Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 28

**Evan Longoria**
Tampa Bay Rays — No. 3
Third baseman
Personal information
	Born: October 7, 1985 (age 38)
	Place of birth: Downey, California
Player information
Bats: Right	Throws: Right
	MLB debut: April 12, 2008 for the Tampa Bay Rays
Teams
	Tampa Bay Rays (2008–present);
Career statistics through 2011 season
Batting average	.274
Home runs	113
Runs batted in	401
On-base percentage	.360
Stats at MLB.com
Career highlights and awards
	3× All-Star selection (2008, 2009, 2010); 2008 AL Rookie of the Year; 2009 AL Player of the Month award for April; 2× Gold Glove Award winner (2009, 2010); 1× Silver Slugger Award winner (2009); 1× Fielding Bible Award winner (2010); On cover of MLB 2K10;

Evan Longoria
Evan Longoria
Tampa Bay Rays – No. 3
	Third baseman
	Born: October 7, 1985 (age 38); Downey, California
	Bats: Right Throws: Right
debut
	April 12, 2008, for the Tampa Bay Rays
Career statistics ; (through September 29, 2011)
Batting average	.274
Home runs	113
Runs batted in	401
On-base percentage	.360
Teams
	Tampa Bay Rays (2008–present);
Career highlights and awards
	3× All-Star selection (2008, 2009, 2010); 2008 AL Rookie of the Year; 2009 AL Player of the Month award for April; 2× Gold Glove Award winner (2009, 2010); 1× Silver Slugger Award winner (2009); 1× Fielding Bible Award winner (2010); On cover of MLB 2K10;

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

Archive 25

→

Template:Did you know nominations/Babe Ruth Award

I've nominated Babe Ruth Award for a DYK. As a World Series related article on the eve of the 2011 WS, I think this would be timely. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

new notability discussion

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:BASE/N change suggestion... FYI it looks like Alex started this one. Spanneraol (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex doesn't understand our current notability guidelines. I don't want to see his/her suggestion become incorporated in BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor league baseball players by franchise articles

Would it make sense to limit inclusion of players in these articles to players who have ranked at one point or another high as a prospect, e.g. Baseball America's team prospects. The inclusion of players would be more discriminate, and we could leave the contents of the page for historical purposes of top prospects that never panned out. Otherwise, articles are redirected here, the player might never make it to the majors, and then redirects will build up. Then we can avoid the overhead of having to find these players to delete, editors deleting the content of the team article but leaving the redirect dangling, and the hassle of deleting the redirect through an AfD. See José Casilla page history.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would work.. you dont want to have a bunch of former prospects on the page cause that will fill up fast.. and players still get traded from one organization to another. I'd rather not limit the prospects to "just baseball america" guys cause including 40-man roster guys who havent been to the majors yet is part of what those pages do.. and high draft picks.. Usualy if someone is released, the process has been to unmerge to their own page and then prod it.. not really that difficult, though apparently whomever does the Brewers page isnt following through.Spanneraol (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Was just a thought to avoid the high turnover of the content of an article bordering on recentism. I'm not a big fan of the content of the articles as they stand today, and was looking for a way to improve what otherwise seems like an AfD dumping ground and other miscellaneous criteria for "notable" inclusion. The AfD of Casilla, regardless of whether he really is notable, reminded me of the shortcomings.—Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:World Series Year

Template:World Series Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Powers ^T 21:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

One documentation apparently didn't get updated the last time we went through this debate. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So now that the template will be kept, what can be done about unacceptable uses of this and similar template, such as is rife throughout the Pittsburgh Pirates article? Powers ^T 13:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, either users need to be recruited to fix the problem, or if an automated or semi-automated process is available, then that's the route to go. But there's never a rush. — KV5 • Talk • 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this template redundant? When is the World Series year different from the MLB year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It links to a WS article, not a generic MLB season article.—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Some people might not be reading older threads, so I'd like to point out one above where your input would be appreciated. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 11:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tables - Player Stats

I am trying to add the statistics to the 1995 Atlanta Braves season. Is there a consensus for what stats to include and how to layout the tables? Also, how do I fix the table that I put there today? There is a wide blank column on the right that I can't seem to get rid of. InTheAM (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

For an idea of how to do it, look at 1977 Oakland Athletics season. There's no specific consensus on what to include beyond the ones that are there, but that's been agreed on as the minimum desired. 1962 Houston Colt .45s season has larger tables that might be more helpful to you, as do some of the older Dodgers seasons, such as 1901 Brooklyn Superbas season. If you still need help, I can take a look. -Dewelar (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as the "wide blank column" goes, you had one extra column divider in the Fred McGriff column. I took care of that for you. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. InTheAM (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

LCS MVP on World Series Champ navbox?

Should the World Series Champion navboxes have links for the LCS MVP like they do for the WS MVP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because the navbox is about the World Series champions and not about the LCS. If there was an LCS-winners navbox, then yes, but otherwise no IMO. — KV5 • Talk • 14:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Yankees10 16:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

{{AL batting title}}, {{NL batting title}}, {{AL home run champions}} and {{NL home run champions}} are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_29#MLB_batting_and_home_run_titles. Feel free to comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Free agents

Here is a reminder to all that players eligible to declare free agency became free agents at 12:01 this morning. Here's the list. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And as of the last couple of years, players no longer "delcare" free agency.. they just become free as of that date. I think i've free agented all of them... By the way, some people seem to like to have the -- after the number for free agents.. to me that makes no sense, it looks better without it.. free agent No.-- looks weird.. if he doesnt have a number, leave the thing blank so the line just has free agent on it.. not sure where that practice of having the dashes came from, but i try to delete them when I see them. Spanneraol (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent if you got them all. I got a few. I agree about the number. Just leave the number parameter blank for free agents. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I got the ones you didnt do... haven't gotten around to removing the guys from the rosters yet though. Spanneraol (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Citi Field dimension changes

The New York Mets officially announced the dimension changes to Citi Field. They can be seen here: (http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/nym/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=new_outfield&partnerId=ed-5417687-230369064) When I tried to change the dimensions on Citi Field's infobox this, {{Citi Field dimensions}} appears, but I cannot make any alterations to it. How can this be changed? Richiekim (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Done I've updated it for you. It was a template that needed updating. Next time you see one of those that needs updating, just take the part between the brackets and add "Template:" in front of it in the search bar and you will reach the template in question. Have a good day. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

2010 Philadelphia Phillies

As it stands, the 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season article has subsections in the regular season section that are much too long. The April section alone has 952 words and the subsequent sections follow the same pattern. I argue that this arrangement is far too lengthy for most casual readers of the article. There needs to be some form of further division. I decided to post this here to get a third opinion on this matter. This content dispute has already been addressed here and here. I would appreciate any further comments or ideas on how to resolve this matter. Thank you. 198.137.20.192 (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't need more sections, need less detail. Find some sources that summarize the season to independently identify truly key points of the season.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article and looked at both points of view. I do not believe the article, nor the sections in question, to be of too much detail. I have read through too many featured articles that were much more complicated and detailed than this one. A three paragraph summary of an enite month of baseball seems acceptable, and an easy read, to me.Neonblak ^talk - 08:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- As per my talk page, I agree with Neonblak; it's nowhere near overkill. — KV5 • Talk • 11:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - the sections in my opinion are indeed suffering from unnecessary detail. In some parts, individual games are detailed in multiple sentences. The amount of prose for these parts probably needs to be weighed a little more, whether a mentioned accomplishment or game summary is really so notable that it needs as much prose as is provided. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 11:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. A game by game recounting of the season? I think only a fanatical Phillies fan would read through all of that. I guess it would be a great resource for a historian fifty years from now, but how about a season review that just covers the highlights for the rest of us?Orsoni (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference, this thread discusses season summaries, prompted by the 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season article. (Spoiler alert: I also believe reliable sources that provide season summaries should be used to determine the notable events of a season, just as reliable sources that summarize an election campaign would be apt for an article on a campaign (every single campaign event, although individually covered in many notable sources, is not notable on the scale of the overall campaign.)) isaacl (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with KV, I think he did a great job with that page.. it is well written, informative and gives a good review of the season for those that are interested. Certainly better than some of the season pages that are just stat compositions.. Should stay as is. Spanneraol (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Readable prose size is 42 kB (7320 words), well in line with what an article should be. At a quick glance, I think this article is more of a candidate for GA than the chopping block. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the length of the article is fine. I personally believe there is no such thing as "too much" prose in an article (to a certain extent, I suppose). I do, however, understand the original claim that the text should be further broken up, though. That doesn't necessarily have to be by more subsections, but just more paragraph breaks. The paragraphs in the article are pretty comprehensive. Regardless, the amount of information certainly does not need to be cut. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Gold Glove Award changes?

