Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Nonfree ballplayer images tagged for deletion

Project members should be aware that a number of images used under a Fair Use Rationale have been proposed for deletion, including:

File:Lou Gehrig HoF.jpg

File:Joe DiMaggio.jpg

File:Ruthbatting.jpg

File:Frank-robinson.jpg

Image:Time-melott.jpg

File:Bob-gibson-1.jpg

File:Tommy-davis.jpg

Also, the image of Babe Ruth with President Hoover (File:Bambino POTUS.gif) is proposed for deletion. The discussion is here.  JGHowes  ^talk 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the replaceable claims on Gehrig and DiMaggio. Ruth has a free image already, so that one is deletable. Mel Ott has a better fair use image up, so unless a good rationale can be provided that should be gone. The remaining three are living, and are technically replaceable. Wizardman 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd taken the time to actually see if there are free images instead of simply assuming there are no free images of dead folks. It's not that hard to search on the Library of Congress site or Commons. --Mosmof (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft pick category merging

Anyone else know about this? Seems like an odd decision, and one made with almost no input. -Dewelar (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a link provided in the discussion to a similar discussion last week about the New York Mets first round pick which resulted in deletion. So it appears the decision was based upon precedent.Neonblak ^talk - 13:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The first-round draft picks were determined to be better off in lists (a la List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I just thought it odd that it was merged and not outright deleted. -Dewelar (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true... do we really need a category for who originally drafted a player? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:HoldenV8...

HoldenV8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
...is making a lot of minute changes to ballpark articles, with no apparent discussion and for no obvious reason. He's already starting to get some of it reverted. I have asked him to come here and explain what he's up to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

First featured topic

This is the first featured topic for WP:BASEBALL. I hope that there will be many, many more. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists of World Series titles

User:PassionoftheDamon has been inserting lists of World Series titles in all MLB team articles. Is this appropriate? I'd like to develop a consensus here. WP:EMBED says "Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs." In most of these articles or their daughter pages, the information is presented using prose, so using an additional table is redundant. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I would agree with you that they should be removed. You are supossed to try and cut out lists as much as possible to use prose instead. -Djsasso (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Information pertaining to seasonal records, winning percentages, WS outcomes, and the like are not better presented in prose -- and most of the time that data isn't even presented at all within the body of the article, which tends more towards an overview. It's ludicrous to expect readers to sift through what is often 10 or 20 paragraphs (or more) of densely worded "history" for information that can quickly, clearly, accessibly, and concisely be listed in table form.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

These team articles are supposed to be overviews; see WP:Summary style. Other lists are available (and should be daughters of the team pages) which present the information in these tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

These daughter articles you speak of are hardly synthesize the information at issue; rather, they're patchwork -- some information can be found in one article, for the rest, one must go elsewhere.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I will provide List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons and List of Philadelphia Phillies managers as examples. Those examples, when read in tandem with their parent article, Philadelphia Phillies, provide all of the information about the playoffs in the World Series seasons, in addition to all other playoff appearances. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's great. But it's by definition not a synthesis of multiple articles have to be read in tandem to find data that could more effectively be presented together in one place. I will provide any number of college football articles as examples: Notre Dame football, Florida Gators football, USC Trojans football, etc., etc., etc.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Take 'em out. They're listed in the infobox, there's your list. Other than that, if you can't read prose you're on the wrong site. blackngold29 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a question of being able to read prose; it's a question of whether one wants to wade through 5,000 words to find data that can be presented more accessibly on its own. And the infobox is not a adequate substitute, as it does not list the seasonal record, manager, or World Series opponent of championship teams, nor does it link to the championship team's seasonal article -- it instead links to the World Series article.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The infoboxes are more than adequate. They provide links to articles on the specific World Series in question, where all the relevant detail can be found. Rklear (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Do they provide links to the individual seasonal article, e.g., 1980 Philadelphia Phillies season? No. Do they provide a one-stop destination where all the relevant detail can be found? No.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to those seasons can be found in each franchise's template which is avalible at the bottom of the article. blackngold29 22:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No page is supposed to be a one stop shop on wikipedia. That is actually the point of wikipedia. If you need more information on something you click the link and go to the page that has it. -Djsasso (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the two above per WP:NOT#PAPER. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, but put me in the "not a fan" column. The infoboxes have plenty of info, and readers can easily click to the season articles or articles on that WS. (If the links aren't there, then add them.) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bump. Anyone else care to contribute to this discussion? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It unnecessarily replicates what is already in the navbox, which requires no wading through the text to find. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like we're going to delete; anyone able to take a division? I'll take care of the NL East for the time being. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're already doing the work, so I'll just add that I agree with the point that it's redundantly stating what's already in the Infobox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This task should now be done. If anyone who has a team or two on their watchlist could keep an eye on them for these tables, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone please take a look at Cesar Carrillo

Hi there. There is a lot of edit-warring over potentially controversial material, as well as multiple attacks and personal commentary inserted into the article, apparently by multiple socks. I have no knowledge in baseball related things but it looks like some fans and haters using the article to glorify/defame the subject. I have locked it down for now and restored a version from a month ago but I would appreciate it if someone could look at the article and try to filter through the warring. Regards SoWhy 12:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. the notability of Carrillo is borderline, so I guess AfD could be an option, though trying to fix the article would be a bette first option. Wizardman 15:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(And here Wizardman tells me he's not doing minor league notability anymore ;). Agree that Double-A and 40-man roster is tentatively notable; I'd probably argue keeping it in any potential AfD. I'll stick it on my watchlist. Mackensen (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

OK, so I've already proposed a merger per WP:CFORK for List of World Series champions and List of World Series winners. I assumed that we would merge into the former and delete/RDR the latter to maintain consistency with the other sports. However, looking at the other lists, and looking at the content of our list, I wonder if we oughtn't to change the name from "List of World Series champions" to "List of Major League Baseball champions". There are 50 years of championships before the World Series, and the title "List of World Series champions/winners" creates an inclusion criterion that we aren't following. Thoughts? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't you have the same problem with "List of Major League Baseball champions", however, as "Major League Baseball" has only existed since either 1869 or 1901, depending on who you ask? You're still listing years in the article prior to either of those. It's perhaps slightly more accurate, but should anyone really be fussed as long as you're including everything that would meet the inclusion criteria? The fact that you're including more than that to provide historical continuity and perspective should be seen as a good thing, and shouldn't be grounds for criticism of the title. Otherwise, you're left with "List of champions at the highest level of professional baseball in the U.S.A. and Canada", which would just be silly. Mlaffs (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "criticizing" the title, per se, just making a possible suggestion to promote standardization. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry — didn't intend that the way you interpreted it. I should have been more clear. I was just anticipating (and dismissing) possible criticism from outside of this project, if the decision was to leave the title unchanged. Mlaffs (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mets-Phillies rivalry

The above article is getting some OR in the "Causes" section. I've reverted twice, but it's a new user who isn't responding to messages. I could use a hand after I worked hard to find sources for this article. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:MLB roster

