importance in soccer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
To me, that sounds like a point of view, albeit a common one among MLB fans. Wikipedia should be neutral. The fact that these competitions exist mean that Wikipedia shouldn't treat baseball any differently from any other sports that have national team competitions, regardless of how important certain fans consider them to be. - MTC (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a huge difference. National teams regularly play against each other in big events in soccer, cricket, etc. In the case of baseball, there has been a grand total of ONE World Baseball Classic, after which the players didn't return to their national teams, they returned to either MLB or to their local teams. And Olympic baseball is done after this year, after which... see above. To equate the WBC with the FIFA World Cup is itself a neutral violation, as it implies the two are somehow equivalent. They aren't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a fact that there are national team competitions in baseball, it is a fact that they are organized by baseball's world governing body IBAF, therefore it is a fact that they are equivalent of the World Cup competitions for other sports, regardless of how well known or important they are in the point of view of the fans. To disagree with that is a point of view, not neutral. As for returning to their MLB teams, what else would they do? Footballers also return to their teams after a FIFA World Cup, it doesn't make a difference to the importance of the tournament. Lastly, as the article states "baseball and softball can reemerge as events in the 2016 Olympics"[15], it isn't necessarily "done after this year". - MTC (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Trying to equate the WBC with the FIFA World Cup represents wishful thinking on your part. The WBC was just a novelty, an experiment. Maybe it will be a big thing someday like the FIFA World Cup is. But that's crystal-ball stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it is wishful thinking, it is a fact for the reasons I stated in my last two messages. However, it seems impossible to convince you, so I will go no further, and will also point out that we have ended up going slightly off-topic: The international competitions point is just one way to justify adding flags to baseball rosters, and I maintain that it doesn't matter how important they are considered, it is enough that they exist. One last question: Why did you ignore the Baseball World Cup that I first mentioned in the same message as I mentioned the World Baseball Classic? - MTC (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I could easily write an article about the World Cup Bean-Bag Toss and it would theoretically be on the same level, yes? Meanwhile, the Baseball World Cup consists entirely of non-major leaguers, which says all you need to know about its importance. However, it does have a long history, which is a point in its favor. I still don't see much purpose in having flags denoting a "national team", a factor which has no importance in MLB. But I'm not going to expend a lot of time arguing against it, either. It basically identifies where a player came from, and that can be interesting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not all that Wiki savvy at this point, which is why I didn't know there are flag guidelines saying don't do it. I just thought it might be cool to note the international players on ball clubs. If guidelines say don't do it, then I won't do it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem -- no one expects you to have memorized every guideline out there. That's why we have these talk pages. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I've posted a baseball list (List of Philadelphia Phillies team records) for peer review in preparation for an FLC. Input, editing help, and reviews from project members would be appreciated. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

CPOY source?

I've been trying to build up New York Yankees seasons for a future FLC run, but have come across a problem. Dock Ellis won the Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award in 1976, back when The Sporting News gave it out. However, I can't find a good source for this. The only place I've seen this online beside here is Baseball LibraryAlmanac, but there have been reliability concerns regarding that site. None of my baseball books have a list of winners either. If anyone here can find a reliable web site or printed source that could be used to cite this fact, I would really appreciate it. Thanks for any help. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have access to the Sporting News archives, so I can dig up the appropriate issues and slap in a cite news tag no problem. Wizardman 02:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008, If you go to Paper of Record you can search the Sporting news archives. BTW the opening line of the article states: "This is a list of seasons completed by the New York Yankees baseball club" and yet 2008 is included. Obviously 2008 has not been completed. Either it needs to be removed or the opening line needs to be reworded. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I made a correction above after getting Baseball Almanac and Baseball Library confused. The lead is getting a full rewrite after I finish citing the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
After seeing that registration is required for Paper of Record, I took one more look around the Internet and found a Baseball Library page to use. In case there are any problems with that, the award is also mentioned on his Retrosheet page. Thanks again for the help though. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Registration is free for Paper of Record, and they have nearly a complete archive of the Sporting News from its beginning to the 2000s.DaClyde (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Cincinnati Kelly's Killers players

I have requested that Category:Cincinnati Kelly's Killers players be moved to Category:Cincinnati Porkers players to reflect the team's page name. Discussion can be found here. -Dewelar (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Per that discussion, we've moved the Cincinnati Porkers page to Cincinnati Kelly's Killers instead. -Dewelar (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew

