Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

Contents

Baseball Players WikiProject

There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players, which I have attempted to restart, to little avail. If you're interested, check it out – that project could almost be subsumed into this one. android79 20:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Putting links on the 2 pages to each other might help if you wanted to keep the projects separate. Otherwise, it seems like merging the 2 projects would not diminish the integrity of either one, but it might mean making one a subproject of the other. --CrazyTalk 21:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'll probably just merge the projects together. There's currently only three active editors, and we're not exactly going nuts with it yet. android79 23:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Teams by city or by franchise?

Who thinks the teams should be broken up by city rather than franchise? By city I mean having separate (but equal) entries for the Browns and the Orioles, for Brooklyn and LA, etc. They currently are broken up by franchise, but that seems to be ruffling some feathers in Montreal (and Cleveland in the NFL). I vote by city.--CrazyTalk 05:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

As with anything on Wikipedia, I would say it depends on how much information is available. I would certainly vote for the separation of Montréal Expos and Washington Nationals (and in fact, I have) but is there enough on the Brooklyn Dodgers or New York Giants to merit articles separate from LAD and SFG? That seems more important to me than robotic break-downs. →Vik Reykja 08:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
In keeping with the rest of Wikipedia, we need to keep it as by franchise, Montreal/Washington included. --Woohookitty 08:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
We "need" to do what is best, and modify the rest of Wikipedia as necessary. →Vik Reykja 09:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No offense to Woohookitty, but I have to agree with Vik Reykja; rather than making a decision on what is consistent, it should be made on what is best for Wiki - if the Wiki needs to be corrected to be both consistent and right, then so be it.
   With that being said, (and I am thinking out loud here) to me it seems that from an encyclopedic angle, maybe all franchises should be kept together regardless of cities; however, from a local's angle, they would only be interested in their town, so maybe we could have a standard boilerplate text in italics at the top of relocated franchises mentioning this. I believe Milwaukee fans should have a page for Aaron, Mathews and Spahn just as much (or more so) as Atlanta fans. I believe St. Louis should have Sisler, I believe Washington should should have Big Train, and I believe New York should have Ott, McGraw, Matthewson, Snider, Jackie and Campy.
   What about doing both? Have a Baseball in Milwuakee page that has Braves and Brewers; a New York page that has Bums, Giants and Mets; a St; Louis page that has Cardinals and Browns? The key would to be to not go overboard on the city pages. Sort of a city timeline for teams. As I write this, I think I might toy around with that as a side project. But if that is the case, then we need to formally merge the Expos and the Nationals. Any input?--CrazyTalk 17:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that teams should be broken up by franchise rather than city. Even after moving teams keep the same players, staff, records, etc. So since the entity remains the same, it's kind of counter-intuitive to break them up by city. In the Montreal/Washington case there's certainly enough information regarding Montreal's history to warrant a separate article. I'd simply suggest renaming that article "Montreal Expos history" and having the Nationals' page link there. Then the "Montreal Expos" page could redirect to the "Washington Nationals" page, since the Expos really are now the Nationals, not a separate club. Anyway, it's just an idea I thought I'd throw out there. And I also like CrazyTalk's "Baseball in ______" idea. - Pal 03:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the idea of making historic teams into "Team X History" pages is a good idea. I am a strong advocate of the existence of the Montréal Expos page, but I could definitely see it residing as "history" instead. As a contributor to the SF Giants page, I can tell you that not only does there need to be a NY Giants (baseball) history page, but there needs to be an SF Giants history page too -- there's too much history on most of these pages, season by season. Alternatively, there could be an "X Franchise History" page that included all past and present cities, which would mean longer articles, but fewer of them. Jsnell 22:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The Brooklyn Dodgers and New York baseball Giants are much more deserving of their own articles than the Montreal Expos are. The Expos never won a pennant, the biggest story on them is that they were the best team in baseball during the strike year, couldn't pay people to come to their games in last few years of their existence and they played some home games in Puerto Rico. Personally I think Jackie Robinson alone is more compelling than the Expos entire history. But I think it is best keeping the franchises together rather than splitting up by city. Afterall, the Brooklyn Dodgers are a part of the Los Angeles Dodgers history just as much as the Montreal Expos are a part of the Washington Nationals history. There was a mention of the Cleveland Browns of the NFL earlier and that is a completely different animal. The new Cleveland Browns are actually considered to be the same franchise as the team that previously played there and moved to Baltimore. The current Cleveland franchise kept all the records, retired numbers etc. as the original franchise. --Holderca1 20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants are more deserving. But I dispute that the Montreal Expos are not deserving of their own article. Discussing the Expos, Youppi!, and the history of major-league baseball in Montreal is a very suitable topic for Wikipedia, and it's also completely inappropriate for an article about the Washington Nationals. As a contributor to the SF Giants page, I would actually make the argument that a NY Giants History article that's separate from the SF Giants article would be a Very Good Thing. Jsnell
  • I think it's essential that we develop a consistent policy. After consistency, I think it's the most important thing an encyclopedia can have. Consistency is the very hallmark of NPOV. If we create one standard policy for all articles, then we don't have to get into value judgments such as one team being more "deserving" than another. I'd like to see us create a standard and apply it to all team pages. --Chancemichaels 12:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
"Teams by city or franchise?" It depends what you mean by team, and franchise, and city! There should be articles on "Baseball in city" (in county, in state, in country, at university) and "baseball team history" as warranted.
"Have a Baseball in Milwaukee page that has Braves and Brewers; a New York page that has Bums, Giants and Mets; a St; Louis page that has Cardinals and Browns?" No, Baseball in New York (city or state), Baseball in Brooklyn, and Baseball at the University of Texas or Texas baseball should cover baseball, not merely some major pro league or major college conference baseball team(s). San Francisco Giants history and Texas Longhorns baseball, by all means, when the content warrants, maybe even "2004 Boston Red Sox". (At my current settings, Boston Red Sox includes twelve screens of "Franchise history" of which three screens is the 2004 team; another three screens beyond the twelve is a year-by-year list of W-L-T, rank in standings, playoff results. --P64, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

which stubs?