Are we using this for all teams, past and present, now? It's on a bunch of 2007 and 2008 team-season pages. -Dewelar (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Once the season is over I think the roster section should be eliminated and the statistics added. It's repetitive to have both. blackngold29 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blackngold. However, if they are desired to be used, they need to be subst'd so they don't update when the current roster changes. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Past rosters all have the same roster template on them.. see all the old seasons. Spanneraol (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I told people about this before, looks like it went nowhere. But yes, the transclusions need to be removed from old seasons, the information is simply wrong. Borgarde (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The past seasons should have modified rosters that list all the players who played during the season. They should not have the current roster.. Only some of the 2008 seasons have probably not been updated yet. Spanneraol (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about what's happening at 2007 Kansas City Royals season and 2008 Kansas City Royals season, where it looks like someone just took a snapshot of how the roster was at the end of the season and stuck it there. -Dewelar (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well those ones should be standardized to match what we've been doing with all the old rosters. That 2007 season in particular is all messed up. Spanneraol (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is something wrong with having an end-of-season-roster in place on an old season page. What about guys that were traded away or released during the season? Either it should include everyone who was on the roster that season, or it shouldn't be there at all. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, which brings me back to my original reason for posting. Should I assume, then, that the template in question is only meant to be used for a current season? There doesn't appear to be a /doc file for it. -Dewelar (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Current season only. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Clement confusion

Vonpike (talk · contribs) has been making edits Matt Clement similar to this, which are stating the doings of other "Matt Clements" which is apparently his name. A few of these edits have been reverted by various people, but he continued to re-add the info without explination. I warned him once for vandalism to which he responded with this from 63.76.126.252 (talk · contribs). I don't think he understands what he's doing wrong so I replyed to him at that page explaining the situation, hopefully that will clear things up, but I just wanted to drop a note here if anyone wants to add anything or keep an eye on the article. Thanks! blackngold29 02:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was a good idea to tell him to move the current page and create a new article for himself. That cannot lead to good things, especially since, even given the other issues, you told him to move it to the wrong disambiguator ("baseball player" instead of "baseball"). -Dewelar (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the current page should stay and his page (if he is notable) should be Matt Clement (tourism advocate) or something like that. However, he doesn't seem to understand about notability and sourcing. Spanneraol (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

True, I just wanted to get the point across that there are regulations to be followed, though I probably could've said it better than that. I revised my statement, hopfully that one is better. I don't know where I got baseball player... no more editiong at 1 am. blackngold29 15:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No more "editiong" at all...? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, now it's 11:30 am, can't blame that on being tired. lol. blackngold29 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you need a good, hearty meal. Perhaps some fish, or maybe some beans? Haha, all in Good Humor. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rivalries in navboxes

There seems to be a rash of adding "rivalries" to navboxes lately. First, it was people adding redlinks or non-linked text to the navboxes. Now, instead of that, people are just linking teams and claiming that there "is" a rivalry. I'm of the impression that these are supposed to link to related articles, meaning that they should link to articles about the rivalries, not articles on the teams that are supposed rivals. Not every division member is a "rival" for any team, in that they don't all have coverage like Yankees-Red Sox or Dodgers-Giants. I wanted to get an opinion here, but I feel that "rivalries" that don't merit their own article aren't worth including. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion on this. If it isn't notable enough to have it's own article, then it shouldn't be linked in the navbox. Spanneraol (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. I went ahead and did te same thing you did on the Braves, White Sox, Marlins, Rays & Nationals navboxes. I didn't touch the Tigers navbox because it would mean eliminating the whole section, so I held off for now. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that while we're on this, we should address the issue of naming conventions for the articles within the navboxes. Should they be piped to the opposing team's name or the actual article title? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They should only be there if there's already an article about the rivalry, and they should be linked to that article. blackngold29 01:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 in baseball

I feel like I'm the only person contributing to this article that should be expanding as the season goes on.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

Just wanted to make everyone aware of an issue that came up at the FA review for 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season. If anyone is planning on going for FA with one or more season articles, the game logs can't be hidden. I know that's not the default for most of our articles right now, which is why I wanted to give a heads-up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As if we needed another reason not to have them :) . In addition to my other issues with them, those horrible pink and green backgrounds just make them look ugly. If we must have these, can we at least make them look nice? -Dewelar (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean the green hide box color? I got rid of that a looooong time ago. Coordinate with team colors; that's what I did. Or did you mean the won/lost colors? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm here in accordance to this edit, lol. First off, I do like the game logs and actually find the green/pink colors for wins and losses one of the best features becasue it allows the reader to see the ups and downs of the season very easily. Now that we have seasons with good amounts of prose on them I can see more of an argument to delete them, but it's not strong enough yet. I still don't buy the argument that we are repeating info avalible elsewhere because that proves true for everything on WP. I have always preferred that they be collapsed, but I can't really argue with the MOS. blackngold29 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the game logs too, and support the use of colors therein, but I've always wondered if it shouldn't be so generic. It looks like a Christmas tree. Could we use team colors? I don't know how good of an idea that is. As an aside, this is quite an uproar I've caused, too (rofl)... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there should be colors (and yes, I mean the background of the main table), but I just don't like the particular colors currently in use. Maybe blue and yellow instead of green and red? If I get a chance, I'll experiment. -Dewelar (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Green/red not so good per WP:ACCESS either, so this is probably a good time to establish this change. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I liked the blue and gold idea, so I tossed up a quick replace version with a light goldenrod and blue background (yellow for losses, blue for wins) in my sandbox. Let me know what you all think; if you think the colors need to be switched, let me know that too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I like that much better. Much easier to read. -Dewelar (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it's easier on the eyes; do you think that the colors should be switched, or are they fine the way they are? I was on the fence. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've always thought of blue as a positive color... :-D . -Dewelar (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a big difference between red/green and blue/yellow, not that I'm opposed. I like the team color idea, although it could get confusing with each team being different. All sports seem to use red/green for some reason. blackngold29 02:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the yellow a bit more subdued now so that the wins stand out. Same link above; take a look and let me know what you think. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the article is now being opposed because of the game log's format. I've always thought we've done a great job formatting those; I like the way they look, though the color issue above is still being resolved. One sideways comment was made that the game log should be its own article (as a list). Thoughts? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be largely unecessary to make the game log its own page, in fact they were last season when someone made them all templates, but as they're only designed for a single season it's pointless and they were deleted. This sounds like an attmept to do the same thing. I can't figure out why anytime somebody nominates a new type of article for GA or FA people get thrown off and start ignoring the criteria. The prose of the article is the important part, the game log is merely there for those who want more detail. blackngold29 00:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The prose is important, yes, but unfortunately, there are sections in the MOS prohibiting the uses of hide boxes in article prose, so apparently we can't use them, or else we can't nominate any season articles for FA, because "WikiProject standards conflict with MOS standards (and therefore with FA standards)". They're calling it a violation of summary style, too; funny, I thought the hide box helped that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If hide/show boxes are against MOS, I wonder why nobody ever tries to step in and say, "Hey you shouldn't use these". It should be common knowledge, atleast for regular users, not something that we hear for the first time when we get to the FAC. I wonder why nothing was said about the game log for the Pen's season last year. blackngold29 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Giants2008 mentioned it and asked for input from director SandyGeorgia (who, FWIW, is the one who raised the issue on the current FAC). Nothing was done about it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Any further input on this topic? This FAC is likely going to be closed soon unless we make some forward progress in decision-making. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see what a few other editors feel about the game log, LaserBrain is the only who has brought up an issue with it. I can see his view, however, a second opinion would be nice as this decision could have a large effect on future season articles. Even the game log must be removed to get the FA, it might still be worth discussing its removal from all articles. blackngold29 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the FA nom closed unsuccessfully. We didn't really make much forward progress here, but I had a brainwave last night. Article size requirements would certainly suggest that this article should be split (it's currently around 105Kb). Would it behoove us to have a daughter article? I know that we had originally determined that it's unnecessary to have a template that's transcluded onto one article; however, if we had 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, and then its daughter List of 2008 Philadelphia Phillies statistics, we could have the game log and the statistics split out into their own article and hatnote them for further reading. Then you put the statistical leaders only in the batting and pitching categories into tables where the statistics currently live, and bang! The game log and the rest of the hidden collapsible boxes are gone from the article, but still available and accessible. They don't even need to be hidden because it's an independent list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt such a "daughter article" would withstand a challenge to its notability. I know I would vote to delete it if it came up. It only has value in the context of the team-season article. (Normally I would make a comment about just deleting the game log entirely if you want to save space, but I probably already sound like a broken record on that count. *grin*) -Dewelar (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a possibility that it might. It passes WP:GNG, having been covered by ESPN, Baseball-Reference, Retrosheet, and hosts of other sports websites. Some might say that it doesn't pass WP:NOT#STATS, but that guideline provides for places where lists of statistics are necessary, and I think that the statistics for a baseball season, defining how a player played, is just as important as the 2008 presidential election opinion polling that's used as an example. Plus, as the guideline says, all of this information is available in tables. The other option we have on a page like that, I suppose, is to make the game log into a true game log, displaying the full boxscores for all 162 games (a waste of time, if you ask me). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dewelar about the game logs, I feel they are mostly a waste of space (especially if we aren't allowed to use the hide feature) and we could easily just link to a page with the same info.. i'd prefer the stats to stay on the season pages though because most of the pages would be quite empty without them. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:MLB roster and flag icons