Our first AID is currently a GA on hold. Let's try and get it over the hump and finish what's left. (In other news, our current one is Jackie Robinson. Didn't even realize we were on our second one) Wizardman 15:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look over the Robinson article or get a "To do" list made. But it looks better than Harmon's so it shouldn't take as long to get it to a GA. The biggest thing that needs done on the Killebrew GA review is the two ciations that are needed. I was hoping someone who did research for the article could remember if they've seen that info in a source. Blackngold29 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew has passed as a Good article. Congratulations to all who worked on it! Keep up the good work! Blackngold29 04:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

Following the nomination of the Nashville sound as a Featured article candidate, the uniforms have been changed to a GFDL compatiable format (Nashville_Sounds#Uniforms). I think this innovation should be adopted by this project, as the current use of non-free content for uniforms is a significant bar to any team artilces being rated good, or featured standard Fasach Nua (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'round the World

In reading Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), I noticed the following line: "the Giants won the game 5-4, defeating the Dodgers in their pennant playoff series, two games to one."

It was always my understanding of this three game series that it was simply a three game regular season series that happens to be between the first and second place teams, and was not a pennant playoff series.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The two teams finished their 154-game scheduled regular season tied at 96-58, and a best-2-of-3 pennant playoff series was held to determine the pennant winner. See 1951 in baseball for further info on the season. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I believe you. Thanks.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

MLB draft: secondary phase

I added a comment on the Major League Baseball Draft page asking for the addition of information on the "secondary phase" that was part of the draft for a number of years. Perhaps it should even be its own page. Either way, there doesn't seem to be any information on that page, or anywhere else in Wikipedia that I can find. I suppose I could go scouring the web for the info and add it myself, but I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone had it at their fingertips. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions, redux

I've brought up an issue at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(baseball_players)#Naming_conventions.2C_redux, for any who are interested.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm presently trying to centralize the discussion at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt", since this goes beyond baseball specifically. Needs to get settled one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER

See Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER for a proposal about making Notable Player sections into official guidelines.  RGTraynor  17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bud Selig

Does anyone else have a problem with this move? [16] I believe the article name should be the most common name, not the full name. —Borgardetalk 15:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely believe it should be "Bud Selig". Per Naming convensions it's quite obvious that it should be his most common name. As a baseball fan I have never once heard him referred to as Allan Huber. Blackngold29 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I agree as well. He never goes by Allan Huber Selig, so why call him that? I'll try to find an example of a similar thing.   jj137 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it back to Bud Selig -- it clearly goes against the Common names guidelines here. Feel free to move it back if you have a better reason it should stay as "Allan Huber Selig", of course.   jj137 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I undid a couple other moves by the same user. If more occur, let me know and I will drop him/her a line. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Slightly off the track, I think I still have a T-shirt someplace, from the time he was trying to drop the Minnesota Twins, that reads, "He's not MY Bud!" Nor my Allan H. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

World Series Team Templates

Is there any project-related guidance regarding who should be in these templates, and what pages should have these templates on them? As I continue to create pages for some of the more obscure 70s and 80s players, I could use some guidance on this, among other issues. -Dewelar (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Do you mean the templates on the actual WS articles or the team that won it? Blackngold29 00:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the team templates, like the one in your example. -Dewelar (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of any guidelines on this, but I'd say it should be on all of the player articles whose names are listed on it, that seasonal article relating to it, and the main team article. Just my opinion.   jj137 (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I follow this logic, but that leads to the larger question: what players should be listed on it? This is where there seems to be some conflict in various places, which in turn led me to post here. -Dewelar (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I'd say any player that played in the postseason, as well as the manager. On the 2007 Red Sox banner, it has 28 players listed, and it seems most have 25-30 players listed, so maybe it would be best to ask the people who made those banners.   jj137 (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Venues

Is there an infobox template for ballparks? I was looking for one but couldn't find one. Might be a nice thing to have... Ensign beedrill (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Look in any of the ballpark articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've primarily used Template: Infobox Stadium. It's fine with me, it includes pretty much anything I could think of. Blackngold29 00:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I looked around some and found a lot of those Stadium infoboxes. Thanks for your help! Ensign beedrill (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