What batch of stubs should be generated automatically for all clubs at some level? Answer: one stub for each club is enough, and the major league clubs are beyond that point. Beyond the one per club, wait until there is enough content.

Which clubs outside major leagues should be covered by stubs if necessary? Which leagues? Should any city, state, region, or country be covered in that rudimentary fashion? --P64, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello all

No idea if this will ever matter, but just letting you guys know that I'm an admin in case something needs to be done that normal users have more trouble doing (including merging pages). --Woohookitty 08:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • If I could, I'd like to help out. Add me to the list, and maybe message me with any sort of tasks that need doing. T-mccool 23:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to help out if you need it. I have extensive knowledge in pre-WWII baseball, particularly 18th Century Major League baseball. Please add me to the list and let me know how I can help out. Thanks! Dukakis1988
Did Ben Franklin get in on some of that 18th century ball?.... (unsigned, I couldn't resist)

I don't know if anyone reads this, but I'd like to help with this project. Pkirlin 04:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Uniforms

I was wanting to put an image of the current uniforms on each page but was unsure of the copyright policy. Can we link this image to a team or do we need permission? [1] or [2]--CrazyTalk 19:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

The same graphics are being used on some team pages - I think [[3]] handles the licensing issue pretty well.

Hello world

I'd be willing to participate. I've contributed a lot to the main article Baseball, as well as everything related to Umpire (baseball) and Category:Baseball rules. --Locarno 14:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

New Infoboxes

Hi all. I've come up with a new infobox we could place on MLB articles that is viewable here New MLB Infobox. It's the one on the far right. I suggest that this would be a good side info box and we could create a new franchise box to go on the bottom of the pages above the MLB infobox.

I understand that there is currently a move to make a simpler infobox on several NL pages like the Mets page, but I'd suggest that it is redundant. It is actually presenting less information then the non template info already placed on most MLB pages. Any discussion on this would be welcome.Gateman1997 22:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Just an update. If you'd like to see my complete vision for an MLB page please visit here, User:Gateman1997/Oakland_Athletics. Note the new team info box and the revised and moved franchise box down below. Gateman1997 23:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Kind of combined the info boxes I had up for a few NL teams with Gateman's a came up with this. Needs work, but whatever.--CrazyTalk 02:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
It's a good start. But I think we need to make sure it has all the info that both my template and the info areas of the other teams have like team colors, etc...Gateman1997 05:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Are the infoboxes that were just added the final version we are going with? I think that is the third different version I have seen today. Also, I went through and linked every teams WS championships with the respective WS page and that seems to have been lost with the third time the boxes have been changed today. Before I go and change them all again, are they going to be changed again? --Holderca1 02:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is most unfortunate as I was planning to put a few finishing touches on the infoboxes and post them on Saturday. User:Bmicomp put an infobox on the White Sox page yesterday and I left him a message on his talk page and he said he saw our infobox but was not sure if they were ever going to be posted (I was starting to think that myself). Unfortunately, a brand new user who it looks like just created his account to do the infoboxes, User:SpikeZoft, put the infobox on every page. I left a message on his talk page but it looks like I saw all of this happening about 12 minutes after he finished all of the pages. Then I saw you were updating those infoboxes, so I thought I better get the real ones posted before anything else goes wrong. These infoboxes were not quite ready, but hey, they are out there for the whole world to see now. I still need to clean up the pages now, because I was rushing to get these infoboxes out there. Sorry for all of the confusion, but damn this timing sucks!!!--CrazyTalk 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Image issue

The Image Image:Baseball.jpg is on the speedy delete list, as it has no copyright information. However it is used on Template:Baseball-stub (and possibly elsewhere). Can someone make a nice freely licensed replacement for it and change the stub to use the new image. Justinc 00:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed it from baseball stub in the hope that someone may notice and do something about it. Justinc 21:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I honestly have no knowledge about images so do what you gotta do and I guess we will deal with it.--CrazyTalk 22:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The easiest thing to do is to take another similar picture and replace it with that. There may be one you can use already, but if you have a glove a ball and a camera it shouldnt take long. I can put a new picture back in the stub if you like. Justinc 00:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Expand articles

If anyone is looking for something to do, the Cleveland Indians and Houston Astros articles desperately need expanding.--CrazyTalk 23:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Template on MLB page

Hello, I noticed that User:BLOGuil created a new template lising current teams that is on the Major League Baseball page. I think the colors are awful and the cells are out of whack and who needs links to the NLL and WNBA etc., but otherwise a vast improvement over what previoulsy existed. Does anyone else have any opinions on it?--CrazyTalk 22:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. With the cells set up the way they are it makes it look like there are the same number of teams in each division. Check out the NFL's team template which I think is very well done. - Pal 13:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It looks somewhat better, but it could use improvement. Win777 13:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Check out this one I just threw together (shamelessly borrowed from the NFL one) : template. Better? Worse? Should the divisions run horizontal instead? - Pal 14:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is an improvement. Here are my thoughts:

  • I prefer having the senior cicuit listed first, but it is not a deal breaker;
  • Mayber the NL and AL should be above the teams rather than to the side?
  • The cells can be fit evenly within the table using "%" and "colspan" rather than "px";
  • Should break <BR> Angeles' name in half so it does not widen the cell;
  • Pink stinks.