Yesterday I tried adding flag icons next to players names in the Atlanta Braves roster template. These changes were summarily deleted because these changes are apparently against this project's guidelines. I was wondering if someone could explain to me why those changes are against guidelines. I made these changes because I felt they were an addition that could add more information to the roster template without taking a massive amount of space. I'm just hoping that I can convince people that these additions are a good idea rather than a waste of space.Music+mas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

You may want to have a look at WP:MOSFLAG for a full explanation. Regards, Mlaffs (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the part of that section about talked about flags in relation to sports. It said that flags needed to represent sporting nationality, not nationality itself. Based on that, I would argue that adding flag icons next to players names in baseball roster templates should be acceptable. With the advent of the World Baseball Classic, all major league baseball players could be seated as potential members of national teams in the WBC. Therefore, there is a sporting nationality involved. If there was no possibility of Major league baseball players being involved in some sort of international competition, I can see disallowing flags in the roster template. But because that possibility exists, I don't see how adding flag icons violates policy.Music+mas (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's because Major League Baseball, which these templates are used for, is NOT an international competition (and never will be). Just because they sanction the WBC, along with IBAF, doesn't make it international. That's why we don't use them. It's domestic competition, like the FA in England or the NFL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there is no true sporting nationality for baseball if what you're referencing is what country someone played/could play for in the WBC. It's not like hockey where, once you've represented a particular country in an international event, you can only ever represent that country for the rest of your career. What flag do you use for Alex Rodriguez, who played for the U.S. the first time, but was all set to play for the Dominican Republic this time until he was injured? How about Ian Snell, who's from Delaware but pitched for Puerto Rico? And for anyone who hasn't played in the WBC yet, any guesses about what their sporting nationality is are just that — guesses. Mlaffs (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also this passage: "Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with." Even if we ignore the passage about international competition, this means that, despite those misguided few that consider the WBC the highest level, anybody who ever played in MLB would have a flag of the USA or Canada. That pretty much renders the usefulness of flags null and void. -Dewelar (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with both of the above. Dewelar's comment leaves us stuck with what to do with players who played for Toronto/Montreal and also for one of the 28 US teams. We're better off without them. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Curse of the Colonel

I have done a GA Reassessment of Curse of the Colonel as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to no longer meet the GA Criteria and as such I have put it on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects of this and the eventuality that if the article is not improved it may lose its GA status. Here is my GA Reassessment, feel free to contact me on my talk page should you have questions. H1nkles (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed

I'd like to change the picture in the WikiProject's talk page template for the Phillies subproject, but it's admin-only protected right now. Current picture is Shibepark1.jpg; I'd like to replace it with File:S8000749.JPG. If someone with a mop could oblige, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for the fast response. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

MLB player infobox RE: coaching staff.

Currently, bench coach/bullpen coach etc. infoboxes do not indicate current teams or coaching position like it does for a manager. Is there any reason not to include that info in the infobox to at least indicate what MLB team they are currently associated with and in what capacity? RobDe68 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not, but I don't think we need lists of every team they've ever coached/managed for like we have for players. That could get excessive. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to add all that. The only thing I was thinking is the current team and under position something like "Outfielder/Bench coach". I wanted to make sure there were no objections or previous consensus I missed. RobDe68 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if we should add "bench coach" to their info box as these guys are mostly known as players.. we'd have to go back and add coaching remarks to tons of former players who once coached. I have no objection to adding the current team to the box though. Spanneraol (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that we'd have to add the info to former coaches if that's now what they're primarily known for. But current Bench coach/pitching coaches etc. really should have that info. I wouldn't mind even having spot for that in the template. There's no good reason not to include their current position in the infobox in some capacity. It's a notable position. It's good to have this discussion though, we'll give it a few days to see what everybody thinks of the matter. RobDe68 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spanneraol. I think their current team (and uniform number) should be in the infobox, but under no circumstances should we list "Coach" as a position, past or present. Perhaps it could go at the bottom, in the "Career highlights" section ("current bench coach for team X" or some such). It should certainly be in the lead paragraph as well. -Dewelar (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I like Dewelar's suggestion, though I wouldn't be opposed to adding a new field in the infobox to cover this either. One way or the other, current coaching assignments should be mentioned. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I mention putting it under position is because that seems to be what's done with managers like Mike Scioscia who's position is listed as "Catcher/Manager". Perhaps if we get a "coaching" field added to the infobox it can take care of that as well. RobDe68 (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't like Manager being listed in position either :) . After all, the name of the box is "Infobox MLB player". I agree that a new field would be helpful on both counts, though. -Dewelar (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Does GetGreat.com meet notability requirements?