40-man rosters

Can we have some community consensus, please? Are players on the 40-man rosters but not active (especially during Sept. call-ups) considered to be "on the team" for the purpose of infobox dating? I believe that it should be "no" because they are not presently playing for the team. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It just seems like more work for players that aren't actually in the majors, and the info is easily avalible on various other sites if people want that info. WP should obviously cover a wide-range of stuff, but we're not about up to the second roster changes and stats. Blackngold29 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking here about the team specified within the template, or are we talking about the use of the "-present" qualifier in the team list? My answer would be different depending on which one you're proposing. -Dewelar (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am specifically referring to the use of present in this instance. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Then I agree with you. 40-man rosters are much too volatile. -Dewelar (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help finding career putout leaders at shortstop

I'm currently trying to figure out where Ozzie Smith ranks on the list of most career putouts at shortstop in Major League Baseball, but I can't seem to find a reliable reference with that info. I know Rabbit Maranville and Luis Aparicio have more career putouts at short than "The Wizard", hence I need a list of the top five or ten guys in this specific category. Is there an online or printed reference material where I can find this info? Thanks, Monowi (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not find an online source yet, but the SABR Baseball List & Record Book has the top 40-plus in categories by position. Keep in mind this is SABR's research and is not necessarily official, but it should help. Leaders in putouts at shortstop are given as: 5139 - Maranville; 4856 - Bill Dahlen; 4623 - Dave Bancroft; 4576 - Honus Wagner; 4553 - Tommy Corcoran; 4548 - Luis Aparacio; 4398 - Luke Appling; 4249 - Ozzie Smith (8th). I think that book could still be in print. Check your local B&N or Borders. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help; I'll definitely try and check the SABR book out! Monowi (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Kingston Indians roster

I have asked for a deletion review of Template:Kinston Indians roster. This is because these 4 templates were deleted when we have these templates appearing all over the baseball team articles. Some of the discussions were talking about too many redlinks, etc. I think they should be recreated, and then if the problem still exists we can discuss it further. —Borgardetalk 08:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