--CrazyTalk 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

years in baseball

Do y'all have a set of standards for the "$year in baseball" articles? --Alynna 23:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The user who is doing those, MusiCitizen, is doing those on his own and is not part of the project. You might want to check with him. He does seem to appreciate input to improve his pages.--CrazyTalk 02:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

External links / Fan sites

Hello,
Does anyone have any opinions on when we should delete external links that are fan sites? Some teams are overloaded with what seem to be useless external links to blogs or other sites that have the same news as any other site on the internet. If it is a ticket sales site or some other advertizement, I have been deleting those on sight, but how should we determine what is and what is not an appropriate "fan site" without opening the flood gates to every fan site? Any thoughts?--CrazyTalk 01:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If the site seems informational and tells more than what the "average" fan would know, keep it. If it seems bloated, an eyesore, is an ad, for ticket sales, or very unprofessional, trash it. Edit. See WP:EL. -- Win777 19:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor league affiliations

Should we have a uniform way of listing these?

Atlanta_Braves#Minor_league_affiliations
New_York_Yankees#Minor_league_affiliations

-- Win777 19:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This detail was not strongly addressed but there is a rough template that might be used for them. If you want to tinker with the template, that's fine. Do you think they really justify a template or is just listing them good enough? I can go either way. I am putting them back on the pages using the format on Atlana as above, but that is just a quick fix. Unfortunately, when the new user put on the first infobox, he removed the minor league affiliations entirely, so when I put up the existing infobox, I could not cut & paste like I had planned.--CrazyTalk 20:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the format I put in Detroit Tigers#Minor_league_affiliations

--Elliskev 15:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I could go with that format. Maybe bold the league levels, though? -- Win777 23:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind taking this on, but I want to make sure that it's not for naught and that there is agreement. I'm pretty new here and especially don't want to work outside a project's goals where one exists.--Elliskev 15:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This was probably completed sometime ago, but many of the pages have the above format and the template format. We should really go with one format. Anyone have any preference? Retropunk 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know why images in the templates are not working (at least for me, they stopped working some time ago), but if the images can be fixed, I say go with the templates. -- Win777 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any particular listings with images and reasons to show them in the parent team? Retropunk 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Curse of Donnie Baseball

If anyone wants to read something outrageous, check out The Curse of Donnie Baseball. I think I will nominate this article for deletion unless anyone thinks this is relavant and not just a load of crap.--CrazyTalk 15:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me like it would be somewhat interesting as a section of Mattingly's page but doesn't warrant its own. wknight94 17:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It's "real enough" - as far as these baseball curses go. It may be slightly misnamed however, a google search for "curse of don mattingly" yields many results including a New York Daily News reference. No Guru 22:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Template: Categories

I really don't think we should have the "categories" links in the infobox template. These are lists of links that should go in the see also section. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I just made the above change in the template and in the team articles. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Statistics template for player pages?/Shiny Logos

I was thinking that having a template for season/career statistics would be a nice addition to the bottom of player pages. Thoughts? Also, is there any reason that logos on pages for teams like the Cubs and Dodgers have that "shine" on them? It would make more sense to me if the more basic (and official) logos were used instead. --gavindow 07:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

New Franchise/Minor League Template

Hi all. I just wanted to get your opinions on the Minor League/Franchise template I've been adding to the MLB teams in California, Oakland, Dodgers, etc... and the Red Sox. I figure if the old infobox featured this information exclusively it still deserves an infobox of some kind, even if it's reduced in stature to just above the MLB box as I've been placing them. So far I've done 6 of the teams and their minor league affiliates. I liked how the old box was uniform across both the MLB team and the minor league affliates. This recaptures that. While leaving room on minor league teams for an infomation infobox like on the Stockton Ports page. Let me know what you think.Gateman1997 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Stats

The issue has arisen on the Triple Crown page as to whether we ought to use the actual stats, or the official stats provided by Elias - is there a consensus already reached on that issue here?? WilyD 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

I just noticed User:Alakazam adding www.sportsecyclopedia.com links to each baseball team article. He/she isn't a new user nor has past behavior of spamming, (also the site has a decent Alexa rating - 141,000). But, I don't like the mass adding of links, as it has the appearance of spam. What's your thought on adding this link the the articles? Worth including? or not?

I also think many of the other links in the team articles look no more informative and useful than sportsencyclopedia, and might be worth trimming. See External links guidelines and WikiProject Spam for more information on the guidelines and ongoing efforts. Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I say revert this. Google gives zero "link: -site:" results. Yahoo gives zero "link:" and "domainlink:" results. According to Alexa the top referrer is Wikipedia itself. AFAICT it gains more being here than Wikipedia. --Perfecto 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Second. I don't think this site is special enough to justify such extensive linking (and man, that is one ugly site). - EurekaLott 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I started cleaning up some pages' external links sections. I think we should have more specific guidelines about external links for this project. -- Win777 18:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For the articles I create/edit, I generally use the player's page from mlb.com and Baseball-Reference.com. Both are more than reputable enough, as far as I'm concerned. Caknuck 09:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Team Rosters