On the face of it, GetGreat.com doesn't seem to meet notability requirements — any opinions? Isaac Lin (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd had this discussion once before, I think, and there weren't enough reliable third-party sources to justify an article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it's not notable enough (unless there have been more references added since a few months ago). I think the decision was to take it to AFD, but no one ever went through with it. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started the afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetGreat.com Spanneraol (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• As KV5 says, this was once up for debate before. My opinion, when a Hall of Famer gives instruction on how to play baseball, we should listen. This site was created by Cal Ripken. That in and of itself makes this site notable.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Then mention it in his page. It doesn't meet WP:GNG. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:2009 AL Wild Card standings

Necessary? I believe not... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose the controlling opinion would be "Wikipedia is not your sports page." I don't know where we draw the line and say this is too dynamic. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say this is certainly the place. We aren't ESPN. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems like overkill. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early for this.. but it could be useful later in the season. Spanneraol (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Even at the end of the season, what does it accomplish that noting the wild card in the standings boxes doesn't? If someone wants to see all three divisions together, they can just look at 2009 Major League Baseball season (I think...) KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oy. --19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I started a TfD discussion on this template. See here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

World Series Championship templates, revisited

I'm just getting up to speed on this old discussion after I tinkered with the coloring on Template:2008 Philadelphia Phillies and was directed to that conversation. I can agree that the below belongs in all templates, and that the color shouldn't be the same as the title, but I don't think it should be left at that default blue. I think tertiary team colors should be used for belows on the templates, and tried an experiment on Template:1996 New York Yankees for your perusal.--Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As I was participating in that discussion, I will drop my two cents here and say that I agree with all of the above (tertiary colors, etc.) and I like the example at the above Yankees template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill Ponsford/archive1

For your information. While best known as a cricketer, Ponsford was a leading Australian baseball player in the 1920s and 30s and the article covers this part of his life. The article is tagged for WP:BASEBALL and comments and suggested improvements would be welcome. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An article on some of the difficulties of baseball in Australia compared to cricket can be found here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiTable Help

I recently went the bookstore and purchased this giant book about every team in the major leagues. Under each team, the book has the complete record of the team since the beginning of the team. I am trying to put a collapsable table that is the color of the team on each team's article. I have started one on the Kansas City Royals on my sandbox and I need the color changed and I need it to be collapsable. Can some one help me out? Thanks. GandalftheWise : Talk Page 00:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We already have this information.. see List of Kansas City Royals seasons. Spanneraol (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Joining

I would like to join the project, but I don't know how to. I think there should be a link on the page to join. GandalftheWise : Talk Page 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. The link is there but it's a bit buried. Click and follow directions. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

College baseball subsection

I'm a member of the college baseball subsection of this wiki project, and I was wondering if anyone from this Project was interested in becoming an active member of the college baseball project? Music+mas (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OgreBot

OgreBot (talk · contribs) has gone through and updated game logs on 2009 team season pages. While I have no problem with consistency across the team pages, I do have two main problems:

1. It is placing hyphens where WP:MOSDASH calls for en dashes.
2. It undid all disambiguations, so now many pitchers' wikilinks point to disambiguation pages (Jim Johnson instead of Jim Johnson (right-handed pitcher)) and/or the wrong person outright (Brett Anderson instead of Brett Anderson (baseball)).

I'm undoing the edits to the 2009 Seattle Mariners season – the only one of these pages I've made significant edits to – until we can come to a consensus on how the bot formats these game logs. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done the same with the Phillies page, and left a message on the operator's talk page. The bot was nominally approved here, but its function and formatting was never discussed, and should have been. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm following suit on the Red Sox page. I'd also like to add while I understand the desire to reduce repetitive links, it makes the game long look horrible.--Ndunruh (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears as though the bot is still going through its test phase before full approval is granted/denied. It would be worth weighing in with your concerns at the relevant request for approval page. Mlaffs (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the desire to reduce repetitive links, but this method is not correct. Per WP:LINK, tables are an exception to the linking rule; every row of a table should be able to stand on its own. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also reverted for the Pirates, overlinks throughout, schedule not centered, hyphens instead of en-dashes; this needs lots of changes before it can be approved. blackngold29 16:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the game log on the Yankees page back to the old one because the log created by the bot had some factual errors. It missed a game that was postponed vs. the Athletics on April 20 and also missed the May 31 game vs. the Indians. The game log for May had it as if there were only 30 days in May or as if the game was simply not played, therefore creating one less game on the schedule. Shamedog18 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• First off, to everyone, I want to apologize for all the problems on this. I hastened to do the first run because I was worried about the amount of time that had passed since the bot's approval. Several of the issues you have all brought up are valid ones. I hate to have such a bad start to this bot; I do want to follow consensus. To note:
• The disambiguation note is the first bug. I thought I had written this in, but I wrote the string incorrectly. I will fix this.
• The ndash was another mistake (grr, sorry).
• On one hand, a few are complaining about too many links, a few are saying there are too few. If I could get some consensus, I would be glad to program that in. Should a pitcher/team be linked once per page, once per season, once per month, or on every occasion? Should the dates be linked, and if so, on every occasion for a double header? Should the link point to the 2009 season page, or the team page? I personally vote for the former, but if consensus (past or present) says otherwise, I would program that in.
• Black N Gold has complained about the lack of centering. The formatting was based primarily upon 2009 Arizona Diamondbacks season, which seems to have been the first (i.e., unchanged) version of the table. I will change this to be the version found at 2009 Boston Red Sox season, if there are no objections.
• If there are any other issues, please please bring them up now before I begin programming.

Again, I am so sorry about the problems. Despite appearances, I do not try to do things against consensus. I ask for your patience, and feedback, and will begin runs again after I achieve that consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. My own preference, assuming we will be continuing to do game logs, is that the actual pitcher names should always be linked, but perhaps the opposing team only once per series. I also agree that the link should be to the team-season article, not the team article. -Dewelar (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the bot approval page, the principle of least astonishment would dictate that the link lead to where it is most expected, which means the team itself. I don't have any problem with it going to the season page though, so I guess that's fine. Pitchers and teams should be linked at every occurrence, though, per WP:LINK#Link density: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following: […] each row of a table should be able to stand on its own." Also, I don't like to keep tooting my own horn, but should we consider using the format of 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, since it's the only season article that's passed GA? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But does "least astonishment" trump "most accurate"? The 2009 Red Sox play against the 2009 Yankees team, not the Yankees franchise. If the game log is useful at all, it is useful in comparing the teams that played against each other. Linking to the franchise page eliminates even that level of usefulness. -Dewelar (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, that's why I don't have a problem with it... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you seemed to be stating that you would prefer that it link to the franchise page (otherwise, why even bring it up?). I wanted to express why I don't think the argument you made for that is valid. -Dewelar (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For consensus building purposes my personal vote would be to always link pitchers and teams (for aesthetics - though I don't think linking dates is necessary) and linking to the 2009 season page. Additional note: I've begun adding the W-L record for each month on the Red Sox page (I first saw this on the 2009 New York Yankees season page), but I could take it off if there's a decision to do so or maintain it manually if others are indifferent to it. My two cents.--Ndunruh (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Uniform Image Socks

Hello. I've been doing some major work the month or so on the images (I seem to have lost all concept of time), starting with adding the buttons atop the caps, then pants striping, then the brand logo and any and all patches, and now I have finally added shoes. I had earlier considered changing to stirrups, but they didn't look good without the shoes and I couldn't draw shoes to save my life. I tried once more a week or so ago, and had much more success. I also changed to stirrups. Originally, they were very highly cut, but after looking at a few images after hearing a complaint about it, I changed the images to give the stirrups a much more realistic look, also fixing some minor issues with the pants legs that have been present since the addition of the socks to the images.

Anyway, I have gotten a mixed reaction to the change from sanitaries to stirrups, and some have changed the image to sanitaries. I figured it was best to bring it to discussion here and form a consensus and standard.