Per ESPN, the Gold Glove Award announcements will be televised this year for the first time. It seems there are also other changes, though. I don't recall there ever being a list of "nominees" before. Also, they're splitting outfielders by their respective positions, which to me is a welcome change. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not clear if the voters were limited by the nominees, or they are just there for TV drama. They have also created another fan poll with the "Rawlings Platinum Gold Glove Award."—Bagumba (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The GG page should be edited (along with the MLB Awards page summary of it) to reflect the OF to LF/CF/RF change (finally!). I know this isn't a forum, but I wrote this up for another forum and felt it's worth repeating: Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

GG comments from Staxringold

"The Gold Gloves were announced. For the first time they're finally doing one per OF position (rather than 3 generic OF awards), fixing one big problem. Here are the AL/NL Gold Glove winners followed by their rank (withih their league) using FanGraphs Fielding metric (just as an easy tool, using Defensive Runs Saved for pitchers)

C: Matt Wieters (1st in AL) and Yadier Molina (2nd in NL)
1B: Adrian Gonzalez (1st) and Joey Votto (2nd, and 1st was Carlos Lee which is really half LF half 1B so basically 1st)
2B: Dustin Pedroia (1st) and Brandon Phillips (1st)
3B: Adrian Beltre (1st) and Placido Polanco (1st)
SS: Erick Aybar (7th) and Troy Tulowitski (1st)
LF: Alex Gordon (2nd, though by a lot) and Gerardo Parra (1st)
CF: Jacoby Ellsbury (1st) and Matt Kemp (7th)
RF: Nick Markakis (7th) and Andre Ethier (2nd)
P: Mark Buerhle (1st) and Clayton Kershaw (far back)

The only real big mistakes seems to be Aybar, who was practically break even (+1.2) while overlooking Alexei Ramirez, JJ Hardy, and Alcides Escobar who were all +10, and the OF. FanGraphs had Gardner at 25.8, more than double anyone else in the AL. Then there's Kemp in center, who was -4.6 on the year as opposed to Chris Young, by far the best NL CF (+14.1)

All in all not terrible in most respects. 14 of the 18 awards were given to the first or second ranked defensive value player by FanGraphs. Beyond that you just have the traditional GG mistakes of respecting past perfomance/rep (as with Markakis, I imagine. Although FanGraphs largely doesn't love him he's built a rep as a defensive stud) and giving GGs for guys just having otherwise amazing years (Kemp, Kershaw). The Erick Aybar pick is the only real oddball to me. "

How in the world Brett Gardner did not win a Gold Glove is something beyond human comprehension. He saved more runs than anyone in baseball, if I recall correctly. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's because he didn't hit as well as Alex Gordon. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as Jeter didn't win I'm fine with the output. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeter didn't hit well enough to win it this year. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

minor league free agents

Minor league free agent list [1] if anyone wants to take the time to update these pages. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD notification

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dugout is now open for discussion. — KV5 • Talk • 21:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Cubs Alert: Page was just fully protected. Need

The Chicago Cubs page was just fully protected for three days over a simple content dispute about Theo Epstein. Need to get over there now and discuss.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

President of Baseball Operations on Template:MLB infobox

I think this opens up a broader topic that needs to find consensus in this community. I have noticed a severe lack of consistency with usage of the 'presbo' paramater on the MLB infobox. The inclusion of this parameter seems to be at the forefront of the debate on the Chicago Cubs page. The following team articles have the 'presbo' parameter filled:

Atlanta Braves (John Schuerholtz)
Chicago Cubs (Theo Epstein) - source of debate
Florida Marlins (Larry Beinfest)
Houston Astros (Tal Smith)
Toronto Blue Jays (Paul Beeston)

The other 25 team pages do not have a listing for the President of Baseball Operations. Why the inconsistency? Have there been previous discussions dealing with this topic? Checking the template's talk page, I see no section concerning this parameter. I motion that a swift consensus (for sakes of the Chicago Cubs article) needs to be met here, unless a previous discussion reaching a consensus has already been had. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I understand not all clubs have it as an official position and thusly cannot be added to every team article. The consensus I seek is whether or not this parameter even needs to be included on the template if so few teams have the position. To prevent further edit wars (similar issues have been met on the Baltimore Orioles page), we need a consensus here.

I personally don't see a problem with the way it is. I think the President of Baseball Operations is a notable position on the teams who have it. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's similiar in ways to how I understand Hollywood works, where regardless of titles, there is a "green-light guy" who approves projects to move forward. Regardless of their specific titles, I personally believe whoever are the green-light persons for an MLB organization (and there typically are different ones for on-field versus off-field operations) should be sufficiently important to list in a concise summary of the team in its infobox. isaacl (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is sabermetrician Martin Bernstein?

There are at least three references to this person on wikipedia in articles on baseball sabermetrics:

One article says he's only 14 and two other articles say he writes for Baseball Prospectus. I couldn't find him on the author list at the Baseball Prospectus website. Three editors are responsible for this content:Special:Contributions/TaeKwonBanx, Special:Contributions/Tkb62900 and Special:Contributions/208.120.64.153. I'm a bit suspicious that these accounts may all be the same person and that some kid is playing a bit of a prank. But I don't subscribe to Baseball Prospectus, so I can't be sure. Just raising a bit of a red flag here. Is "Martin Bernstein" a real writer?DavidRF (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading Baseball Prospectus for a while, and no one by that name writes for the site (maybe he's commented on articles). In any case, without specific citations for the inserted material, it doesn't belong. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I removed it all.DavidRF (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

MLB Player Infobox refresh

Hi all, I've been working on a visual facelift for the Infobox used on MLB players bios. I don't have a working one but I have a non-customizable prototype built so you can get a feel of what I'm going for here. I want to know what people think and find out if this actually has a chance of being used, cause if not I don't want to waste my time on it. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 08:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh if people agree to this I would make it work for players like Ichiro too for consistency, i have some idea of how to pull that off without the box getting too long. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 08:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It took an awfully long time just to flesh out the current infobox, and if we do ever think about changing it, fancier will not be the way to go. While the aestheticist in me appreciates (some of) the changes in the prototype, I don't think it's appropriate to go pretty just to get the point across. The design of that box detracts from the information that is actually supposed to be conveyed by the box. — KV5 • Talk • 12:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the current one is fine, no reason to change it.--Yankees10 16:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yankees10 that the current one is fine. Any more would be obtrusive. We should strive to use text to flesh out the subject of the article.Orsoni (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I agree with KV. The infoboxes tend to be contentious issues here and we never seem to get agree with what should go in or out. My opinion is for them to be as basic as possible,with perhaps a more specific one going in the career section.JOJ ^Hutton 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with KV5. Style should not trump substance. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This has no intent to make style trump substance. This is just ot make it more visually appealing. We're like the only infobox to still be the boxy style. I just wanted to change that. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"This has no intent to make style trump substance." - but that is what that redesign does. "We're like the only infobox to still be the boxy style." - this is untrue, most infoboxes are "boxy" because they rely on a standard template at their core. — KV5 • Talk • 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "boxy" I meant the outline around every parameter. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 00:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I misunderstood. Be that as it may, however, the prototype you created is a huge departure from both standard infobox designs on Wikipedia and the current format. I can understand a desire for "less boxy", with less outlining, but that is because the MLB infobox actually does not use the core infobox template that most others use. This makes the use of colors from our template easier. If we went without colors (something I'm against), then converting to the core infobox template would be easier. That being said, the new prototype you created is way too far in the other direction. All of the bubble shapes and rounded corners and a lot more color than we have now (which is still way too much for some of our users)... it's all combining to make more of a headache than we already have. — KV5 • Talk • 00:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I had to smirk at your comment about colour. I was about to comment myself that the current box uses too much colour as it is and this proposed one is way way way too much colour and a distraction away from the text of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not active in this wikiproject at all so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt, but as a general Wikipedian I like this new infobox. As long as we keep the content at our usual level of accuracy and completeness, I have no problem with a change (even welcome it), especially if it improves the appearance of our articles.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

One last try

Ok, so I get it, my last try was too colorful and too rounded, i can understand that so I tried a different route, this new one stream lines us with the NBA and NFL infoboxes while not losing any information, it actually adds information (weight and height, which I saw is being debated above). So take a look. If no one like this one I'll just quietly go back to editing, no more attempts. I'm just trying to get rid of the "bordered" or "boxy" look I described above. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Easier to judge side-by-side. Existing on left, new proposal on right—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Need to remove the height and weight. Wikipedia isn't a baseball card.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No we're not a baseball card, but it is a fact and this is an encyclopedia. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Theres no consensus to add height and weight, so remove it to prevent that from detracting from your main proposal. To address your "boxy" concern, which I do agree, you can remove the top colored border and the gridlines for the player info and stats, with no other content changes. As you mentioned, it would be consistent with NBA and MLB articles also. Without adding or removing anything else, it might be easier to get consensus. This I would support.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've hid the weight and height for now. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Still no...The current one is fine, no reason to change it.--Yankees10 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I support

Removing top border - aesthetics
Removing grid lines - aesthetics
Adding link to MLB.com - accessibility to more details for stat-heads

Everything else I have no opinion if it changes or stays the same.—Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As it stands (given that I don't support the addition of height and weight), the only real difference between the two boxes now is that there's a link to MLB.com. The rest of it is all aesthetics, which is almost entirely a matter of personal taste. Therefore, I will comment only on the addition of the link, to which I have no objection. I would say only that it might be useful to instead use the baseballstats template in that location, especially if the intention is to use this new iteration of the infobox to replace anything beyond the MLB one (i.e., Template:Infobox baseball biography). -Dewelar (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm mixed on whether or not a link to MLB.com is useful or not. On one hand it would be useful as a tool for quick updating, on the other hand, I hate busy infoboxes. Yet that last one is just my personal preference. I would much prefer the one on the right, because it looks less busy and is less colorful. Infoboxes should not distract from the rest of the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My feelings on it aren't strong one way or the other either, but I do think that if we're going to have a stat link in the infobox, let's use the existing template and allow the reader to choose which site they prefer for their stats. One question, though: is the infobox considered part of the body of the article? If so, this may run afoul of the external links policy. -Dewelar (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Its been my experience that external links are usually permitted in the infobox, if they are relevant. Although there may not be a policy or guideline to back that up. I've seen many links in several infoboxes, usually taking readers to a company website or something similar. I find them very useful myself and in fact look for them in the infoboxes regularly, when I want to visit the subjects actual website. Again, they may be there against policy, but I haven't seen any discussions on them to make a full judgement of whether or not they are actually allowed or not.