In looking at the Boston Red Sox roster (which I have since edited), I noticed that the coaching staff was included in the Active 40-man roster, which they shouldn't since they are not players. While this may seem nit picky to some, I think it is important that the information is displayed accurately. Also, there has been some discussion on Talk:Boston Red Sox#manny and Talk:Boston Red Sox roster about what the flags represent. Some, including myself initially, believed the flags represented nationality and others have said they represent country of birth. I believe the latter is probably the case, but I am still not sure. I think the rosters could use a descriptor at the top or a note at the bottom that explains the flags. In addition, it would make sense to have the throwing/batting hands of the players, especially for the pitchers. I will be adding them to the Red Sox roster, unless there is a standard that is being used that I don't know about. Assawyer 03:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The rosters need a uniform format. Major League Baseball rosters has looked like a mess. They have different ways of saying "last updated." They have different descriptions for the members on the coaching staff. One roster lists the number of players in a group. Another roster breaks down the extended roster into pitchers, infielders, outfielders, and DL. Some extended rosters list the minor league levels of players. Another uses MLB.com's DL image. The White Sox roster is the only one that is a template (Template:Chicago White Sox roster), and the others are "articles." -- Win777 15:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

SABR, Sabermatrics & Sabermatricians

that is -metrics, -metricians --P64

What about the numbers game? Can we include this vantage of the sport (which isn't nearly as popular or loved in other sports) on any page. Obviously team's pages will not include any direct information, but since it is now such a big part of watching, managing, writing about, and thinking about the game of baseball it should somewhere be included. What do you all think? --Djramey 15:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A team page should include that kind of information if it can be referenced. Bill James is moving to Boston this month, he has consulted with the club for a few years, he has written or spoken (sometimes for the record) on particular analyses or decisions or processes during those years. GM Theo Epstein has spoken, a little, on the role of statistical analysis. Principal owner John Henry is famous for that in another field and he has spoken with the media many times since buying the ballclub.
Maybe there is another WikiProject about sports play, scoring, analysis: the pitcher can't leave a game and return later; if he pitches a complete game and yields no runs he is credited witha shutout, the shutout rate is way down in 2006 versus 1956 or 1906 --P64 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

HOF Losers/Veteran's Comittee

Someone has put a redundant paragraph on all of the candidates for the Baseball Hall Of Fame who have not recieved enough votes to make the ballot for the last few years. Check out the Gregg Jefferies page for an example. I think all of them should be removed, as for most of the players, it is fairly unlikely that any player like Gregg Jefferies would even have a prayer of making it to the hall of fame. Fthepostingquota 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tracking the Hall of Fame chances for players like Jefferies who have zero chance of gaining entry is not required. No Guru 19:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh, that was me, before I registered a proper account. I do now think that the paragraphs are kinda wordy, but I think the information is notable and not redundant, since to even get on the ballot, a player has to get through a screening committee. Maybe the info could be shortened to something like, "was named on the xyear HoF ballot, but did not get enough votes to stay on it" without getting into the mechanics of the induction process. Suggestions? dfg 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Category proposal for current MLB players

I think it would be useful to have subcategories for current players of a given team. For example, Category:Current Minnesota Twins players would be a subcategory of Category:Minnesota Twins players. This would provide allow readers and editors to easily focus on the current roster of any MLB team. I'm going to go ahead and start implementing this soon unless I hear some objections here. Please let me know if you think this is a bad idea, and if so, why. Thanks! android79 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Have at it ! No Guru 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope anyone who chooses to add a category like this takes responsibility for keeping it up-to-date in season. --djrobgordon 21:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. If you can pull it off, that's great, but it feels like a trap to me. ×Meegs 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. It adds some real-time edits to do, but of course the page Minnesota_Twins#Current_roster and the other MLB ones need to be updated as well, so as long as someone is doing that, this wouldn't be much added labor.--Deville (Talk) 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for this. Caknuck 09:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Baseball card images in player articles

The question of using images of football cards in player articles under fair use has recently come-up at WP:NFL. In a brief search, I couldn't find any non-copyright-expired images in baseball player articles. I think that's the way it should be, but I couldn't find any discussion about cards here (or at the players project), so I'm wondering if there's been any talk on the issue. In either case, if anyone has any expertise or opinions, please share them at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use of baseball cards images. Thanks. ×Meegs 10:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I just came across a couple instance of this yesterday and had the same question. See Tim Belcher and Brad Ausmus. --djrobgordon 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I have nominated the article MLB on NBC for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/MLB on NBC. If anybody has some suggestiions for improving the article, it would be great if you could put them there. Thanks, ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 18:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I just got back online after tax season and the follow-up and found that a group of anons had taken the "Prominent Proponents" section of the Sabermetrics article and turned it into what looks like a major vanity rewrite. Some of the anons appear to match those involved in the Defense Independent Pitching Statistics vanity posts, which appear to have eventually been replaced with better content. I have rolled back the text to where it was before all the anons had at it a few weeks ago, but I may have erased good edits while rolling back ones that look purely self-promotional. Someone who knows the history of sabermetrics better than I do needs to review the artcle and do real edits. My edit is intended as a holding action just for now. OverInsured 06:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Players

There are many pages with titles like Baltimore Orioles/Players of note, which seem to violate the convention (or rule?) of not having subpages in the main namespace. Shouldn't these be renamed to something like List of TeamName players ? Ardric47 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A Nice Cleanup of the post season articles.