I figured the change made sense as the stirrups are the more iconic look when it comes to baseball uniform socks. Stirrups are not always worn nowadays, but they are not completely gone. In fact, the most prevalent practice is to display no socks at all, but socks are an important part of the uniform, especially to teams like the Red Sox, so they are shown. The stirrups shown are the same color as the sanitaries, and so they do not detract from the look. As there is no standard of sock usage, they are not inaccurate. However, let us open the floor. What is your opinion on the socks? I have changed them, so they look better than their first draft. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you do see any inaccuracies, please tell me and they will be fixed toot-sweet... or however you spell it. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. To be clear, this is not about whether or not socks should be shown. They are present if visible or not, and are an integral part of the uniform, so they will be shown. The question is whether to go with the colored sanitaries, or the stirrups with sanitaries under them. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's tout-de-suite, but I like the new look. They are all important parts of a uniform even if not everyone wears them. Maybe, in the future, we could show variations within each picture with the different uniforms? Then people can see what it looks like with stirrups, with socks showing, with socks hidden, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with showing the socks. After all, a handful of players on every team wear their uniforms with the stockings showing. (I think at least one version per team should be shown with long pant legs, so that people don't think that everybody wears the shorter pants, since the opposite is true.) I am strongly opposed, however, to showing high stirrups, for the simple reason that nobody wears uniforms like that anymore. Every player I have observed on multiple teams in recent years who plays with the pant legs pulled up wears solid socks (easily seen in this video clip; view this photo if that link doesn't work for you). If any player is wearing actual stirrup socks, then the colored portion extends at least to the ankle. Showing stirrups in the images is thus misrepresentative, and the images should be shown with solid socks only. — $wgUser 17:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stirrups are, in fact, still used by players to this day, including Barry Zito, Jamie Moyer, Juan Pierre, Bobby Crosby, and Kevin Millar just to name a few. How high the loop is pulled seems to vary even with the player, as I personally saw Bobby Crosby wear them about as high as the images are currently at the Stadium this year. Also, this higher look is the iconic look of baseball uniforms, what the wikipedia page on stirrups calls "a look unique to baseball". This is the reason the higher loop was chosen. If the consensus rules against this, then I'll change them.--The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Baseball stirrups discussion.jpg

Stirrup socks, or not

As I said above, players who wear stirrup socks nowadays wear the colored portion to the ankle. The image to the right examines the five players you named. Each player is shown from a recent game. The most pronounced stirrups are Moyer's, but then again he's 46. You can see Zito's and Pierre's, but you have to be paying attention to see them. I don't think Crosby and Millar are wearing stirrups at all. If those socks are actually stirrups that extend so far down that they look like normal socks, then it's a distinction without a difference. These facts seem apparent:

1. The vast majority of Major League players wear the pant legs all the way down.
2. The vast majority of those who wear shorter pants wear solid, colored socks.
3. As shown in the image to the right, the handful of players who do wear stirrups wear them in such a way that they're almost indistinguishable from solid socks.

Given these facts, which are easily observed, the images representing the uniforms should not depict them in stirrup socks, especially not high stirrups. It is irrelevant that stirrups are part of the iconic image of yesteryear. The images should represent uniforms the way they are worn by the majority of today's players. — $wgUser 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking to team's season page and other per-season articles

Following up on the discussion regarding linking to a team's season page in a game log, what about within the main body of text? I noticed one team article that was modified so every reference to a team in the context of a season was changed to point to the corresponding season article for that team. For example, if the text referred to a game between two teams in 1984, the names of the teams were changed to link to the team's 1984 season. Also, text referring to spring training for a given year was modified to be a link to the MLB season for that year. Is this the generally recommended practice? As I understand, making years point to the corresponding MLB season page is not a recommended practice; should either of these two changes be treated similarly, or are the situations sufficiently different? Isaac Lin (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As we're discussing this above, I think it's fine for the game logs, since it's a table of all games from that particular season, but in prose, I think we need to be linking directly to the teams. This is happening a lot around player articles too, and it's bringing up a lot of overlinking issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in player articles, we should typically be linking to the franchise articles, except in very specific cases. However, I do think that for team season articles, the type of link Isaac describes above is correct. If we're referring to two teams playing each other in a specific game (especially the postseason), the team-season article provides the proper relevant context. It's exactly the same as the game log situation -- they played a game against that team during that season. It would be better to link to nothing than to link to the franchise article, because the franchise article is not relevant. This is also true when we're talking about prose like "The Blargs finished 13 games behind the Gracks," because they finished behind that specific team during that specific season.

As for the other part of the question...I'm neutral as to whether the year should be linked. I've been doing it, but that's more because it's become the standard than because I think it's how it should be done. However, I do think spring training is just as valid a thing to link as any other part of the year. -Dewelar (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that a link to the franchise article is irrelevant. Using cities as an analogy: whenever a city is mentioned in an article in the context of an event, I don't believe the choice should be between linking to nothing, or linking to a History of the city article, pointing to a section related to the period of time for the event. Though I appreciate the argument for linking to season articles, it is unexpected for the uninitiated, and I do fear that it may be overkill. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me try a counter-example (and granted, this only works if you know what I'm talking about). If the prose of an article about the American Civil War reads "Soldier Smith died at Gettysburg", if you were to link the word "Gettysburg", would you link it to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, or would you link it to Battle of Gettysburg? -Dewelar (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case, though, "Gettysburg" is a shorthand for the Battle of Gettysburg; namely, "Solider Smith died at the Battle of Gettysburg". "The Great Fire of San Francisco" is not short for "The Great Fire of the city of San Francisco as it existed in 1906", and "On May 2, 2006, the Dodgers defeated the Giants" is not shorthand for "On May 2, 2006, the 2006 Los Angeles Dodgers season defeated the 2006 San Francisco Giants season." Isaac Lin (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Accepted; however, it is shorthand for "On May 2, 2006, the 2006 Los Angeles Dodgers defeated the 2006 San Francisco Giants." When written properly, the article about the season is supposed to contain all of the relevant information about the 2006 team itself, and we don't have separate articles for the team and the season, because that would be a content fork. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

KV5, are you changing your mind then about linking to season articles within the main text of an article, then? Isaac Lin (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with linking to the articles within the game log tables, but in prose, I still think it should be the franchise. I don't mean to sound contradictory, but the table is where the season links provide context. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

KV5 sees the point I was trying to make. When we say the Dodgers played the Giants, we don't mean that Wilbert Robinson and Jackie Robinson and Fernando Valenzuela and Russell Martin played against John McGraw and Mel Ott and Willie Mays and Barry Bonds. We mean that a particular iteration of one team played a particular iteration of the other team. If we're talking about a game that took place in, say, 1907, there may not even be a single bit of information about the 1907 Dodgers (Superbas, actually) or the 1907 Giants on the franchise articles beyond a link to the team-season page buried down in the franchise navbox. Without linking to the team-season article, we might not get any truly relevant information regarding what the reader has just read. Was this a game between two good teams? Two lousy teams? What players might have been involved? Yes, linking to the franchise article has some minimal relevance, but there is a greater contextual relevance in linking to the team-season article.

However, if that doesn't convince you, can we agree, perhaps, that if the reader is already reading a team-season article, it wouldn't be so "surprising" to be brought to another team-season article? For instance, all of the standings templates (at least through 1970, which is as far as I've gotten in checking) link to team-season pages, not to franchise articles. Do you think these should all be changed as well? I can see the argument for not linking to team-season pages from within, say, a player article, but I think linking from one team-season to another team-season is eminently reasonable. -Dewelar (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand my inquiries with a lack of understanding; I do see how a link to a team season article provides a more specific context. I am only wondering if most people will expect to see this context as opposed to a more general context, particularly if there are many parallel situations (both within baseball-related pages, and Wikipedia in general) where it is more common for a link to point to the more general context. I am not trying to convince anyone one way or another though; just trying to get a sense if there is a consensus opinion or not.