Some people do not consider the infobox to be the same as the body, but again I'm not sure if there is policy or guideline to back that up or not.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Links in infoboxes seem ok per Wikipedia:External_links#Templates_for_external_links—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Links are OK in infoboxes, but my reading of that is that a link in an infobox should be an "official link", which in this case would not apply. I wonder if a better solution might be to set it up as a reference rather than as a link. The reference could be named so that in any bio article the ref can be re-used simply with a "<ref name="career stats"/>" or something similar. Afaber012 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. I appreciate the removal of the borders. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the mlb EL addition, but I like the aesthetic changes to the infobox; looks cleaner. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You dont like links in general in the infobox, or the fact that it is not an "official" site?—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Would someone call this enough support to implement the change? If so give me a little bit to alter the base coding. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 23:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way you could do the coding such that we don't need to include the <nowiki></nowiki> parameter to keep the asterisk as a bullet? It's annoying to need to use it in every template and I'd like to think a new template could correct for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as implementing this new info box doesnt break all the old ones or make it more difficult to type information into them. Not sure i like moving the teams list above the stats. Spanneraol (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd rather keep the teams after the stats too. I don't know that it really makes any difference either way, but if we can, we should maintain continuity. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  - Get rid of the border and grids. Leave order and content the same, as no clear consensus on changing those yet.—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    - I moved the teams up so all the career stuff could be together, and in the end what does it matter? The same information is still there. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 00:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
      - I'm ambivalent about the order, but to be fair to those that object, they could also say to you "in the end what does it matter" so keep it as is. Leave it to you how bold you want to be.—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
        The reason I like having the teams at the bottom is that most players dont have the highlights field and you can easily see which teams they played for without it getting lost in the middle somewhere. Spanneraol (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we end up deciding to do about the infobox, we desperately need to fix the color codes that are sourced by the infobox. Yellow is not a team color of the Cardinals, for example, and many of the primary colors for teams are very much inaccurate (and in contrast to the other team templates). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that. I'll look in to it but for now I'll get the code updated in my sandbox so an admin can implement it since it seems to have support. I'll keep the order the same and I won't put the link to mlb.com. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok the code is converted, here. I changed "Last MLB appearance" to "MLB finale" to try and keep it on the same line, if it's not liked just change it back. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Redesign implemented per consensus formed here. I've taken the liberty and updated Template:Infobox baseball biography match. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 11:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no consensus here. It looks like i'm the only one that is completely against the change, but it doesnt look like everybody is 100% in agreement with it. I think you should have waited a little bit.--Yankees10 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I like the removal of the lines. Those badly needed to be removed. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

After seeing this implemented, I prefer the old version with the lines... things kindof run into each other now, it doesnt look as professional. And the Last appearance line should be left justified if thats possible. Spanneraol (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess that is where it comes down to personal taste. I actually think that the lines looked very amateurish and unprofessional whereas without them it looks more streamlined and clean. Less jarring and easier to read. -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And this is what I am talking about. We are still not all in agreement. The gun was jumped a bit.--Yankees10 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not so bad with the current guys but with the older players its a problem.. you have birth and death in the same box without any divider and first/last appearance.. the lines helped.. especially since those pages dont have the color codes. Spanneraol (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying when I look at a player form a few years back. The Birth and Death I have no problem without a divider. Its the first and last appearance that looks bad....personally I am not sure that we even need that in the infobox do we? While its a neat bit of trivia is it something that is important enough to be in the infobox itself? -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say it's a fairly important thing to have for the older players, cause that information is often not included anywhere else in the article. Spanneraol (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think "MLB debut" should be kept but something like "Last MLB appearance" could be replaced with "Career" which list the years that the career last. For Example:

Career: 1936 - 1955

Or something like that. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You can figure that out by the team listing already.. I rather like the last appearance listing. Spanneraol (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Djasso that first/last appearance is trivial and can be removed. If it stays, the naming should be symmetric like "First MLB appearance/Last MLB appearance" or "MLB debut/MLB finale". Somehow the border obscured the fact that the fields themselves were named inconsistently, and thats more of the problem. Whether or not a border is needed seems secondary.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I called this a consensus to change for the sole reason that the discussion ran for roughly four days and I did everything I could without canvassing to get people to comment, if you did not comment, I'm sorry but those that commented seemed to be in favor of riding the bordered look but keeping the content the same. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussions usually run for a minimum of 7 days. I know you are aware of that. Not to mention the one proposing the change shouldn't be the one determining consensus unless its extremely obvious which I don't think you could say in the above discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I jumped the gun in that sense, and I apologize. It looked to be snowing that people agreed the bordered look needed to go. however this thread is not locked so feel free to continue to discuss if consensus changes I will have it undone. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Really don't like the new infobox, prefer the old one as it looks more professional. The MLB debut and Last MLB appearance look atrocious as well. Albacore (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you just restored the first/last appearance thing to the way they were originally might be able to live with the rest of the changes. Spanneraol (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were only removing the top border where the name is and removing the grid lines in the table on the old format, which I would agree it was snowing. Didn't realize the first/last appearance was changing, though I'd be more in favor of removing it altogether. In the future I'd suggest itemizing the individual proposed changes so there are no surprises and people can !vote to support some and not others.—Bagumba (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have declined a request to revert this change to the template. While it is clear that not all of the changes have unanimous support, it does seem that some parts of the change are uncontroversial. So I did not want to nullify all the time spent in this discussion by reverting entirely. If you can all agree which changes have support, and if someone can put that version in Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox I will do a partial revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am ambivolant towards the change, however, I'm leaning towards keeping the old one as I think the colors and text might be too flashy and a distraction from the main body of the article.Orsoni (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the previous version was nearly identical in terms of use of colour. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Design is always a balance of tradeoffs. For example, regarding the gridlines: the usual graphic design principles would, as I understand it, generally favour less ornamentation. However the need for improving legibility would have to be weighed against this. In the particular case of separating first and last appearance, though A/B comparison testing could be done, I doubt a significant difference in usability is going to be revealed, leaving it up to the designer's personal aesthetic tastes. Given this, I suggest to everyone that they be open to compromise, and only raise objections to what they feel is a significant detriment to the usability of the infobox. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like any of the changes that were made to the infobox. It was fine the way it was before. - PM800 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the old one as well.. should we take a vote on restoring the old version?Spanneraol (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the same information in pretty much the same order, the only difference is the name is no longer in color and the grid lines are gone. We were the only infobox to feature them and it made it look inconsistent with the rest of the wiki and unprofessional. IMO, as proposer, it should stay like this, though I can see arguments to put the debut and retirement days the way they were. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are other issues with the change. As I posted on the template talk page, how a player with no MLB experience bats and throws no longer shows up in the template, for some reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's my fault, I messed up. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can people specify what they dont like specifically. At least the removal of top border and the gridlines should stay IMO. This keep/revert back and forth without specifics isn't going anywhere.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I want the first and last appearance returned to the way they were, at least. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Break in discussion

The changes were reverted for now until consensus is reached. At this point general consensus is:

The grid lines should be removed.
The color for the name at the top should be removed.