I know it isn't for another 7 months to be precise, but we need to have a good dusting and cleanup of the ALDS, NLDS, ALCS, NLCS, and WS articles. In addition, I would like to see a template box called "Major League Baseball Post-season" on each of these articles, organizing them neatly. For now, I'll try to put something together. --Jay(Reply) 21:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put something together. --Jay(Reply) 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
MLB Playoffs
Division series
American League Division Series
National League Division Series
Championship series
American League Championship Series
National League Championship Series
World Series

{{Mlbplayoffs}}

All of the postseason articles are created now. Every single ALDS, NLDS, NLCS, ALCS, and WS are now activated. It would be greatly appreciated if people would start editing these articles according to the format of the 1971 American League Championship Series and the like. Very organized. Boxscores, game summaries, good introductions, overall box summary of the Series, managers, TV, umpires, MVPs, links, and more. GET TO WORK. -LoyalMDOFan3

2006 Baseball steroids investigation

I have created an article about the investigation at 2006 Baseball steroids investigation. I think there will probably be a lot to add, and it's better to have a central article than be adding it to articles on Bonds, Selig, Mitchell etc. --W.marsh 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

International Baseball

How about some improvement in the area of Baseball outside the U.S.? Japanese League, Mexican League, etc. I nominated the Mexican League for Article Improvement, but it received 0 supporting votes. One would think there would be more interest coming off the World Baseball Classic. Yadin twelve 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to improve the Japanese baseball section. I think it could use some cleaning up. Rockfender 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Baseball wiki

There is a Baseball Wikia site here that we could use some help on. I've started a results sheet there that records scores and highlights for daily MLB games. It's got very few active people there, and it would be nice if we could copy the baseball stuff from Wikipedia and expand on it there. Maybe we could get some bots together to do the copying. Copy every link in the baseball categories, including all the pictures. --Kitch 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone could help at the baseball wiki to get player infoboxes working correctly i'd really appreciate it. At the moment they all end up looking like Curt Schilling's when copied in from wiipedia Basement12 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Info Boxes

I made a new infobox which is kind of a hybrid of the one you have been using and the one that seems to be most prominent. I took the style from yours (team colors, ect) and the info in their box. its over at Template:MLB Player and I already put it up for Jason Varitek.Zzz345zzz 12:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


how about a spot for nicknames?

Minor League Data

Hello... I'm relatively new to Wiki, but have been following the minor leagues for some time, and have a lot of "official" publications like programs, media guides, stats, player bios, stadium info, etc., especially for the Eastern League (AA) and the International League (AAA) over the last 10 to 12 years. I've recently started updating the EL team pages with some historical data like each season's record and finish, playoff appearances, managers, etc. Just wondering if there is (or should be?) a list of some basic things like that, that could be added for each team in some standard format. I'd certainly volunteer to add whatever I have handy, and/or research whatever I don't. --DAKern74 04:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. If you want to add any stadium info I'd gladly use any you add and modify it into the stadium infoboxes. Also welcome to the project!Gateman1997 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw the infoboxes you have for both the Stockton Ports and their ballpark as mentioned in §15 above. My hobby is visiting ballparks (only 6 MLB ones left, and I was actually in Stockton (...Modesto, San Jose, Sacramento) about a month ago), so I can probably start a series like that for some of the teams/fields here in the northeast. I take it the pictures are just people's own personal shots that they've uploaded? I've got at least a dozen parks hanging around in albums just waiting to be scanned. :) DAKern74, 05:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Sweet. Those pics would be a great addition if you're willing. I too have begun my quest to visit all MLB Parks. I've got the entire west coast Shea and Fenway under my belt... but I've got about 20 to go. I've also begun my quest to visit all A's minor league parks. So far I've got Vancouver, Sac, and Stockton done. Gateman1997 05:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Amateur baseball in the United States

I have a friend who just wrote this. I think it's ok but could use work. Prob is, I have no clue about baseball. Could you help this article and direct him to this project? He wont listen to me... thanks American Patriot 1776 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Current record

What are thoughts on having a team's current regular season record on their article pages? I don't think they should be on article pages, as it would require almost daily updating and Wikipedia is not a news service (WP:NOT). I think that it would be okay to list the regular season record on articles when the season is finished - the W-L record is final for that season. See Talk:New York Yankees#Current record and Talk:Boston Red Sox#Current record for discussions on this. -- Win777 13:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. Records are widely available elsewhere, and they tend to be more of a news item during the season as they need to be updated daily. They aren't encyclopedic until they have been finalized that the end of the season. - Pal 19:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay. Then, let's add this the "Goals" section in the guidelines? -- Win777 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Since there have been no objections, and those who have commented on the above talk pages and commented here agree, I have updated the Goals section to reflect the consensus of not having current records. -- Win777 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been removing current stats from player pages. I don't like having "current" records and stats on Wikipedia. They become outdated too quickly. Wikipedia should not have to rely on a few people to keep this type of information accurate. Records and stats up to last season should be as recent as they come because these types of information for last season are too subject to change, which I can't say for stats and records "as of Month, Day, 2006." Wikipedia is not here to offer news reports; that's for Wikinews. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." Current stats and records aren't too historically significant until they are finalized (such as at the end of a season). Milestones, such as a pitcher's 300th win, can be put on articles because those achievements are final and significant; the date of the accomplishment will not change and neither will the fact that the accomplishment was reached. Current records and current stats in baseball become outdated almost concurrently. Current stats are easily available on MLB.com player information pages (external links). -- Win777 03:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have several comments on the record boxes I've seen lately

  • We do not need current records
  • Because information is already on the page (usually)
  • No Post season appearances at all
  • No WS, Division and League championships results
  • No total attendance or average attendance (one is sufficient)
  • Remove any other already available information on the page