timeline of major league baseball

I've been working on a timeline of different team's histories, similar to the Timeline of the National Hockey League, and here's what I've got so far. I thought this would be a good place to post this, to see how you guys like it and if there's anything you would add or change. I've still got a little bit of work to do, adding colors for all the teams, formatting some team names, and adding in links for everything, but all of the current teams (and I think all of the historical teams) in the national and american leauges should be there. Thanks in advance! shaggy (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kewl. I tried something like that once but my attention span wouldn't allow it. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I was actually working on prose a replacement for the NHL one, Resolute was making timelines that I fell are a little clearer (ex of 1917-42). I believe he made them with PowerPoint. The article is certainly a good idea though. Blackngold29 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think a graphical timeline like this one, while it might be a little messy and hard to read, illustrates the franchise history, as far as moves and name changes go, better than just about any other kind of graphic or giant block of text I've seen. That's why I spent so much time and effort making a version for the MLB. The nice thing about getting this all in one file like this, is it could be cut down to a few much simpler graphics, like the NABBP/NA/AA/NL from 1876-1901, the NL post-1901, and the AL. Cutting it apart would really help clear it up, since you would have more room for all the names and such. shaggy (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Phillies' two seasons as the Philadelphia Blue Jays are not on there. -Dewelar (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, the Phillies never officially changed their name (please see the team history). Thanks! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears they actually used both names. Baseball Reference uses the Blue Jays name as official in 1943 and 1944. Granted, the Phillies site says it was never an 'official' nickname, but the fact that the team's owner "tried to change" the nickname belies that. My guess is it's after-the-fact scrubbing of the matter. Either way, I'm sure this was the subject of much discussion somewhere that resulted in a consensus, so I won't belabor it. -Dewelar (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks, I'll look into it! stuff like that is easy to add, once you figure out how the timeline thing works. shaggy (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I might refrain from changes like that. user:Baseball Bugs can clarify but it seems like team nicknames changed often back in the day. Washington could be called Senators or Nationals depending on who you talked to. Etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You rang? Nifty-looking chart! Yes, the early nicknames were typically unofficial inventions of the media. Some clubs actually went to the media to look for advice on a name. See History of baseball team nicknames for an attempt at documenting this info. The Washington AL club was "officially" the Nationals as well as unofficially but de facto the Senators for nearly its entire existence before moving to Minnesota. The Highlanders and Yankees were both nicknames that first appeared in 1904, with Yankees eventually winning out. The Pirates were originally "Allegheny" before they were "Pittsburg(h)", or to put it another way, the "Alleghenys", not "Alleghenies". The Dodgers were pretty much always the Dodgers, but more often called Robins when Uncle Robby was managing. The Cubs were first called Cubs in 1902, but they were still mostly called Colts as late as 1905. The Phillies were "officially" the Blue Jays for a year or two, with a blue jay patch on their uniforms - which still said "Phillies" across the shirt front. The Tigers were always the Tigers, and officially so, at that. The Red Sox had no nickname until 1908. "Americans" was a frequently-used generic name. They were hardly ever called "Pilgrims". And so on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the colors of the 1882 teams to the colors of their stockings, as assigned by the NL. Neat side effect, the team I have listed as the providence grays now has a light blue bar! shaggy (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the 1940s count as "back in the day", though. -Dewelar (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I see "San Fransisco", "Philidelphia", and "Pittsburg" which are misspellings (unless Philly used to have a different spelling?). Also, I've never seen St. Louis written as "Saint Louis". —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see what it is. I tried to use only official names for clubs, otherwise certain clubs would get really messy and difficult to read. It's already bad enough for some clubs (see the Braves or Angels for an example) that I have trouble getting all the names to be somewhat readable. Adding in every temporary unofficial nickname would make a total mess out of this.
Oh, I know about the misspellings. This is in a mostly raw state. If you had to type out all that code, you'd mess up here and there too. Also, I know the Brooklyn team names are goofy. They changed names 5 times in the first 15 years they were around, and it gets to be a mess trying to fit all that in there. They should be correct after 1890 when they joined the NL, though. shaggy (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I got the worst of the misspellings. shaggy (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was alluding to. To Dewelar, I would count 1940s as "back in the day", but I was more specifically referring to the 19th century. I believe teams wouldn't even use nicknames that far back, instead being referred to as just the Philadelphias or the Bostons, etc. Even in the early 20th century, names were changed pretty haphazardly, like the Boston N.L. team and a few teams in the A.L. - Cleveland for one. I've always preferred to steer clear of documenting such things without numerous sources. Maybe it's just me being anal though... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
My sources are primarily Marc Okkonen's book about uniforms; old baseball guides; and selected individual team histories where the authors have actually researched the matter instead of parroting secondary sources. I'm not saying I've got the last word on it. There are gaps, especially in the 19th century where nicknames were almost always media inventions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's actually at a point where, barring massive error, I would feel comfortable putting it up somewhere, if you guys thought it would be useful. I made up most of the colors for the teams before logos and everything got big back in the 20's or 30's, unless it was obvious (for teams like the Dark Blues, Grays, Browns, Reds). shaggy (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added links to all the current teams and threw it up at Timeline of Major League Baseball. shaggy (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Test for new notability guidelines

My first test of the new notability guidelines is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hissey. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see! AdjustShift (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Season pages

Can anyone tell me how to make the game logs by month on the team season pages default to being hidden or collapsed, rather than expanded? Thanks. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, in the first line of the game log, change the class="toccolours" to class="toccolours collapsible collapsed". That should do the trick.   jj137 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And to make it collapsible month-by-month, you would just change the class for each month, I think.   jj137 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, JJ! KV5Squawk boxFight on! 22:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem.   jj137 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Converged template

Hi, I've created a template to incorporate all the baseball wikiprojects/subproject/task forces, etc under one banner. This will reduce double-tagging, make less work, etc. It won't be hard to migrate if everyone agrees to use it.

It is located at Template:WikiProject Baseball/sandbox, with the demonstration on Template:WikiProject Baseball/testcases. I have incorporated all the sub-projects and all the MLB team specific projects, this uses the WPBannerMeta template and can be updated easily to upgrade needs. Ignore the "|category=no" box on the one I created, because if it is moved to the current banners location it will go away. I have also put the naming of the categories all the same, so it uses "Boston Red Sox articles" "New York Yankees articles", etc.