What still needs to be ironed out is:

How first and last appearances will be documented

When this gets ironed out we can re-implement the changes. This is not to say they will be re-implemented as consensus can change and quickly, but as of now generally the changes are liked just details need to be ironed out. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 16:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

After seeing both versions implemented, I much prefer the older version. Why do we want to remove the color from the name? Without it the name just floats there above the info box... looks weird... I even prefer the grid lines, though those I could be persuaded about.. first and last should stay as is. Spanneraol (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I definitely prefer the old one. I don't see the changes being necessary.--Yankees10 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I see them as necessary, our infobox design really drags behind the general design of infoboxes on this wiki. Makes our wikiproject look bad, IMO. We are collaborators dedicated to baseball, but we not a separate entity from the rest of the wiki. "Consistency" is the name of the game. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 17:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Different does not necessarily mean "bad"... Spanneraol (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said we are apart of a wiki and there a general design for an infobox that we don't follow. We're like the black sheep, to use an analogy. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "infobox task force" take place to set up guidelines for these things.. and looking over the entire wiki (not just the sports projects) I see tons of different styles and formats for them.. many of which follow no "general design". Spanneraol (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The grid lines really have to go. They break up the flow of the box and look quite out of place. As for the colour at the top I would support removing it since that is how most infoboxes are now done I believe. Makes it easier to read and less distracting from the article as well. The First and Last can stay as is. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

While I am not strongly opposed to changing, I prefer the old infobox as used in Lou Piniella. I find the colors are a bit too much window dressing in what supposed to be mainly text-based articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orsoni (talk • contribs)

Color is not the enemy of professionalism. That's all I got to say about that. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the current infobox automatically selects the colours based on the value of the team field, does this mean you are proposing that the existing infobox be changed by removing the colours? isaacl (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "general consensus" for removing the gridlines or making any of the other changes. I think the old infobox looks much better than the new one. - PM800 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. I see no changes necessary. The infobox is perfectly acceptable as it stands. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish we had formed a new consensus to re-add the gridlines and the color bar on top instead of reverting and then discussing again. I still support the removal of both.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bump so this doesn't get archived until discussion has concluded. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving doesn't happen until a section has had no replies for a month. Anyhow, I'd say the results of the poll are in, and that the result is that there is no consensus to make a change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

See below.

Infobox poll

Ok let's put this to a !vote to see where we stand and what version we implement. This is definitive. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 23:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

End date: 23:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, please read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. However, we've discussed it for a half a month and this needs to be ended. This is not being used as a substitute for discussion, this is being used post-discussion to see where everyone is. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 17:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Option 1

!Vote this one if you want it re-implemented the way it was before the revert. Grid lines gone, color on name bar gone, and the color bar parameter above the debut and last appearances section gone.

Option 2

!Vote this one if you just want it left alone: Grid lines, color on name bar and the color bar parameter above the debut and last appearances section all remain as they were before this discussion ever started.

I'd prefer this one but can live with option 3 if necessary. Spanneraol (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I prefer nothing is touched.--Yankees10 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I like the current infobox much better than the proposed ones. - PM800 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
No changes are necessary. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Whether they're necessary is a matter of opinion. I happen to think they are. And even if they aren't, that's no reason to try to improve. This is one of those time I hate seeing "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applied. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, I meant that in a sense of personal opinion. Hence the reason we are having this vote in the first place. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the old one looks better. Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Prefer the old one. Albacore (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Option 3

!Vote this one if you want a mix of options one and two. Grid lines gone, color on name bar gone, but the color bar parameter above the debut and last appearances section remains.

Guess I better do my !vote. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 00:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd support removing first and last appearance, but can discuss that separately.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Grid lines gone, the rest discussed on a case by case basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Need to remove gridlines.DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Support this option, as I do not believe the additional grid lines improves readability sufficiently to warrant overriding the general graphics design principle to keep data presentation as clean as possible, taking advantage of white space to allow a design to breathe. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Same as the others; no grid lines please. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Other

Please specify. Guess I'll put my take here...

Here is my take on each of the changes, keeping in mind that this change is almost 100% aesthetic and therefore almost 100% subjective:

1) Removing the gridlines

Don't like it. They make it easier for me to read the box.

2) Coloring on the name bar

Yes, get rid of this

3) Section header bars free-floating instead of anchored to the sides of the box

Dislike. Looks sloppy to me.

4) Rearranging the sections

Some reorganization is probably needed, but I'm leaning toward the new arrangement being slightly better. However...

5) Changing the wording of the section headers

Not keen on the new wordings. Especially...

6) Removing the parenthetical within the "Career statistics" section header.

No. Absolutely, positively no. That needs to be a parenthetical, not part of the sentence structure.

7) Stat link to MLB.com

As I said above, I'm ambivalent about this.

Did I miss anything?

All that said, if I had to pick one of the three options above, I would go with #2: no change needed. The only thing that I really like about the new design is getting rid of the color on the name bar. Everything else is either "meh" or "hell, no". -Dewelar (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

Further discuss here.

Come on guys, we're so close to a consensus. Don't abandon the thread yet. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to move this poll down to the bottom... discussions in the middle of the page can easily be missed. Spanneraol (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Done CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW Another argument to favor the changes is that it would make the player infobox consistent with the team infobox. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 20:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Team navboxes

New discussions at WT:NBA and WT:NFL have me thinking about some of the redundancies in our navbox templates. Let's look at one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball&action=edit&redlink=1

There is quite a bit in this template. However, there are templates that reproduce that information:

See what I'm talking about? We have the big template that includes everything, and the smaller templates that are more specific. Then, we put all of these templates on pages, when they aren't all needed. Should we have one template that contains everything, or several smaller templates that have less data in them, or stay with the status quo? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well most of the team boxes dont list ALL the managers and GMs cause most teams have too many to include in the main box... so I'd say to pull them out of there and keep the separate boxes.. The Level of Excellence thing though probably doesn't need its own box. Spanneraol (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the equivalent of the "Retired numbers" template for other teams—until Alomar's number was retired following his induction into the Hall of Fame, the Blue Jays honoured players by placing them in their "Level of Excellence". isaacl (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO, simpler is better. I hate most navboxes, but if they must exist, I have always felt the main templates should be as focused as possible. For instance, it is meaningless to know on John Farrell's article that the Blue Jays won the AL East in 1985. Trivial link, unnecessary clutter. I know that really paring them down is going to be a non starter, so for organization, I would suggest three navboxes: Seasons (highlight playoff/championship seasons how you like), People (with strict, NPOV criteria, i.e. no "key figures") and Team (team related articles and lists only). Each associated article gets only the navbox that applies. Reso lute 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We should adopt a guideline that a team navbox should only have items that will most likely never need to be removed. If there is only temporary notability like the current manager, owner, AA team, etc, dont add it. Retired numbers will always be retired, not to mention they can help to understand the team's history, so they stay. Managers are interesting, but a link to List of Toronto Blue Jays managers is sufficient as opposed to itemizing all managers in this box. "Culture" at a bare minimum should have a standalone article or section on the items listed, as opposed to just nicknames of "notable" players or articles that have one sentence (or less) that mention the linked item. The Blue Jay box actually does a good job for Culture compared to team boxes in NBA (havent looked at that many MLB ones closely)—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would pare the team infobox down quite a bit, instead of having every manager or general manager listed like on the Jays box. I would link to a "List of" article and place it under franchise. This is just one example and could probably be done with a number of other things in the box as well. Navboxes should just have key links in it that portray enough information without giving too much information. In other words we aren't trying to tell the whole story of the Jays on every page the infobox is on. -DJSasso (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this one...

This navbox doesn't tell me which records are held by which of these "franchise record holders". Should that stay? A few other team navboxes have that entry. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As per the last team navbox discussion, those sections are based on the team's record article. — KV5 • Talk • 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to have the team records articles in the navbox, but I don't see the value in listing individual members, especially since not every record holder listed on the page is in the template. As far as the players are concerned, I think it would be just as well to include the record page as a "See also" rather than have them in a template, since the template doesn't provide much context. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mm. Six of one to me. Personally, I like having those players in the navbox, but that's just my opinion. — KV5 • Talk • 19:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You take the six, I take the half dozen, I suppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

One last redundancy...

All 30 MLB navboxes have retired numbers, and a separate template for the retired numbers (except the few teams without retired numbers). Should we remove retired numbers from the team navboxes? Delete the retired number navboxes? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The only real problem I am seeing with the navboxes shown here is that the Blur Jays' "Level of Excellence" should be incorporated into the main navbox (similar to the Athletics' Wall of Fame) rather than being included in a separate navbox. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

MLB Taiwan All-Star Series

Can somebody make an article for the MLB Taiwan All-Star Series? It seems worthy of one since the MLB Japan All-Star Series has one. Jntg4Games (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Cardinals article