Adding too much information just makes the page look very amateurish. It should be as slimlined as possible. Retropunk 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like many do not like current records. Other thoughts on these? -- Win777 17:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I don't like season records. Teams with 100+ years of history will become _VERY_ cluttered. Personally, I think the table on the Houston Astros section looks like crap. I couldn't bear to see the Bosox or another team's table if this was put on more pages. Retropunk 05:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, I've seen a couple minor-league pages (Akron Aeros, Binghamton Mets) where someone lists out the team's current roster. Naturally every time they make a player move (which at that level, is like every three days), the page needs updated. Seems to be the same couple diehard fans that are keeping it current, but wouldn't it make more sense to add a link to the current roster on the team's site, rather than keep changing Wikipedia. -- Dakern74 17:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to use external links for current rosters, especially for minor league teams, whose rosters change frequently. The Binghamton Mets page is not too bad, but the Aeros page needs to be cleaned up. -- Win777 12:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually a member of the project here, but I have been working on inputting the data on several minor leagues. In the pages for minor leagues that I have made, I put in the season records of each team each year. Personally, this seems to me to be the most sensible approach. Taking one team's record out of context provides at best minimal information. Placing all the team records for a given year together in one chart helps the reader draw a fuller picture of the events of the year. It does, however, tend to make the pages on the leagues rather long. Badbilltucker 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have been doing the same for the minor league teams I've done. Also, on the same line, I include the place finish and the manager. (See Connecticut Defenders if you want. Often the managers end up as redlinks, but at least the info is there consistently for each year.) Fortunately, A, the franchises and teams tend to move around a lot, which often begins a new page; and B, I've had a hard time finding said won/lost records for the minors much before the mid-90's. If anyone knows any good sources for them (other than buying every team's media guide), I'd appreciate that as well. Dakern74 03:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Asterisks

Just wondering if we should put asterisks by any "tainted" records. I am also kind of new to this wiki stuff. -- Texasag28 4:52, 29 May 2006 (CT)

If MLB doesn't do it, then, I would go with no. -- Win777 03:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Players of note

Just a heads-up: the "players of note" pages for every MLB team are up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Louis Cardinals/Players of note. You may want to weigh in with your opinion. - EurekaLott 14:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1999 Red Sox

I have found this page while working through Dead End Pages. It clearly needs some work, but I have no idea if this sort of article is useful. Posting here in the hope someone who knows about these things will pick it up. Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 09:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

With sources cited, cleaned up, and trimmed, it should go in Boston Red Sox. The team article doesn't even go into that much detail with many individual games from one season. The 1999 page sounds like a blog. A redirect to Boston Red Sox would work, too. -- Win777 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know at the bottom of the article it states, "Taken from www.geocities.com/.../ 7686/Sox99Review.html" :\ Yanksox 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a complete URL. -- Win777 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No, but possibly plagiarized? I'd recommend just having it redirect to Boston Red Sox also. - Pal 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirect made. -- Win777 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Baseball main article

Baseball, this project's main article, has fallen apart. It needs a complete rewrite from a copyedit standpoint, and while it has large reference section, in-line citations are absent. It would fail FAC as it exists right now, and has recently failed a version 0.5 nomination. I believe it would take a concerted effort to get this back to FA status, but it is possible. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pull hitter

Hi, can someone start Pull hitter - baseball ignoramus here who looked up the term and there was no article (or even redirect) for it. Stevage 08:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a redirect to List of baseball jargon. -- Win777 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OIC, it's the same thing as hooking in cricket. Ta. Stevage 15:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

They are deleting your templates

Just thought you guys should know that they have already deleted the Atlanta Braves template and it looks like they are going to delete all of them. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_14#Template:MLB_infobox_Braves

New Section

Lets make a page for 2006 Major League Baseball Playoffs. See 2006 FIFA World Cup. Bornagain4 01:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The playoffs have been broken into its different parts (AL/NLDS, AL/NLCS, WS) with templates for that year's playoffs at the bottom. Example: 2005 American League Division Series. A "playoffs" would encompass all of them into one large page. The FIFA World Cup is not an annual event, unlike the MLB postseason. -- Win777 16:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see now, good. Bornagain4 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reduced Infobox

I have reduced the infoboxes to a more reasonable version. There should not be stand-alone templates (like Template:MLB infobox Brewers for example) that hold only infoboxes. Infoboxes are supposed to be placed directly in the article in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. That is why the Braves infobox was recently deleted, and it's likely that more will be deleted in the future, causing us to lose all of their info. Rather than copy all the info from the template pages into the start of each team page (which would add close to 100 lines to the beginning of every team article), I significantly pared down this info so it would not dominate the team pages. A lot of the info from the old infoboxes was already in the articles and thus redundant, but if there are things that need to be included, please move it from the templates into the main article, as I will also do when I get the chance. Thanks. - Pal 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the new infobox is a little too sparse. I agree that the old ones contained too much information, but the new ones don't seem adequate enough. Maybe we could add championships back into the infobox? Rockfender 03:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
How about we add back alot of the info. The new infoboxes are naked compared to the old one. Also they're all basically empty. Gateman1997 05:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the old infoboxes into the article name space which solves the deletion issue the Braves faced. I know it's alot of text at the beginning of the article, but that's what the individual section edit buttons are for. Also it's much easier to pick and choose anything we may want to delete from the vastly more informative infobox rather then add from the sparse one. Gateman1997 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the retired numbers section since those were already in the article of all but three teams (I added them there) and that's not really important info for the infobox. - Pal 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball regular seasons