My specific question was regarding team articles and not team season articles. I'm curious about your logic regarding player articles and why a link to a season-specific article seems less desirable; could you elaborate? Would this logic extend to team articles? Isaac Lin (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would take issue with the idea that expectations (or the "least surprising" guideline) outweigh relevance and accuracy in linking. We are creating an encyclopedia, after all, and when doing so one should strive to give the person information that is most pertinent to the topic about which they're reading. If the person clicking the link is, in fact, looking specifically for the franchise page, that page will be (or at least should be) linked in the opening paragraph of the team-season page (and, if not there, then in the infobox).

This leads me to my answer to your second question. While I'd rather see links directed as precisely as possible, I can see an argument that a person viewing a player page (and even, perhaps, a franchise page) may not be looking for content that is as specific as they would be when viewing an article whose content is already at that level of specificity. I disagree, but I can accept that argument with only a bit of internal angst :) . -Dewelar (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there is rarely a single context in which a term can be viewed, so it isn't a simple answer to say what would be most relevant. For example, "New York" in the New York Yankees article could link to the New York article, to the History of New York City article (and the specific sections covering the lifetime of the Yankees), or to the Sports in New York City article. Whatever is chosen will always be a best guess, and in cases where the reader wanted to gain a broader context rather than a more specific one, a more general link would be more relevant. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true. That's why I only link to the team-season article when it is quite obvious from the context, such as the discussion of a specific game. In all other cases, I link to the franchise article. Quite often, a link to the related franchise article can be found elsewhere in the nearby prose anyway, meaning linking to it in that instance additionally would be unnecessary. -Dewelar (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really in a given team's article, as typically the surrounding context will be that game or season, and so it is unlikely for the same opponent to be discussed nearby in a general context. As you noted, though, reaching the opponent's article should be a simple step from its season article. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft

I just looked at the page for this years Major league baseball draft. It only has tables for the first and supplementary rounds of the draft. Should we add the other rounds as well? Music+mas (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rest of the drafts only have the first round and supplemental, so I'd say we stick with that for the time being. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at pages for drafts of other major-league sports and all of them listed every single draft pick. I know baseball is a bit different, with 50 rounds. However, what if we were to add tables for rounds beyond the supplementary round but making these tables collapsible. This way you could have all of the draft picks listed, but would not necessarily have to take up a ridiculous amount of space. Music+mas (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better idea is the first round, then "significant" picks later. (i.e. Mike Piazza) Granted, that's subjective so it has the potential to be a problem. Wizardman 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In a lot of other sports, most draft picks are likely to make an impact with a team, or at least be notable enough to pass WP:GNG. With baseball, the vast majority of players never make it to the Show or qualify to pass the general notability guideline, so I'd be more apt to stick with Wizardman's idea over showing every single pick ever. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, in the articles from the draft series that I started (the ones for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999), I included the first round, supplementary/compensation round, and then a section for any other "notable" players drafted in later rounds. Notable might not have been the best word, but my bright line test was anybody drafted in later rounds who'd already made the majors and would therefore pass WP:ATHLETE without argument. Mlaffs (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Indianapolis Indians roster navbox

Really, folks? Looks like this is a one-user kind of deal; if consensus presents itself here, I plan to go for a TfD. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I know there's at least one other: Template:Toledo Mud Hens roster navbox. This may be an unsuccessful experiment, but I'd like to see wider comment. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As much as I support minor league content on Wikipedia, I think minor league roster navboxes are taking it a little too far. They just don't provide the same usefulness as those of the MLB teams. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree.. no need for these. Spanneraol (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• No need to delete either IMO, they're maintained and not many red-links. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't say the Indianapolis one is maintained yet, really. It's only been up for four days. Minor league rosters are way too volatile for this to be worth doing, IMO. A roster like this that has only a few redlinks now may have twenty of them in a month. Put me down for supporting the deletions. -Dewelar (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above comment by Dewelar. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd venture to say a Triple-A roster is just as volatile as a MLB roster. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is redundant with Template:Indianapolis Indians roster and less informative to boot. No need for it. Rklear (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is redundant, but it does have a different function. One is a "detailed" list of players that will go on a team page and a team season article to show the current roster while the other goes on individual player articles to show teammates. Each major league roster has this set of templates. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Major league and minor league teams and players are two different things. If they were the same, we wouldn't have things like WP:ATHLETE and Cleveland Indians minor league players. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's also Template:Buffalo Bisons roster navbox and Template:Syracuse Chiefs roster navbox. I'm ambivalent about these. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:MLBPostseason

Template:MLBPostseason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. This template didn't subscribe to our current approved format for postseason articles, was clunky and unwieldy, and made it very difficult to update postseason articles. I've reverted it out of the 2008 postseason. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Player infoboxes

I stuck them on Aaron Crow and Tanner Scheppers's pages, someone else stuck one on Stephen Strasburg's, and another editor disagrees with this. I feel it's useful for Crow and Scheppers as they're playing professionally, but Strasburg's is iffier. Is there a consensus on whether these pages are MLB only or okay for professionals not yet in the majors? --Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We have info boxes on the minor league players pages.. I wouldn't list any minor league teams though.. the team should be the Major League organization he belongs to. On the other hand, i'm not sure Scheppers meets the notability guidelines yet.Spanneraol (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But neither Crow nor Scheppers are signed with the organization that just drafted them, so it's not appropriate to put the organization that drafted them. In this case, I feel it's appropriate to list the Fort Worth Cats for Crow and the St. Paul Saints for Scheppers, for the time being. Meanwhile, I think Scheppers meets notability guidelines, though it's debatable. I think he will soon, if he doesn't yet. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

They still belong to the organization whether they have signed or not. The club holds their rights. -Djsasso (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

True. But they aren't signed, and those rights expire in August. Is that good enough? --Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If these guys aren't signed yet and their only experience is a few months with an independent league team.. then why do they even have articles at this point? Aren't we jumping the gun a bit? Last I checked out notability guidelines, playing for the St. Paul Saints didn't quite cut it. Spanneraol (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Only playing for an independent team is not enough for notability, that is true. These two, though, are highly regarded prospects who were high draft picks in 2008, didn't sign (for different reasons) and were drafted high again in 2009. I think they are notable, but the articles are undersourced, which makes their notability seem more questionable. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Mobushgu on this one. The infobox should be list their current team as whatever team has them under contract. Also, they should be using Template:Infobox baseball biography, not Template:Infobox MLB player. -Dewelar (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of that template, I'll go with that. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