There is an extensive recap of the 2011 Cardinals season at the St. Louis Cardinals article. It can't stay there per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM; it will need to be merged into the 2011 St. Louis Cardinals season article. I can do it, but I want to see if someone who regularly edits Cardinals articles would rather do it. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a major problem with a lot of the team pages... many have whole sections devoted to recent seasons and only a couple paragraphs devoted to 10-20 year gaps.. That all should be cleaned up at some point. Spanneraol (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We should have an article improvement drive for that. NYY51, I say go ahead and make whatever edits you feel are best. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NYY51, I'll take a look at it later - yeah, it's a little hefty, and yeah, it happens. In my experience, these things balloon up as they happen, and then get gradually trimmed as time passes and and things get more perspective. On the other hand - any season in which a team sets the NL record for a comeback in September (or whatever the whole thing is), and goes on to win the WS, has the long-time manager retire, and the big star hit FA for the first time, probably deserves more space than other seasons in which not a whole lot happened. umrguy 42 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hey. This is a bit of an odd request, but I feel like writing a baseball article yet have no idea who to pick. As such I'd like you guys to pick one. All I ask is no one pre-1930 or active for source reasons and no one that would require me to buy books. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick look around, and found a woeful article on a big name Hall of Famer... Ernie Banks.Neonblak ^talk - 07:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Any work done to Eddie Mathews would be helpful. The article is in poor shape. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I suppose this might be a good place to look. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Is backstop (baseball) really a high importance article? Yikes, some of those may need re-evaluation for importance. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised Mathews has no book written on him, so could work on getting his article up to snuff. Was considering Ernie Lombardi too as Bill James wrote quite a lot on him in the abstract, so it's a good place to work off of. Banks I can try as well, surprised his article is in that shape. There are a lot of hall of famers with rather bad articles I'm learning. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are probably a lot of miscategorized articles. A lot of stubs, for instance, have been expanded to at least Start Class, but nobody changed the talk page. Anyhow, I looked through that category and found George Kelly (baseball). Once I finish expanding it today, it's likely to garner a DYK, and who knows, maybe GA status? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to pick some lesser-known HoFers for this idea, my first three thoughts on this were Bid McPhee, Tony Lazzeri and Arky Vaughan. All three were indeed in pretty sad shape. I did some work on Bill Terry a while back and could probably do something for one of these in the next couple weeks to at least get it to a respectable place. -Dewelar (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of McPhee, since he is 19th century, I could see what I can do. I can re-visit Amos Rusie, I did expanded it awhile ago, but there is much more to do.Neonblak ^talk - 16:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a surprising amount of Hall of Fame members with substandard articles.Orsoni (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some work on Arky Vaughan's page. It still needs work, but I think it's a lot better than it was. -Dewelar (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

MLB Infobox change notice

I took the liberty of changing the front office staff in the infobox from separate yellow background boxes for each to a single yellow box header and the rest noted like the rest of the box. Feel free to undo but I felt it was needed and couldn't wait. It looked crowded. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 04:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Florida Marlins, Miami Marlins

When will the page get moved? I just reverted an ip account who simply just redirected the Florida Marlins to Miami Marlins without a page move. Obviously the history of the page needs to move as well. And hopefully we won't have a separate Florida Marlins article because the Canada project thinks its important to them.

If we can get eyes over there today, that would be great.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We need one more day of protection from an admin. The rebranding happens at 9pm Eastern, but protection expired at midnight UTC. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear however, I personally am not against moving the page before 9pm. See no real reason not too, even before the formal announcement, although for the sake of unity, I will not do it myself, unless consensus states otherwise. I was just against the cut and paste redirect move made by the ip. The page history obviously needs to move with the page move. Don't think I needed consensus to make that judgment, and I cannot imagine anyone being against that argument.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, cut-and-paste moves are obviously bad. I'd be inclined to say that since the Marlins are going to great pains to make the announcement a timed thing, we shouldn't make the move until after the announcement is made. Especially since there is a likely, though unconfirmed, change in team logos and colors in the works as well as a name change. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

While we wait on that, we could probably get a quick list posted here of all the articles we have to move, which would probably be about 10 or so, mostly lists. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea... – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

List of things to move

Also...

Template:Infobox MLB player - currently recongizes "Florida Marlins" through the primary and secondary color templates, this will need to be changed.

Added a few more, and I think that's all of them now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

nice job. ;).--JOJ ^Hutton 16:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wizardman, since you're an admin, can you move protect and create protect the Florida Marlins and Miami Marlins respectively until 9pm eastern? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This needs to be done in order to enforce the integrity of the consensus to not move the page until the announcement. I just reverted a move myself, and it will not be the last I am sure.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and protected until (I hope) 9 pm eastern. due to daylight savings not sure if 1 UTC is at 8 or 9, but should be alright. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reminder That in addition to moving pages, there may will additional in text changes needed to be made to related pages, that will not require moves. Major League Baseball is easy, but there will be perhaps hundreds of other links in other articles that will most likely need changing as well. We must be careful not to change links in articles, when the text is referring to the Marlins before the name change. For example, we wouldn't change Kevin Brown (right-handed pitcher) to Miami Marlins, because he did not play for them with that name.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Attention Need Admin to move page. I couldn't do so myself. Need to do so quickly so others will stop simply redirecting the page. Page history needs to move with the page.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've requested the move at Florida Marlins. Jo, why don't you splice the other moves on to that one, and file a request at WP:AN or IRC to get an admin's attention? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think we need to go through all of that. This is very uncontroversial. Only problem is that an admin has to move the main page. The others can be moved now if you wish.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Miami Marlins players category is currently being used for the minor league team... that should probably be renamed so when players start playing for this team they can be put in the right category.. though technically no one should be in there till games start. Spanneraol (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So for the colors... what goes in Template:MLB primary color and what goes in Template:MLB secondary color? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to warn you all, it appears that an editor or editors has been overly ambitious in moving pages out of the various Florida Marlins categories (and, indeed, deleted some of them) improperly. I know it's a tall order, but we need to keep an eye for players/managers/coaches/owners/what have you that played for the Marlins before the name change. I'm trying to do some damage control now, but it will likely be hairy for a while. -Dewelar (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That was probably to be expected. Hopefully this can be easily remedied.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

World Series Champions

I just noticed this addition to the List of World Series champions. Editor added pre World Series champions to the beginning of the list. I realize that those games were actually called "World Series", but I was under the impression that for the list was only in reference to the World Series in its current form. We already have a page for List of pre–World Series baseball champions. I wanted to get a few thoughts before I reverted.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove it. It's already been discussed and split out. The list of World Series champions includes only the modern World Series. — KV5 • Talk • 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I took care of it, actually. So no worries. — KV5 • Talk • 15:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Question of naming

I recently created an article for Art Williams, an National League umpire from 1972 to 1977. I noticed that another Art Williams was also known for baseball, as a player. Since both were known for baseball, I was wondering if the player Art Williams should be renamed. I don't no what it should be though as he was both an outfielder and a third baseman. Would Art Williams (outfielder/third baseman) work? Adam Penale (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How funny, we posted name questions within two minutes of each other. :) My suggestion would be to have "Art Williams (umpire)" and "Art Williams (outfielder)". Sure, he played a lot of first base (not third, but I'm sure you meant first anyway), but, typically, if a player plays the infield and outfield, only one of them is chosen for a disambiguation. John Anderson (outfielder) is an example of this. Anderson played a lot of first base too, but he's classified solely as an outfielder because that's where he played most of his games. The fact that Anderson actually played more games at first than any one outfield position is irrelevant. I think the playing Williams is in the same boat. So, I'd suggest making the player "Art Williams (outfielder)". -- Transaspie (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and the closeness of our questions is a tad odd, lol. And my bad, I meant to type first baseman instead of third. I think outfielder would be the best rout here. Adam Penale (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

- No problem...I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. :) Since I saw yours above right after I saw mine get added to the talk page, I figured that it deserved a response...if nothing else, for the strange coincidence of posting identically themed topics. And, luckily, it was a topic I knew an answer for. -- Transaspie (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How would you all disambiguate this?

Currently, I'm in a discussion to move Wild Bill Donovan (baseball) and Bill Donovan (baseball) to other locations (see Talk:Wild Bill Donovan (baseball)#Requested_move), due to the fact that the former is simply called Bill Donovan in many sources. (While he is often called Wild Bill Donovan, particularly in period sources, he has other nicknames besides this, according to the SABR BioProject, so using the Wild Bill nickname for his page doesn't work.) Following the order of WP:NC-BASE, I suggested disambiguating by handedness. A user then suggested that I can move Wild Bill to the main Bill Donovan page...and looking at his stats, I'd be easily in favor of that. Here's the question, though. Bill Donovan (baseball) would still need to be moved. According to NC-BASE, it should be moved to "Bill Donovan (left-handed pitcher)". I've stated I prefer "Bill Donovan (1940s pitcher)" because it looks better. Because I don't know whether to go "by the book" or "by the look", I figure I'd go here for guidance. Anyway, which option would you all recommend? -- Transaspie (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend Bill Donavan (Boston Braves pitcher). Seriously, how many readers would know what hand a player uses? We should change the guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Team names are lower on the list because most players have played for more than one team in their life. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But since this one only played on one team, it seems like a better option.—Bagumba (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct but disambiguation should be consistent throughout and not done on a case by case basis but follow the step by step disambig path. Frankly most people searching are just going to type his name anyways and edit up at the disambig page and then go from there. And disambig pages end up having teams and such on it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If typing in your search term on right corner of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, it shows the names of pages that match as you type, which I often use to avoid time loading and reading through a dab page. Sure a dab page can say "Bill Donavan (left handed pitcher), former Boston Braves pitcher" but plain ol "Bill Donavan (Boston Braves pitcher)" is so much more succinct. I still maintain that all but the most diehard of fans would know one pitcher from another based on which hand they threw with, but is more likely to know which era they played in or which team they played for.—Bagumba (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong I think actual birth year should be #2 on the list like is done in a number of other sports but I have been down that discussion path in the past. My point was that if someone doesn't know then the dab page is the option not to mention you can make a redirect with (Boston Braves pitcher) and that too will show up in the auto-complete so you don't need to name the actual page that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Padres uniform request