Just to let you know, I noticed this category, Major League Baseball Regular Season 2006, and Major League Baseball Regular Season 1903 while monitoring RC. It looks like they were created by someone who was, at the time, not really participating in this WikiProject. So I'll let you guys handle whether you want to keep them, merge them, etc. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a category. It's an article. I think we should try to get 1 for every regular season. I know some other pro sports leagues have some kind of box showing all the seasons in their league history. Kingjeff 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you just joined this WikiProject. [4] Although, I am not active, the current practice was to do the format similar to what is currently on 2005 in baseball#Major League Baseball final standings. That is why I posted this message in the first place. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm not sure about the cinsensus on this. But a lot of things ca nhappen in baseball as a sport for a year. This year would have the world baseball classic and regular season standings. But for the most part the page looks good. Kingjeff 00:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If at all, it should be "2004 MLB season" rather than "MLB regular season 2004". Compare 2004 World Series, 2006 World Cup, 2006 redefinition of planet, 2008 Presidential campaign --what, where is it? --P64 23:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Baseball article improvement drive

Do we have an article improvement? If not, we should try and get 1. Here is a sample article improvement drive. Kingjeff 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Listings of defunct minor leagues?

Hello, all. I'm fairly sure none of you know me. I am currently a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missouri and as a part of that group have gotten together basic information on seven of the defunct minor leagues that have had teams in Missouri, and am in the process of getting information on the others, both existing and defunct. My question is where do you all draw the line regarding "significance" in this regard. My personal inclination is to add one page per league, listing the standings and other essential data of the teams and seasons of each league on a year-by-year basis. I do note however that at least one of the these leagues, the Missouri State League, did not complete its inaugural season. There may well be others like that as well. Do you think that such leagues, on which data is available but whose term of existence was, shall we say, short would qualify as "significant" enough for inclusion or not? Thanks for your consideration of this admittedly obscure question. Badbilltucker 13:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they're significant enough to pass my standards. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
One page per league seems reasonable to me. But if a league name is reused, rather than disambiguate by default, I would combine by default (one page for all renditions of Missouri State League) and split them only when content warrants. Consider "American Association" for example. --P64 23:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Franchise" Definition

This may be the wrong place to bring this up, but there are lot of people editing team pages who simply do not know what "franchise" means. For instance, look at the Norfolk Tides page, where the editor said the franchise began in the South Atlantic League. This is incorrect. The Jacksonville Suns franchise was relocated to Norfolk. The SAL franchise moved to the Carolina League and I don't know where the went from there.

This is a growing problem where people think just because a team has been in a certain city for a long time or that the team name is the same, it means the franchise has existed the entire time. A franchise is ****not**** tied to a city or a team name. Just because there was a team called the Bisons in Buffalo in the 1800's does not mean the International League Buffalo Bisons are over 100 years old. This has an effect on everything from the establishment date of teams (someone said the Phillies began in 1880 just because the team from who the Phillies got their NL spot began in 1880, even though the clubs have nothing to do with each other).

Please, people, think about what you're doing so that you provide accurate information. --Leshii 20:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional information in MLB team templates

I think it would be worth adding the team history, and ballpark history (home fields), categories to the MLB team templates. They have those two categories in the NFL football team templates, for example the St. Louis Rams, and I believe that is quite relevant for baseball as well, not to forget it's great for quick reference. Also, other stuff, such as team stations and broadcasters. I'd be willing to help add the information. I also prefer the contrast of the NFL infoboxes (no offense to the creator of them, just trying to help out). Baseballfan Talk, 10:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems silly to have a section called "Ballpark" which only contains the current ballpark, and then for some reason also has the time in the ballpark listed as (1996-present) as if there could be any other ending time for a section that only lists the present ballpark. Cjosefy 13:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm...I'm new here

Hi, I have belonged to Wikipedia for about a month now, and I want to get started working on something, and I thought baseball would be good because I have a fairly extensive knowledge of the subject. Can someone direct me to something I can work on? Bornagain4 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we could do something on the regular season games, results, and standings? or would that be too much work? Bornagain4 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, Bornagain4. My view on the regular season is that while this information is certainly valuable, an encyclopedia is not the best place for information that needs to be regularly updated, such as current standings and such. I mean, every day, this material would have to be changed, which is quite an effort. There's also much debate about how much statistical/almanac-type data belongs in wikipedia, anyway. PKirlin 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

k, but what can I work on? Bornagain4 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-MLB uniforms

Rolando 00:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC) : I have been creating pages for teams in the Cuban National Leagues. Inspired (?) by Template:Football kit, I created Template:Baseball uniform. It is not wonderful but it does allow a nice way to create clean looking uniforms. Might be nice to get a v-neck jersey as standard, but I have an exam to study for. If you want to add words, logos, etc. to the jersey, you'd create a new image with the appropriate transparency. Anyway... here is an example:

Team colors
Team colors
Team emblem
Team colors
 Team colors
Team colors
Team colours
　
Home


The cap I drew looks like something out of Oliver Twist! Anyway, to add pinstripes to the sleeves, you'd need to add left and right sleeve images. There's all kinds of information on how this might work at Template talk:football kit.

I like doing this because whatever the baseball folks do could be used by the football/soccer people, etc.