I will notify individual projects to discuss, but I really do not see why our banners shouldn't be incorporated into one banner. —Borgardetalk 12:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of this. I noticed you have one that simply lists all of them, and another that is nested; on most pages with multiple WPs listed, which one would preferably be used?   jj137 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The nested was just an example of nesting showing what the banner would look like nested, it would only use one banner displaying whatever projects are involved. So if it is in Boston Red Sox's scope, it would use {{WikiProject Baseball|redsox=yes|class=Stub|importance=Low|redsox-importance=High}}, and if it becomes nested, to indicated it is part of WP:BOSOX, it would say "Baseball / Red Sox". There won't be any page that really needs more than 3 or something, so the nesting was really an example of how it would work with other banners. The main banner now supports the new classes like category, template, project, etc, which can be used for the other projects as well. —Borgardetalk 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've requested the code be updated at least, so we can move forward slowly if needed. —Borgardetalk 12:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This looks like we are taking a step toward discontinuing the team WikiProjects. What happened to all the team importances? KV5Squawk boxFight on! 12:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not discontinuing anything. It's merely grouping the banners into one. On an organisation view point it's more efficient. Other WikiProjects have done this with their subprojects since their inception and it works great. Some pages have around 4 seperate banners all linking to baseball projects. I think team projects are great, it's keeping it under one banner, and if anyone starts a new team project it's just several lines in the code to implement a change. The importances are gone? I've coded it so it's all there, you just need to add "nickname-importance=". —Borgardetalk 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mini-articles for minor league players

One suggestion brought up during the recent baseball player notability guideline discussions and a discussion about external links in roster templates was creating list-like mini-articles for minor leaguers. I've put together a sample of such an article and a template for easy linking to players from roster templates. Each MLB org would have a page for minor league players who have not played in the majors.

What do you think? Questions? Comments? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the general prospect; however, I believe that A) minor league rosters are too often in a great state of flux; and B) each team's minor league system is a minimum of six or seven teams, which is a huge number of players. In addition, where is the line drawn for inclusion? Then, if this happens, what about independent teams? The level of play would seem to indicate that perhaps leagues like the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball would have players who are more notable than a player on a rookie-league team or a short-season A club. My two cents only. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In regard to point "A", we already have minor league rosters. This only helps replace red links or non-links with blue links that provide some basic info about players. That being said, I don't see how roster moves would cause a problem. Which leads me to "B"... I neglected to mention that these pages could be created for independent teams as well. We'd also need to decide where to draw the line for inclusion—by class level, awards received, etc. I tend to think that we would only include Double-A and above. Even then, every player would't necessarily make the list. (For the example, I only made entries for Triple-A players and Doulble-A guys that have been named to Double-A mid or post-season all-star teams.) -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) See WP:NNC - the line of inclusion is generally lower within an article as opposed to having a separate article. I'd say you could include any players you want in an article like you've proposed. Maybe you could keep lists of players within the individual minor league team articles (as opposed to the entire Milwaukee Brewers system). Also, we usually have no shortage of people willing to maintain such articles - or any articles related to baseball for that matter. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought about making each article about a team rather that the major league organization, but keeping them grouped by orgs will eliminate the need to move a player everytime they are sent up/down. This way, there can be 30 articles instead of hundreds. It also makes for good use of Template:MiLBplayer. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If the scope is kept clear, and if the guidelines are clear, and are followed and patrolled by project members, I would have very few concerns in supporting this measure, and none which I could think to articulate at this time. Leads should clearly establish criteria for inclusion, and these should likely be List-class articles. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea. Great job in doing something about it. I would like to see them kept between franchise as well, if someone ever moves franchise then the player section can be moved easily, and if a player ever becomes more notable and well written, it can get broken off into an article. —Borgardetalk 07:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone think of a good name for a category for pages like Milwaukee Brewers minor league players? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um...Why not just put them under Category:Minor league baseball players? -Dewelar (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's technicall a "list" of players so should probably go in a list category. I start to get a headache when I think about such things, hence why I just slapped an {{uncat}} tag on and walked away. Face-wink.svgWknight94 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh...well then, I guess Category:Lists of baseball players will do temporarily, since I think it's the only one we've got. -Dewelar (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I created Category:Lists of minor league baseball players as a sub-category of Category:Lists of baseball players -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting discussions! This place seems to be perfect for people like me. AdjustShift (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I created this navbox for future use, because if the one is accepted I'm sure more will follow. —Borgardetalk 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very interesting idea and well worth pursuing. If the capsule bios are properly referenced from the get-go then we have good proto articles if and when said players make their major league debut or otherwise independently satisfy inclusion guidelines. Per Natureboy roster moves aren't an issue; the text can just move from article to article as need be. If someone's career ends in Double-A, then the section is simply deleted. One concern I do have is that when roster moves take place, it may not be obvious which articles linked to a player's section. I would prefer to use redirects--tracking is easier, as is updating. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask and ye shallreceive. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Those redirects are so much better. I can't beleive I didn't think of it. And to think, I spent all that time trying to put together those intricate templates. Brilliant. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the rosters to not use the template. Mind if I delete it now? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Please delete it. Dont' forget Template:MiLBswitch too. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