Could someone who is good at creating the uniform examples update the Padres to their unis to the 2012 versions? Gateman1997 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Baseball in Japan nominated for deletion

A portal related to this topic, Portal:Baseball in Japan, has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Baseball in Japan. Thank you for your time. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry template

I've taken a shot at creating a generic infobox for college sports rivalries: {{Infobox college rivalry}}. Comments appreciated at Template talk:Infobox college rivalry. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniforms need updating

My apologies if this is already being worked on, but a few teams need their uniform designs to be updated. The Orioles need their new caps and orange jersey to be shown, the Padres have altered their set, and the Mets have removed all black from their uniforms. The Blue Jays are also expected to announce big changes tomorrow afternoon. Thanks. Delaywaves ^talk 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Blue Jays colors and logos are updated, the uniform needs updating though. I don't know how to do that or I would. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Miami Marlins infobox color

Why has this not been completed yet? It looks bad right now. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Some background information, if you could please.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The player infobox hasn't been updated with the new colors for the Marlins yet and it looks back, just look at Gaby Sanchez. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 18:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I mistakenly gave the wrong colors in a rush to get them changed from the old colors, but when I saw how the new ones came out, I immediately asked them to change {{MLB primary color}} to licorice, which still hasn't been done. We need an admin to make that edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the colors in the Marlins main article, or the player pages? And FYI, that player Bio you linked looks awful.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I said the player infobox on the player pages, JOJ. @Muboshgu: the Alts haven't even been edit requested yet. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 18:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess it should be done then, if thats what needs to happen.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok they're filed or refiled. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a problem at the Padres pages. Check out Mat Latos. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright we're all updated. Finally. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 00:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Houston Astros

I just reverted some dubious looking edits at the Houston Astros page. Apparently they are moving to the AL West? I haven't heard that, although it doesn't mean that its not going to happen. Anyway, it doesn't look as if that move is going to happen next season anyway. Some eyes on that page could be helpful, and perhaps a semi-protection would be helpful if any of our admins read this post--JOJ ^Hutton 18:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

They'll be moving in 2013,[2] so it would be at least worth noting. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported today. It's official.[3] And you're right, it's not happening until 2013. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been huge news for a few days now but was finally officially announced today. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

News to me,although I just visited the Astros page and saw the news. Like the Marlins name change, this should not be changed in the info box, they way that it was. Obviously it should be noted in the teams history section now.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I heard the rumor a few months back, and there was an update a few days ago. This seems to be bundled in with the sale of the Astros somehow. Constant interleague games and an extra wild card in each league - reducing much of the drama and specialness of those things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Astros in the AL? Feels as oogy as when I heard the Brewers were moving to the NL. Makes sense since the AL has 14 and the NL has 16 teams. Yeah, obviously don't change the infobox since it's 2013, but it's definitely worth a few sentences of note. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We also may want to keep an extra special eye on the MLB page and some other off shoots as well. AL West, NL Central. There sure are some pretty pointy people out there who will try and make these wiki changes now, despite having another season to go.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Major League Baseball article has already been edited twice, prior to the announcement. Now that it's official, a footnote to the table showing the teams by division and league is apt, with a note regarding how the new Collective Bargaining Agreement will also have to ratify the move. isaacl (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor is persistently changing the Major League Baseball article to prematurely move the Astros to the AL West, and to refer to Oakland's stadium by its old name. Any help in keeping the article accurate would be appreciated (see Talk:Major League Baseball#Future realignment if you wish to discuss the edits). isaacl (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Miami Marlins and Toronto Blue Jays fully protected

FYI alert: both the Blue Jays and the Marlins pages have been fully protected. This over some colors in the info box. Just letting everyone know. Not sure how long the protection is for, but its over some stupid edit warring. I'm going to ask that the protection be lifted, since it is a major disruption to this project to have these pages fully protected. Don't think that the protecting admin oblige, and unprotected the pages, but its worth a shot. The edit warring was minor anyway, happening over several days.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to this project for participating in the edit waring that started this, I was hoping that the other user would stop reverting and let us consensus build but no such luck. In the process I was point-y and disruptive. I hope you can forgive me, I promise I will try to keep it from happening again. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 07:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Again with the stupid ass colors. If this keeps up, I move to make all player/manager/coach/team infoboxes neutral colors just like we had to do with the damn retired players, and that will end this in a hurry. This is Reggie Jackson all over again. This is completely insane. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Team infoboxes, not player infoboxes. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 17:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. All of them should be neutral if it's just going to lead to petty parties like it did with retired players. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Numbering of MLB seasons

Which is the first MLB season? 1901 or 1903? If the former, then the 2012 Major League Baseball season would be 112th & if the latter 110th. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I should think that each of the two major leagues would have its own start year. Powers ^T 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The previous season articles don't seem to have numbered years. It should probably be removed as each league would have a different one. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of them are numbered, with 1903 being considered the 'first'. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe MLB actually counts from 1876, and thus 2012 will be the 137th season. -Dewelar (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

1901 was the first year that the American League attained major league status. The National League is older and I think Dewelar is correct with 1876. 1903 was the first year the two leagues agreed to meet in a World Series.Orsoni (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We've no articles of MLB season before this article. Perhaps it's, best I remove all numberings? GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Does that actually benefit anything? Reso lute 19:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to fix the numberings 'weeks ago', as they were inconsistant. I want to be sure if I did them correctly. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment whatever you all want to to with the numbering is fine, but really each league retained its own identity and of course commissioner, until a few years ago, correct me if I'm wrong. And prior to the 1920 season, when Kenesaw Mountain Landis became de facto commissioner, the two leagues had nothing more in common with one another than the fact that they played a world series at the end of the season. In reality its difficult to determine when exactly MLB began. Unlike the NFL, which has an actual true beginning, the two baseball major leagues sort of grew out of older defunct leagues with teams switching among one or anther from year to year. Of course it wasn't until 1901, when the American league was officially formed, that most people consider that year to be the start of the modern era of baseball. But on the other hand, some of the current teams were playing major league ball well before the formation of the National League and only switched leagues after playing in other major leagues.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Major League Baseball officially dates itself from 1876 when the National League was formed... so any numbering system that starts from 1901 or 1903 would be incorrect. The numberings should be removed in any event. Spanneraol (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well 1876 seems like a reasonable enough start, if thats the year we need to use as a start date. As far as numbering goes, it wouldn't make of break the article or this project if we didn't number the seasons, but it would be nice to have some form of numbering in this regard. The other three major North American sports leagues do so, and it would be within precedent to do so here. I don't like to use the other projects as guides, but in this regard, we may want to consider doing so. If we do decide to do this though, we need to set a firm start year and stick with it. 1876 seems a reasonable first season to me.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  - While we may like to talk about institutions in terms of when they were founded, in the case of Major League Baseball it would be an historical distortion to point to any one year as its founding or creation. I became a baseball fan in the 1960s, and during that decade I never heard of "Major League Baseball" (upper case, proper noun). There were the National League and the American League, and when you needed to refer to both of them, they were the "major leagues" (lower case). There was a Commissioner of Baseball who was responsible for some of the issues that were common to the two leagues, but it was a relatively small office and nothing like what we now know as MLB. Sometime in the 1980s they trademarked the name "Major League Baseball and began using it as the official name. In 1994 they reorganized the organizational structure and moved most administrative matters that had previously been handled by the two leagues to the Office of the Commissioner (or MLB). It's a story of institutions evolving over time; they may date back to the National Agreement signed in 1903, but no one of that era recognized any institution named or equivalent to modern Major League Baseball. I'd strongly recommend dropping the idea of numbering MLB seasons. BRMo (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Florida Winter Baseball League

The article Florida Winter Baseball League has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:CORP Lack of notability for league that never operated, and that does not appear to currently exist

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NYCRuss ☎ 12:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

All Stars

Yankees10 is up to his old tricks again. Take Frankie Crosetti for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.219.206 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I am doing absolutely nothing wrong.--Yankees10 22:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it looks like you're in danger of violating WP:3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes but thats not what he is talking about.--Yankees10 22:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You may not be doing anything wrong, but what's the rationale for this change? Is there an MOS that you are using? Lets not disrupt this wikiproject over small stuff like this please.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I cant figure out whats different other than an argument about if world series or all-star should come first.. does it even matter? Spanneraol (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If anybody's up to "old tricks", it's the ~~banned~~ user hiding behind the above IP, who made the initial change. Nothing wrong with Yankees' reversions in this case, but there is something wrong with a banned user still editing. And no, IMO, it really doesn't matter. — KV5 • Talk • 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Which banned user? Wknight94 ^talk 02:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wish I could recall the name. The MO includes edits consisting of nothing but removing spaces on the grounds that it's somehow more efficient when loading the screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP looks similar to some used by Johnny Spasm but that user is neither blocked nor banned. Wknight94 ^talk 03:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So stricken; did not realize prior blocks had expired. — KV5 • Talk • 02:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