navboxes

• As far as other anoying navboxes... what about Template:New York Yankees catchers and Template:Toronto Blue Jays catchers and all the other things in Category:Major League Baseball position by team navbox templates? Do we really need these? I think they clutter up the pages. I vaguely remember a discussion about them before...Anyone have thoughts on this.. I'd like to get rid of them.Spanneraol (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they are a waste of space. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we already come to consensus to get rid of these (other than MAYBE the Opening Day starting pitchers ones)? Yes, unnecessary. -Dewelar (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 8#Template:Detroit Tigers shortstops they were kept...mostly because the Tigers have somewhat of a "history" of 2B/SS combos. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if they ought to be relisted; doesn't look like there was a lot of input. They are pretty crufty to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite by coincidence, I've done exactly that. Didn't know about previous listings. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The keep reasoning was pretty flimsy, and it does set the precedent at a point where we will start getting templates for every team and every position (again). -Dewelar (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not every player needs a navbox. I think that says it all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will defend the existence of my Yankees navboxes, as there are hall of famers in every position, and there is an aura of playing in the same spot as Mantle, DiMaggio, Gehrig, et al. (even though we moved across the street). I'd agree the keep reasoning for the Jays and Rays is much flimsier. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If being a Hall of Famer is the thing that links these players together, then make a Hall of Fame navbox for the team. We're getting very overtemplatized. I wouldn't make a template of Philadelphia Phillies third basemen just because they played in the same position as Mike Schmidt, or outfielders because they played in the same spots as Chuck Klein and Richie Ashburn. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but there's no mystique about following those guys like there is about, say, playing right field for the Yankees. Even if it's just platitude, players mention it when they sign with the Yankees. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For me, there would be, being a Phillies fan. Regardless, I'd say WP:NOTDIR is pretty clear: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". I'd say this is more appropriate as a category rather than a template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is... an interesting point. I'd have to do some research to see just how notable it is to start in the same position as Babe Ruth, to be sure it is notable enough for a template and/or list page. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I grew up a Yankees fan (from about 1976 until the mid-80s, when I tired of Steinbrenner and shifted my allegiance to the Twins), and the only position that really had such a "mystique" was center field because of DiMaggio and Mantle and the direct transition between the two. There really was no such mystique about right field, because the other well-known players who played there (Maris and Jackson) were short-term Yankees. I would say a list would definitely be more appropriate -- maybe a category, but a better list, since you could include then include details about each player and toss in a "See also" link at the bottom of the page. -Dewelar (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe I have more authority on this since I didn't quit on my team :P Seriously though you may be right, I'll think on it. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Even as an editor that has created his share of navboxes, I tend to agree with Spanneraol, KV5 and Dewelar that these navboxes are a bit superfluous. I am not persuaded that certain teams should have them and others shoudn't. In order to avoid the mushy mess of determining if a certain position on a certain team has some sort of notability that other positons on other teams don't have, it should be black and white... either the project supports these navboxes or it doesn't. My vote is no, and that they are more appropriate in a list. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mystique is a subjective measure, and it is not inheritable from one player to the next — each player must earn their own place in history. In addition, it is not uncommon for the transition from one position regular to the next to be gradual, with possibly many different people filling the position for a while, and so a direct line of succession is often not appropriate. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory information

The list of Dutch baseball champions at Honkbal Hoofdklasse#Holland Series Champ does not correspond to the list of Dutch baseball champions at Baseball in the Netherlands#Champions from 1970–present. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion notification

I have nominated several templates quite obviously under the purview of this WikiProject for deletion here. Informing potentially interested parties. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot ready

OgreBot is again ready for another run. I have a preview of how the 2009 Boston Red Sox season game log would appear:

Legend
Red Sox Win	Red Sox Loss	Game Postponed/Suspended

If you compare the diffs with the current page, you will notice a few issues:

1. The link points to the 2009 team of opponents, as discussed above, and as consensus seems to point.
2. &ndash
   ; is replaced with an actual ndash (–)
3. Postponed games are not always logged. This is a bug due to how yahoo posts these games; the issue seems minor to me, and unless I receive enough feedback, I'm inclined to leave it as is and/or allow manual editing.
4. Postponed games that are logged do not retain the reason why they were postponed (e.g., rain). Same as above.
5. Finally, the diffs look neat on the Red Sox page; other pages that have different formats will show a larger difference in diffs.

I have addressed the issue of improper disambiguations (that was a bug). I plan to roll this format to all pages after 2 days of feedback, should consensus indicate they wish me to do so. At that point, old data will be retained, even if edited by hand. I will also begin to update standings and team vs. team records at that point. If anyone has any objections, please speak now or forever hold your peace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• How do we opt a page out of using this bot? You had mentioned this during the bot approval process, I believe. Additionally, dash problems still exist. There should never be spaces on the en-dashes in box scores; the win-loss records of pitchers should also be en-dashed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, how does the bot know how to show extra innings? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The scores should also not be backwards. The score should be listed (W–L), not (L–W). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm curious as to how you got around the disambiguation bug. In the above example, Francisco Rodríguez (May 22) still points to a dab, and Sean Gallagher (April 14) points to the outright wrong person. Additionally, several point to redirects, such as Ramón Ramírez (relief pitcher) instead of Ramón Ramírez (pitcher, born 1981), and C. C. Sabathia instead of CC Sabathia. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A few observations: Scores shouldn't have spaces in between the numbers and en-dashes. Pitchers' records should have endashes, not hyphens. Can we make the headings the team colors? It just doesn't make sense to make every team's green. Opponents shouldn't be linked for every game, the first time in each series should suffice. The dates should not be linked at all. I see no point in bolding pitchers' names, it's obvious what team the winning/losing pitcher is from. blackngold29 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We actually had a discussion about the linking before. I agree on the dates, they have no context. However, in the table, every row needs to be able to stand alone; they are an exception to the linking rules per WP:OVERLINK. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But per what does every row need to standalone. I know the rules are sometimes bent for tables, but it still seems overly linked. One could almost argue that none of the teams need linked as there are links to all of the teams at the bottom in the season template. blackngold29 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LINK#Link density, "Table entries are another exception; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely not a fan of the score "1—3" when a team loses a game. "What's the score of the game?" "It's one to three." That conversation never takes place. I'd rather see "L 3–1". Also, over on the Tigers game log, we've been linking the box score too. I like that because it provides references. And definitely unlink the dates and fix the dashes. Also, "Game Log" should be "Game log" and the key shouldn't be titlecase. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer 1-3 for the score as it is common usage for losing teams. I think the teams should be linked in every line.. it just looks better. The box score idea is interesting and makes sense. Spanneraol (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, on the Mariners and Angels pages, I always put the winning team's score first with no W/L notation, as the row's background color is supposed to be an indicator of whether the team won or lost. I like the idea of ELing the box score, and may follow suit on the pages I've been working on. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's listed as 1–3 because the score of the article's team is always listed first. We can't rely solely on background color for the W/L per colorblind people. blackngold29 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are we trying to micromanage the editing of the baseball season articles?Juve2000 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So they are right... Additionally, so that pages look the same, but I'd rather this not look like a bot did it, to be honest with you. I'm not a huge fan of a pile of articles that look identical (says the guy who makes series upon series of identical lists)... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who does not know all the details, what does all this mean? Will the Bot be updating all 30 pages daily, meaning daily updates by the rest of us will no longer be needed? Will all the unique characteristics of many pages be eliminated? Juve2000 (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so. This is one of the reasons I asked above about an opt-out, because I plan to continue using the format from 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, since it's a GA, and this is quite different. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what GA means. Where are the instructions to opt out as I think I will be using them as well for the Toronto Bluejays page.Juve2000 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

GA refers to Good article. blackngold29 19:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have linked that. There are no instructions to opt out as of yet; that's why I asked about it up top. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I thought it was general agreement. *g* --Goodgirl - talk to me 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like linking dates, but teams/players should be linked every time, otherwise they just look like shit. I don't mind the bot (so long as all the kinks are worked out), but am still going to keep an eye on the Giants article, and will probably beat the bot to the punch on most days. faithless (^speak) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