...and someone's taking these to AfD. Already. Centralized discussion here. Mackensen (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniforms up for deletion

I have posted a request for all major league baseball uniforms to be deleted here Fasach Nua (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to increase the amateurish look of wikipedia, to decrease the chance of it being mistaken for a real encyclopedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I put up an argument against deletion by saying the current non-free use rationales are valid, and that the uniform images are useful in differentiating uniforms too. Let's really put up a good fight here to make sure these don't needlessly get deleted. Monowi (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MLB

Nominated Major League Baseball for GA. Cheers.--LAAFansign review 17:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers

For anyone interested, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers has been nominated for FL status. Any help is appreciated. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

More Featured Topic noms

List of Tampa Bay Rays Opening Day starting pitchers and List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers have been nominated --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Baseball

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fall Classic approaches

The Regular season is now winding down (unless you’re a Bucs fan like me, and it wound down about three years ago) and the 2008 World Series is approaching. I was hoping to put together a temporary “task force” of sorts to keep the article updated and hopefully up to a Good article at some point. If anyone is interested, please feel free to join us. I have done some searching, but have been unable to confirm the dates that the article claims are the start and end of the series. If anyone can cite anything, please do so. Thanks! Blackngold29 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[17] Hope that helps. It's tentative because those schedules are always subject to change. KV5Squawk boxFight on! 00:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I'll add it to the article. I seached "2008 Wold Series" on Google and got twice the amount of hits for the World Series of Poker; there should be more articles as it approaches. Thanks. Blackngold29 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub sorting

There is a proposal at WP:WSS/P for a change in the way that the stub articles on pitchers are sorted. Any input from those in the know would be much appreciated. In essence the stub sorters would normally split a large category like Category:Baseball pitcher stubs by decade of birth where as this one appears to have been split by era of play, alot harder for those of us who sort stubs but don't necessarily have an interest in baseball to sort by.Waacstats (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Negro League vs. Negro league