He came close to an indef. If his IPs are continuing the problems, maybe a formal ban request is in order. Wknight94 ^talk 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I choose not to log in these days because I like avoiding the drama. I'm not hiding behind anything, and I'm not banned. But if you're gung ho on banning someone, feel free to judge the civility level of Yankees10's comments on my talk page. If you check Yankees10's edits to Frankie Crosetti, you'll see that one of his recent edits did little more than readd the word "selection." The other change was readding the more cumbersome "World Series Year" as opposed to WSY| to Crosetti's World Series titles in his career highlights. Hardly a productive edit IMO, and by someone who has had his hand slapped more than once or twice on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.219.206 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Award winners in both leagues

1995 AL Cy Young Award

4× NL Cy Young Award winner (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002)

To the right is the slice of Randy Johnson's infobox describing his Cy Young Awards. Awards are listed like this for players who has won the same award in both leagues (as Yankees10 pointed out to me, this includes Roy Halladay, Roger Clemens, Frank Robinson, etc.). However, I see some examples where they are merged, like Miguel Cabrera's Silver Slugger Awards, for instance. All-Star appearances are combined on everyone's page: I'm unaware of an individual who has "AL All-Star" and "NL All-Star" on separate lines of the infobox. My question is: should they be listed separately for leagues or broken up? I believe they should be condensed, as the award is the same, it's that one is given out for each league, while Yankees10 thinks they should be separated because they differ. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Condense them per convention with All-Star selection and neglible diffenence between merits of leagues. Also per WP:IBX: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." The leagues can be distinguished in prose.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said by Bagumba. Condense infobox AMAP. — KV5 • Talk • 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree to condensing them and expand in prose.Orsoni (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I am leaning more towards agreeing with Clemens and Johnson but not Robinson. Usually when you hear about Clemens amount of times he won they say "hes a 7 time Cy Young Award winner" not "he won 6 AL Cy Young Awards and 1 NL". Same with Johnson. The only thing holding be back with 100% agreement is a consistency issue with other infoboxes that do indicate whether it was NL or AL. I don't agree with Robinson since he is the only player to win in both leagues, so I think it would be better of being seperate.--Yankees10 15:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a compelling reason that adding the different leagues in the infobox should trump the need for brevity, I am not swayed by the format of other articles. there is no deadline, so all articles will eventually conform once we agree on the format.—Bagumba (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian Colon

Should Christian Colon be Christian Colón and have the accent over the the second o? User:Namiba continues to say no, insisting that sources need to be provided to make the change. The only problem is, I don't believe sources (ESPN, MLB.com, etc) even use the accents for any players, so i'm not sure its even possible to find sources. Considering Bartolo Colón and Roman Colón and others have the accent I believe this is the right way. Or am I wrong?--Yankees10 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It has to be sourced somewhere at a minimum (the spellings used for Bartolo Colón and Román Colón in Wikipedia are sourced, for example, at Baseball Reference). The use of accents and other diacritics is a perpetual discussion at Wikipedia's guideline on using the common English name for article titles, but without any sources at all, it's a no-go. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that something new with Baseballreference.com? I didn't even notice they used accents before.--Yankees10 16:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the catch-22 of Wikipedia. Everyone demands diacritics here, yet very few sources use them, so you have to put them in even if you can't find them. In the case of B-R, I only started seeing accents a week or two ago myself, so maybe they'll start adding them in to all of them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are absolutely no sources, then it's original research to assume a different spelling from what's publicly published. (If there are some, but none or few in the usual English reliable sources, then the diacritics debaters will argue ad nauseam about the validity of the sources.) isaacl (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as differences in British spelling & American spelling, I would think Wikipedia would accept either version.Orsoni (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion of how to determine the appropriate spelling of names on the talk page for Wikipedia's guideline on using common English names for article titles and its archives. Suffice it to say there is no clear-cut consensus on this matter. isaacl (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a much bigger issue in the hockey project due to the number of eastern European players, and only a couple weeks ago erupted into something of a border skirmish. Basically, half the project overall feels that dropping diacritics is the "Proper English spelling", while the other half says dropping them is to deliberately spell a person's name wrong. It is interesting that BR has begun to add diacritics... they haven't yet on HR. Reso lute 15:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion for Adrian Gonzalez earlier. At the bare minimum, sources are needed before a move is even discussed.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect game

Based on this old discussion, and the great work KV5 did with Hitting for the cycle and List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle, I'm opening up a move discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

protect Heath Bell page

Resolved

Is there an admin here that can expedite this request. Its been sitting on the queue all day while IPs keep changing his team before he passes physical.—Bagumba (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

SNIyer12

This author just created redirects for Orioles-Yankees rivalry and Red Sox-Rays rivalry, despite the very clear AfDs for each. I know he's done this before. I also saw him add hockey info to Michael Jordan the other day in his MO of adding information only trivially related. Should we do something? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was redirects for ALL AfD'd rivalry articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a redirect. Better a redirect than someone hitting on an empty page.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually true, except in this case the target page says nothing about the redirected rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a very common tactic by this editor. Watch that he doesn't try to quietly re-create the articles at a future time. Reso lute 18:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This user has been warned about this sort of behavior in the past. I have the articles watched specifically because he waits for when he thinks we aren't looking and then creates the redirects. I'm thinking RfC to deal with this behavior. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The rivalry page is about MLB rivalries, as a whole, not just specific ones. Just because the rivalries being linked are not mentioned, does not diminish the fact that Major League Baseball rivalries is a page about all MLB rivalries, not just the few that are listed.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not relevant to whether a redirect is valid. If there is no discussion of a supposed rivalry, a redirect is not appropriate. Reso lute 19:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing worse than to be redirected to a page, only to find nothing on what I am looking for. See WP:R#DELETE #10.—Bagumba (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You could get the articles salted to prevent their re-creation. No comment on the effectiveness of RfCs.—Bagumba (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

They've been deleted and salted. Wknight94 ^talk 20:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Alex closed

Do we want to pursue this further? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I've been busy with other things and/or waiting for the next incident to bring this to a boil again. I really dont think the behavior is going away, as evidenced by the lack of cooperation in the RfC, empty promise to stop doing AfDs (he's still active and often against consensus), pointy arguments on articles that he did not create, and general incivility. At least the RfC has most of this on one page to post to WP:ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Free agent signings

As is the usual custom, editors are updating signings based on "sources" before they are officially announced. Additional eyes on Heath Bell and Jose Reyes to help avoid 3RR is appreciated.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Most sources said Bell's signing was pending a physical, and now Ken Rosenthal tweeted that he passed the physical and it's official. In general, how many sources do we need before its considered official, or do we need a source to say that MLB or the team announce that a player has signed. The official announcement is the least subjective, but is that too overboard (and usually a pain to enforce)? —Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think a tweet from a journalist, even one we consider more reliable such as Rosenthal, is enough. I wait for an official release from the organization. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but feel like I'm off in an island sometimes. I see that someone temporarily fully protected Reyes. Perhaps that is the best way to go to avoid the constant monitoring and reversions. Is there an admin here that would assist in that? I'd rather it be a baseball admin here so that 1) dont need to fully explain the background every time making a request on the general protection page 2) knows to make sure the team is left as "Free agent" before protecting.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that way too at times. We are right, but in the minority with all the IPs and registered editors who don't involve themselves deeply in this project. I wish an admin would help. Protection on Jose Reyes just expired. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If I were more active during the daytime hours, I would hop in, but I'm unable to do so. Press release from the team is the most reliable source, though. — KV5 • Talk • 23:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to preemptively temp protect an article, or there has to be evidence of vandalism/warring first. I'm just looking ahead to whenever Pujols signing reports start. Should we just fully protect when the first sources come out? Should/can we even semi-protect beforehand?—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Jon Rauch, Frank Francisco, Angel Pagan and Ramón Ramírez (pitcher, born 1981) need some eyes.--Giants27(T|C) 03:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like they will all be moving pending physical. With Winter Mtgs, it will be difficult to enforce official announcement w/o strategy for protection. Any other ideas? Otherwise, I'll go with WP:NODEADLINE approach soon.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

ESPN expects announcement one way or another on Miami and Pujols in next hours.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI: MLB.com seems to have timely updates at http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/?tcid=mm_mlb_players of all official transactions.—Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark Buehrle just agreed to a deal as well. Definitely needs some eyes.--Giants27(T|C) 22:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

team history in infobox for acquired players

Do we want to list "New Team (2012–present)" or actually wait until they play a game. I see inconsistency and warring in some articles. Since a lot of IPs like putting it in, it might be best to go with that format. Either we add now, and remove the few that dont actually play in 2012 after the season starts, or we dont add, constantly rmv IP edits, and then need to add anyways once 2012 starts.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that those links should not be added till they play a game with the team.. I think its silly to have to remove references that dont actually happen... We should stick to reporting what really happens not what might happen. Spanneraol (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We go through this every year. My stance is that the 2011 season ended with Game 7 of the World Series and the 2012 season doesn't start until Opening Day. Everything between that is the 2011-12 offseason. So, whenever I see that line added to an infobox, I delete it. There are always cases where a player is acquired by a team but never plays for them. Think Mike Napoli and Miguel Olivo for two recent examples. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Pilots