+1 (2009 Florida Marlins season). I don't mind the format of the 2008 season as does KV as long as there is consensus and the bot doesn't spoil my additional edits like reasons for postponed games asf. --Goodgirl - talk to me 19:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but is there a reason that the scores and team records use en dashes while and the pitchers' records use hyphens? Shamedog18 (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Boston Red Sex page did it that way. I'm leaning for the Phillies style at the moment though, based off feedback (see below). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Red Sox page is actually wrong. Per WP:DASH, all of these instances (box scores, win-loss records in either form) require the en-dash. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As Goodgirl said, the bot shouldn't remove comments about postponed games. If it just says "Postponed", then I assume that the game hasn't been made up yet. But putting in/retaining a little comment, like I just restored to the Marlins page, will help the reader know what really happened (or has yet to happen, in certain cases). Next, thanks for keeping the scores consistent, with the winning team listed first, even if it isn't the main team that one. I never hear or read that a team "lost 3-8". And finally, what happened to the little legend explaining the W/L/PPD colors? The bot seems to have removed that useful legend from every page. --Mtjaws (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that the dates should not be linked, I don't believe they are included in WP:LINK#Link density. Also, I think it's unnecessary to bold the wininning/losing pitcher on the team because that info is obvious based on the outcome of the game. Also as I stated above we can't rely on the background per Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles, there needs to be some way to decipher the game's outcome besides the record, either always posting the article's team score first "1–3" in a loss, or say L 3–1. And a question: Will this bot be able to do older seasons? It would be an enormous boost to the project if we could fill in game logs from the 1800's through the 1990's automatically, though before that would occur I would still like to see the aformentioned bugs worked out. Thanks! blackngold29 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with BnG per the dates and the older seasons. I was wondering the same thing myself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a proposal based off what appears to be the consensus here. The bot can use the format of the 2008 Phillies season; colors and the like are not particularly a problem. This would address the issue of how losses are marked as well (3-4 vs. 4-3). The only caveat: should we leave other months (e.g., April or October while this is June) as collapsed or uncollapsed? - I prefer the latter, as a collapsible table that is open by default seems to defeat the purpose. And anybody that does not wish to have the bot edit the page can add the {{nobots}} tag. Sound good? Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the non-current months should remain collapsed; this seems to be the norm. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do you put the {{nobots}} tag? Juve2000 (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Top of the page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it the same as the first line on the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies page?Juve2000 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You can do as I have done; there are many other options if you want the page to be excluded from other bots as well. The documentation page for {{bots}} has a lot more info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the score should link to the box score from MLB.com. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

College info in Template:Infobox MLB player?

A rather heated discussion has been taking place at Template talk:Infobox MLB player regarding whether or not an optional field should be added to the template for where a player attended college. One of the editors involved said he "notified" WP:BASEBALL, but I don't see anything here, so I will go ahead and invite anyone who wishes to participate in the discussion. -Dewelar (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that author mention it here. I oppose that change. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Long-term persistent vandalism continues

216.191.100.210 has come back to vandalizing baseball articles again (see this archived discussion for more IP addresses apparently used by this editor. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

International Tournament Infobox

I've created a new infobox (read: re-jigged the football (soccer) one) for international tournaments, specifically with the Baseball World Cup coming up in September in mind {{Infobox international baseball tournament }}. I've put it up on the 2009 Baseball World Cup page so people can see it, comment on it, etc. I'm more than open to suggestions, comments, criticisms, etc, I just figured it would make sense to have something like this as a generic one for all different tournaments - Asian Baseball Championship, European Baseball Championship, Olympics (if and when baseball gets back in) - rather than having someone create custom infoboxes for every single tournament like has happened with the World Baseball Classic. -- Afaber012 (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Image use concerns

Hello to all... again. I'm here to bring a concern before the project that I hope will get some serious attention. We have a lot of logos in our articles. The vast majority of them are uploaded under fair use rationales. The vast majority of them are also in galleries. The image use policy (see WP:IG) states that: "Fair use images may never be included as part of a image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)." A lot of our team articles discuss the logos, but they are still used in galleries. I bring this issue up belatedly after a discussion that I had on the article Philadelphia Union regarding this same issue. I'm hoping that the baseball project can come together to rectify this problem. I know there is one team that even has an entire article about their logo and uniform (see that section in New York Yankees), and there may be more. However, they are still used inappropriately there. Fair-use images should be in-line with text, never in galleries. So I'm bringing this here in hopes that we will make some progress on the issue. I did not want to simply start deleting galleries without discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cesar Carrillo

The Cesar Carrillo article has heated up again, with a new user repeatedly adding the same unreliable information (see here for a past report). Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been semi-protected for a week.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also filed an SPI report to deal with the sockpuppetry. Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list

I stumbled upon this category, which is sourced by an unattributed article from rotoinfo.com. Thee article itself clearly says "Rumored steroid list (UNCONFIRMED)". Can someone look into this category? --21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely unconfirmed and bogus list. This category should be eliminated immediately. Spanneraol (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Take it to the appropriate deletion page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And, officially, the list is fake. -Dewelar (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on category

I just ran across this category - Category:World Series champions with both American and National League teams. It seems like a pretty trivial thing to use as a category, and seems to run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. Just wanted to get some other perspectives. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's toeing the line a little bit. Being a multiple World Series winner is pretty notable, but I don't know if it needs to be THAT specifically broken down. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's inconsequential, as it's likely to be coincidence for many. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think in this day and age, where players and sometimes even managers bounce between leagues all the time, people that fit this category would only do so as a coincidence as Muboshgu said. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Template colors

I hate to bring this up again. I'm sure it's been hashed over again and again, but I want to make sure I'm clear on this issue. When it comes to team-specific navboxes, I have never seen a requirement anywhere stating that the colors from {{MLBPrimaryColor}} trump WP:ACCESS. Yes, the colors are important in the team's infobox to open their main article. Yes, it is important to get THOSE colors right and match the uniform images to them. Where I am running into an issue is that, with certain colors, navboxes (and infoboxes) get very difficult to read, even for me who has no vision issues. The colors that I am specifically addressing in particular are the extremely bright red and blue that are currently being used in the Phillies navboxes. The decision was made a while ago (I don't remember exactly where or when) to subdue those reds and blues in the navboxes so that they can be more easily read. Since then, I've had to periodically go back and fix the templates because they get changed back to the template colors. I'd like to discuss this so we can come to an updated consensus. EDIT: Note that I did change back to the more subdued colors after posting this. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be addressed. I have myself fixed a few team and WS navboxes so that I could read them. -Dewelar (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has stagnated; does anyone have any input? (Colloquially, bump.) KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think some sort of script needs to be added to infoboxes so Hall of Famers can have the infobox for the team whose cap he is wearing on his plaque. Anyone out there NOT think that Brooks Robinson should have a Baltimore Orioles infobox? Ozzie Smith a Cardinals infobox? Tom Seaver a Mets one?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the above point; this can become very controversial, especially now that the Hall has the final say on the cap that inductees wear. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It can also be controversial in cases like Nolan Ryan's and Dave Winfield's, in which case, I would stick with the gray infoboxes, but I do believe them to be the exception, and not the rule. Ted Williams doesn't have a Red Sox infobox. Think about that for a minute.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I did think about it, before I answered the first time, and that's because he doesn't play for the Red Sox. He played for the Red Sox, yes, but that's what prose is for. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)