Some bot program is changing anything in the category "Negro League baseball" to "Negro league baseball". This is not appropriate. It would be like changing "Major League" to "Major league". "Negro League" or "Negro Leagues" is a title and should be properly capitalized. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've been confused by that too. Look how Negro league baseball starts with "The Negro Leagues"... What gives? —Wknight94 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed three years ago and the consensus was to keep it the way it is: Talk:Negro_league_baseball#Proposed_move. 69.68.238.142 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a category renaming, not an article, but you'd think it should be consistent. There are these robot edits [18] that refer back to a CFD that has virtually no discussion, so I don't get who authorized this. I'm tempted to start renaming them back, but I'd like to find out where it came from first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually there was even some apparent confusion in the article move request. Wahkeenah (talk · contribs) - whoever that is Face-wink.svg - appeared to be supporting the move to "Negro League" but marked his support with Oppose. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, whoever that was - must be an idiot. I hope he doesn't take that personally. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with leaving it as "Negro league", and that the moves are therefore appropriate. As noted in the discussion cited above, the only time "Major League" should be capitalized (apart from the movie) is in the official term "Major League Baseball", which is the proper name of an organization, which "Negro League" is not. Otherwise, it's "major league". If anything, the article text should be changed to "The Negro leagues were American professional baseball leagues..." (although I'm unclear on whether "Negro" is a proper noun needing capitalization). -Dewelar (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Trouble is that they are typically called the Negro Leagues. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes, grammar is dead and all that :) . Seriously, though, *are* they typically called "Negro Leagues" with both words capitalized? I admit I haven't made a mental note of that in the past, so I don't know the answer to that question. It wouldn't surprise me, though. -Dewelar (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If you don't capitalize "League", you can make a pretty good case that any current major leaguer who's black is a Negro leaguer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
So, does that mean that when Joe Nuxhall played for the Reds in 1944, was he both a major leaguer and a minor leaguer? :-D
Here's my thinking: The American League is a major league. Anyone who plays in the American League is a major leaguer (not Major Leaguer, right?). Similarly, the Negro American League was a Negro league (or perhaps a negro league -- still not clear on that). Anyone who played in the Negro American League was a Negro leaguer. That's the logical path, anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion on the rename of Category:Negro League baseball to Category:Negro league baseball is currently underway at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 17. Members of this WikiProject are invited to participate. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the evolution of the term, or possibly evolving political correctness, as "Negro" was a common term into the early 60s and is now almost never heard except opposite other technical terms like Caucasian... and in connection with black baseball, which is inescapable because "Negro" and "Colored" were part of the names of those leagues. Robert W. Peterson, in his pioneering work, Only the Ball Was White, simply uses the term "Negro baseball". In Satchel Paige's book, Maybe I'll Pitch Forever, he uses the term "Negro leagues". Both of those books are from the 60s. Phil Lowry, in Green Cathedrals, says "Negro leagues". His first edition was in the 80s. A mid-80s book by Janet Bruce, The Kansas City Monarchs, also says "Negro leagues". The 90s SABR publication, The Negro Leagues Book, of course capitalizes all the words in title as per normal titling rules. However, in the text they also routinely spell it "Negro Leagues". But another 90s book called The Negro Baseball Leagues: A Photographic History, by Phil Dixon and Patrick J. Hannigan, primarily uses the term "Negro leagues" routinely. The trump card might be the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, which says "Negro Leagues" on its history pages. [19][20] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a trump. Perhaps it's a four or five of trumps, but certainly not an honor ;-) . For one thing, "Negro Leagues" as a catch-all term is different from using the term "Negro league baseball", just as using "Major Leagues" is different from using "major league baseball" as a descriptive term pre-copyright. For another, it could (not should, but could) be passed off as a bit of self-aggrandizement by the museum. I'd be more convinced by the historical record. What terms were used by the press reports of the day, especially by the newspapers of the African-American community? If "Negro Leagues" was used with some regularity at the time, then I'd buy it as a name we can use. If not, and it's instead a term of recent invention to describe a collective phenomenon that, at the time, wasn't viewed as such, then it's a bit stickier, and I'd still lean toward the lower case 'l'. -Dewelar (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you bring it up in the edit summary... I recall David Frye doing an impression of Gov. George Wallace, saying, "The time has come to call a spade a spade!" Those were less politically correct times. Jenkinson says "Negro League teams" and the like in his recent book, The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs. You're right that the ideal situation would be to see what they were called generically in the 1920s-30s-40s. I'm thinking that we have one or two experts on the subject here that we should have weigh in. I'll see if I can get their attention. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, Paul Dickson, 1989 edition, says "Negro Leagues", and it is not given to capitalizing things unless they are proper nouns. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The companion book to Ken Burn's 1994 documentary mostly refers to "black baseball", but in the index, which does not capitalize unless it's a proper noun, says "Negro Leagues". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