Can we finally redirect Seattle Pilots to 1969 Seattle Pilots season. Much of the "non 1969 season" history stuff in the main Seattle pilots article can and is already covered at Milwaukee Brewers #Seattle (1969) and History of the Milwaukee Brewers #1969–70: Roots in Seattle. Very redundant to have so many articles covering so little information.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes. Spanneraol (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me.Orsoni (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that if all of the other defunct/moved team names (New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, etc.) are redirecting to the team history pages, then Seattle Pilots should redirect to History of the Milwaukee Brewers. What's good for one article is good for all. — KV5 • Talk • 13:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats another option.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. The Seattle Pilots article seems to be almost as long as the Brewers article. LOL. What to leave out...what to leave in.Orsoni (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not nearly as long, but I think redirecting to KV5's suggestion would work out best, and would be consistent with other baseball articles.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And that is exactly the problem Orsoni, why the baseball project is hell bent on merging articles which in the end causes information to have to be cut out is beyond me. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very well known that there is absolutely no consensus to merge/redirect the two. This has been gone over more than a few times. I oppose the redirect most definitely. And a note to JOJ, wikiprojects don't own articles so if you wish to make this kind of change you need to discuss it on the talk page of that article. I do believe someone was working on moving this article to FA if I remember correctly. But that might be me confusing articles. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with merging along the lines KV5 suggested, as long as all the Pilots' information gets included. But I don't see a particular need to do so either. 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jesse Winters/GA2

I reviewed Jesse Winters for GA status on Monday. It was Alex who nominated it (and yes, I was fair in my review). Alex didn't respond to my message on his talk page about responding to the review, and in fact blanked the talk page after an unrelated comment. I'm not sure he has the intention to finish up the GA work. If he indeed leaves it alone, does anyone else want to step in for him? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Anybody willing to work this? I'll have to fail it when it's week on hold is up on Monday if there's no work done. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to do his work yet again. I've given up on GAN anyway after the first time I tried it. Other than a few users, nobody here seems to care about getting any articles that silly little green plus mark. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure if its lack of interest, or just the fact that it is a lot of work. In this case, I have no personal attachment to this player to use as an incentive.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  - I could try looking through it, but I did the first GA review as it is, and I have basically zero free time for this site for a while. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Albert Pujols

Pujols has unofficially signed with the Angels. Can someone fully protect the article until he passes a physical etc per Jose Reyes and other free agents?--TM 15:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If only a few editors, I've had some success with leaving {{uw-3rr}} or {{uw-ew}} on editors talk pages if they undo your reverts. Post to WP:AN3 if the editor doesnt stop. Post here also so others can help to make sure you yourself dont violate WP:3RR.—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes full protection is completely overkill and most likely against policy for a situation like this. What Bagumba suggests is the way to go with templates. Although posting here would technically be canvassing and could also get you in trouble as you would be recruiting others to institute your preferred version. Especially since these additions aren't actually incorrect, they are just different than what you all have agreed to do. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the post should be to check out the page because of edit warring, and not pushing for what the content should be (discuss that in a more generic thread). Members will look and edit, warn, etc as they see fit. They might also flag you, the other editor, or both for 3RR :-) —Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think its not worth your guys time to fight it. It would be relatively rare that these deals don't go through completely and in those cases they can be reversed. Would take less time and effort to remove it when it doesn't go through than to constantly revert the IPs adding it. Especially since the information isn't actually wrong that they are adding. (assuming it can be sourced and it usually can) However I am usually in the minority and I know that. :P -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

True, its a technicality. Without support for protection, which is probably overkill and has downside of hindering "valid" edits, the effort is probably better spent working on other articles. It just (somewhat) blows my mind editors who delete good-faith inline comments to wait for official announcements. Oh well, its the WP equivalent of "first post".—Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood the allure of typing "FIRST!!!!" or any of its derivatives, but that's what it is. And I agree with DJ to a point and understand his point completely. Still, I'll revert those edits (short of a 3RR violation) until we have confirmation that a contract is in place, not merely agreed upon in principle. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to develop a hatnote or tag for these situations along the lines of "This article is about a player who is currently a free agent, but recently agreed to a contract that had not yet been finalized pending certain conditions. Until the contract becomes official, his free agent status should not be changed and he should not be described as a member of the potential new team. It would be appropriate to describe the unofficial contract agreement to the extent supported by reliable sources." After all, even established editors (especially those who are not overly active in baseball or other sports articles, can easily hear or read news that "Player X signed with team Y," come to the Wikipedia article and see that information not reflected, and so do so themselves, without even necessarily being aware that the contract agreement is still subject to conditions. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I created {{current sports transaction}} based off of {{current sport}}: Feel free to use/modify—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it! Rlendog (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I did make some wording changes to reduce the number of words and make it not specific on a player (i.e., it can be used on a team article too). Rlendog (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it, too, but so far it isn't working. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point the refusal to cooperate is coming from everyone, and no one is discussing, so full protection may well be in order. Per DJSasso's concern above, I'll leave that decision to another admin besides myself. — KV5 • Talk • 02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

How is it not official when ESPN, CBS and Yahoo have changed their profile pages of Pujols to the Angels. [4] [5] [6]. They know much more than a few trolls here who live to revert people's edits. --FourteenClowns (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mlb.com is the official source for this and they haven't changed his status from "free agent" yet. Spanneraol (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That being said all those other sites are considered reliable sources and as such his edits are perfectly valid. There is nothing in any wiki policy that makes you guys wait for an "official" primary source. In fact most policies say the opposite that you should avoid using primary sources and use secondary ones unless necessary. Now I understand you all can come to an agreement to do it another way per consensus. But don't be blind to the fact that wikipedia doesn't go on "official" it goes on "verifiable" which at the moment it is per all of the RSes. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the impression that MLB.com is operated independently of MLB. MLB.com articles come with the disclaimer that "This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs." That said, deals fall through. I don't expect this one will, but for all I know, ESPN has incorrectly changed the status of players for whom deals have fallen through in the past. Yes, there would be egg on the face of ESPN if this deal fell through. If you watch ESPN at all, though, you might come to the conclusion there's already alot of egg on their faces for some of their other content. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The argument is of course that the deal has happened until such time that the deal falls through and would then need to be reversed. So until a player fails the physical they are technically the property of the team. Unfortunately MLB doesn't handle it like the NHL where they announce the signing immediately and if it later falls through they then just issue a release saying the player failed the physical and have the contract nulled. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. It would be easier for us if that's the way MLB did it. However, I don't see any evidence that a player is property of that team when a deal is agreed upon, but not yet finalized. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose its an assumption on my part that a player can't sign with two teams at once. But I would assume that is the case. And if that is the case that would in effect make them the property of the team they signed with since they can't sign with anyone else until the contract falls through. Just like when you buy a house, you can't walk away from the purchase once you sign the paper unless a condition in the contract triggers a release which in this case would be failing the physical. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, if that were the case, the signing wouldn't be official for weeks. You know it takes awhile for all the paperwork to be finalized. Weeks after a press conference. So yeah, thanks DJ, my sources are valid and he is an Angel. If ESPN, Yahoo Sports and CBS are proclaiming it, we can too. --FourteenClowns (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I should also clarify that you shouldn't edit war. And that if consensus is to not declare it then we don't declare it. I am just pointing out you have a valid case for debate. Doesn't mean your change should actually be made. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

FourteenClowns (talk · contribs) has a valid case, but a disruptive way of presenting it. Condescending, uncivil edit summaries and comments[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] is not a way to win people over. I do agree with him that reliable sources from ESPN and other top sources are more than enough to warrant adding to the article instead of waiting for word from MLB, but the way he goes about 'arguing' his case should've resulted in at leas two blocks already in the past month, especially after he was already blocked for disruptive edit-warring before. This is far from an isolated incident. I don't know why this user has been continually allowed to abuse WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and arguably even WP:OWN, which he accuses others of. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Use WP:AN if there is a concern.

me on a soapbox
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." — Martin Niemoller, First they came…

—Bagumba (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We already tried that with Alex. It got completely ignored. ~~Forget the whole damn thing.~~ Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that while WP:AN may not be a good venue, WP:AN3 seems to work just fine. The user has been blocked for a week, per WP:AN3#User:FourteenClowns reported by User:Bagumba (Result: 1 week). Thanks again for that. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The way I would go about doing this is to look at the Official Releases section of the applicable team website. For those that do not know how to get there, hover over the news tab at the Angels homepage and click on "Official Releases." It will take you to this page. If you read the official press release concerning Albert Pujols, it states that the two parties are in a "tentative understanding pending a physical." I think it should be noted as such on the page until any further press releases are given. As for whether or not to say he is part of the team already, I'm not really sure one way or the other. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)