All good references, but still all too recent to be convincing to me. I know a few of the folks over at Baseball Think Factory who probably could answer the question as well. I'll see what I can drum up for contemporary accounts. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've got a suspicion that this is all a red herring, and that Peterson probably had it right - it probably should be called simply "Negro baseball". However, it's not really called that any more. And it's possible that the black newspapers didn't call it that because it would be redundant, like the French using the term French fries. They just call them "fries". I'm still waiting for user Couillaud to get back to me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been my experience as a Negro Leagues researcher (and one who reads a great deal of literature on the subject) that the term "Negro Leagues" has almost always been capitalized by writers and researchers. Articles submitted for publication to the Society for American Baseball Research use that capitalization convention as well. This may not have always been the case, but it is generally the standard today, as best as I can tell. -- Couillaud (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to study the black newspapers of that era? Did they use any special terminology, or did they just call it "baseball"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The black (or "race") media of its day referred to the different leagues by their names ("American Negro League" or "Eastern Colored League") and rarely spoke of Negro baseball as an institution, except as Negro (or colored) baseball.
IOW, the term "Negro Leagues" was not actually contemporaneous with the formal existence of the Negro Leagues. It is a term coined retroactively to encompass and describe the phenomenom and to distinguish it from Organized Ball, which is what the majors and affiliated minors were collectively called before we had MLB. My guess is that the act of formal capitalization has evolved that way and is an informal and possibly unconscious sign of respect to those who played.--Couillaud (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is how I understood it as well: that "Negro Leagues" was, as you say, "coined retroactively". If anything, your confirmation firms up my opinion that we should use the lower-case "l".
For reference, I spoke with John Murphy, who helped run the Hall of Merit project at BBTF, earlier today, and he agreed with me about the lower-case "l". He also said of my taking this side "While I agree with you, I think you may be paddling upstream without a paddle on this one." It wouldn't be the first time :) . -Dewelar (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I spoke to Larry Lester, one of the co-founders of the Negro Leagues Museum and an author of several books on the subject (and a full-disclosure disclaimer here: he's a personal friend of mine, so I can't guarantee that his opinion is completely unbiased). He stated that his opinion is nothing more than an opinion, but he's always felt that the phrase should be capitalized, that "Negro leagues" is making a direct reference to specific leagues that happened to be segregated, while "Negro Leagues" refers to the overarching concept and organization of segregated black baseball as played from 1920 through 1962. -- Couillaud (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That pretty much crystallizes the discussion for me, and explains a lot of the inconsistency in the source material. However, I'm not sure it answers the question of how to name the articles. I'd still lean toward lower-case for the player categories (since they played in actual leagues, and didn't play for a concept), but the main article could be named one or the other and I'd be fine with it. Given that there should be internal consistency here, though, it would probably still wind up lower-case for all. -Dewelar (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
"they played in actual leagues, and didn't play for a concept" -- I would disagree with that statement. Many of them did not play in a league (the Kansas City Monarchs barnstormed from 1932 to 1936 between the demise of the first Negro National League and the formation of the Negro American League. They and their players were not involved with any Negro league, but they were most certainly involved in the Negro Leagues. It is my feeling that being part of any specific Negro league did not remove a player's association with the Negro Leagues, and my personal definition of "Negro Leagues" actually goes back to the original barnstorming teams of the turn of the 19th century, which encompasses a lot of teams and players who never were part of any league. Anyway, I was asked to comment by Baseball Bugs, and I've done more of that than I had planned, which is no surprise to anyone who knows me. :-) -- Couillaud (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
We appreciate your input very much, especially as I think it answers the question, except a little differently than planned. Now I'm going to go a little outside the (batter's) box here, and propose a different solution:
  1. "The black media of its day ... rarely spoke of Negro baseball as an institution, except as Negro (or colored) baseball."
  2. The pioneering work on the subject, Peterson's book, also uses the term "Negro baseball", which is consistent with the black media of the old days.
Therefore, I say we should retitle the articles and categories to Negro baseball, and redirect from "Negro Leagues", "Negro leagues", and also other possible terms like "colored baseball" in case someone looks it up that way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I can agree with this, especially if the pages/categories in question include non-league teams and players. -Dewelar (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The Wikipedia policy on naming conventions says, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity." The great majority of modern books and articles refer to "Negro leagues" (with or without capitalizing "leagues") rather than to "Negro baseball." The article should be named to be recognizable by Wikipedia readers, not by historians who are specialists in baseball history. The earlier discussion demonstrated that both "Negro Leagues" and "Negro leagues" are acceptable and widely used by historians. The purpose of the Manual of Style is to improve consistency of style by giving guidance in cases like this where there is more than one potential "correct" choice. We should maintain consistency with the Manual by using lower case, that is, "Negro leagues." BRMo (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I knew there was another Negro L/leagues expert around, and I apologize for forgetting your user ID. Unfortunately, that brings us back to the original question, namely is L or l more prevalent nowadays? My anecdotal sources suggest that lower l is, or at least was, more prevalent, once the term "Negro baseball" fell out of usage. A compromise might be to call the article "Negro leagues" and to state (as with a dictionary) that sometimes it is spelled "Negro Leagues". And maybe somewhere in there, to explain that independent teams like the Monarchs are still lumped in with "Negro leagues", even though they were not always in a specific league. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Both upper case and lower case "L" are widely used and I'm not sure which is more prevalent. For example, John Holway's Complete Book and James Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia use "L", while Lawrence Hogan's Shades of Glory uses "l". It's clear that both usages are acceptable. I agree that it might be helpful to clarify that independent teams are generally included in discussions of the "Negro leagues." BRMo (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)