Akron Aeros

I think that Akron Aeros could use a cleanup. More specifically, the roster. What defines a "top prospect" and are the "Current Aeros who have appeared in at least one game with another team in 2006" and "Appeared in at least one game with 2006 Aeros but no longer with team" lists necessary? They're trivial. What happens to these lists in 2007? Other thoughts? -- Win777 02:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Baseball in Australia

If anyone has information on this it would be much appreciated to be added since the baseball community in Australia is pretty small. --JRA WestyQld2 05:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

like said above, we have created alot of pages relating to this topic, anyone with even the smallest piece of information, or even if your an Aussie and like Baseball, let me know!. Pages relating to the former Australian Baseball League and former International Baseball League of Australia, current and past Claxton Shield series, and also articles related to the Australian Baseball Federation(and creating the individual state federations) at the moment we are putting all our efforts into the background of the sport in Australia, in the future we hope to get started on the many Aussies playing or have played in the Majors, cheers --Dan027 10:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oakdale Park

Does anyone know the location of Oakdale Park? --South Philly 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From the picture on this site, it appears it has been turned into a playground, and according to Topozone.com, there is a neighborhood called Oakdale out to the southwest of Center City, very near Swarthmore College. Their map has at least two playgrounds marked in that vicinity. Can't say for sure whether one of them used to be a baseball "stadium", but perhaps this is a starting point. Dakern74 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --South Philly 02:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Using the bot

Hi, I noticed that you were wanting to use the bot, but your listing of the project at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index got automatically deleted. I have added the top level categorys (by quality, by importance) to the bot's category listing at Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, so tomorrow night the bot should automatically ADD your articles to it's list. Please let me know if you have any more problems, and thanks for using the bot! Walkerma 06:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

express written consent

I'd like to request an article, or a section in the MLB article, about the phrase "...without the express written consent of Major League Baseball." --M@rēino 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that phrase or a variant in almost all sports broadcasts. I suggest looking up Copyright. Cjosefy 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I know, but AFAIK, MLB is the only organization for whom it's become a commonly-parodied catchphrase (Simpsons, Dave Letterman,random blogs, etc.) --M@rēino 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dates in baseball

A recent AFD discussion on October 2 in baseball was recently closed as transwiki to Wikia:Baseball. As the result of that discussion, it sounds like a couple of editors are planning to transwiki the entirety of Category:Dates in baseball. See User talk:Herostratus#Transwiki of dates in baseball for the discussion. If you want to see a different outcome, now's the time to speak up. - EurekaLott 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Team Templates

It seems CrazyTalk made a template for each team, which isn't the purpose of the template. The Template:MLB infobox template should be used for all teams and the old templates, which violate the fair use policy, should be deleted. I'm going to start replacing teams with the correct template and start nominating the extraneous templates for deletion. Retropunk 00:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice that User:Gateman1997 already made the changes to the articles. I'll go ahead and nominate all templates for deletion since they serve no purpose and violate policy. Retropunk 00:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

{{MLB infobox}}

Because of {{MLB infobox}}, 30 team-specific MLB templates have been nominated for deletion. Please express your opinion on the deletion discussion page. --M@rēino

Jim Thorpe rated top importance?

I noticed that someone assessed Jim Thorpe as top-level importance for Wikiproject Baseball. This is quite simply ridiculous. I realize that Jim Thorpe is one of the greatest athletes that ever lived and a legend in several sports, but Baseball is not one of them. His baseball career is merely a footnote and of no importance to the game itself (though certainly important to him since it got his medals taken away). There are several projects that can and should give him top-level importance, but the baseball project should stick to what is important to baseball. I feel he should be reassessed. Indrian 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also confused why Thorpe and other players are under this project's umbrella when there is a separate project for baseball players here. Is there supposed to be a distinction between the two projects? —Wknight94 (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiffleball

Just discovered this page recently. Pretty basic, but looks like there's something interesting still to be said there about organized league play and such. I'm a stranger to this project, myself, but it looks robust enough that someone's probably interested. Stellmach 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Destroy Quick Facts and Other Junk

We need to put "Get rid of quick facts" on the goals page because it's not encyclopedic and should be in prose form instead. Also, all of these long lists need to go to. So many articles have this and it looks terrible. I fixed up the Yankees page already, but I can't do 30 pages. Step up and fix the junky articles from your favorite team or else this project will go nowhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sportskido8 (talk • contribs) .

Looks like you (or someone) did a pretty good job on the Yankees article - except it looks like all the pretty pictures are going to be trashed. As far as this project, it does appear to be stalled out. No one discusses anything here and questions go unanswered, etc. It would be nice to get one of the teams to FA status and I'd be happy to assist in getting other teams' articles to the same level - starting with the New York Mets of course! :) But I've noticed a few of the articles being under fairly tight ownership so it would probably be a daunting task to get everyone on the same page. Anyway, if someone wants to take charge of getting this project back on its feet, please count me in. First or second order of business might be to combine this and Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players since the separation seems to ebb and flow quite a bit. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah before I got a hold of the Yankees article it looked awful, and had little or no pictures. I'm fighting to keep them on somehow, but it is going to be difficult. --Sportskido8 (talk
Would you consider "Famous Fans" (see New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox) as items to keep off baseball team pages (especially when there are no sources to verify them)? -- Win777 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Definitely. Useless IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see that be deleted too but if I remove that from the Yankees page I am afraid that I'm going to start a war. --Sportskido8 1:38 EST, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
How about a See also section that links to a separate page with that stuff (e.g. List of famous New York Yankees fans? And/or a category for famous Yankees fans? Rolando 13:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It just seems pointless in general. Are we also going to put a section in Red to list every famous person whose favorite color is red and a list of every famous person that wears turtle necks in Turtle neck? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I agree--this kind of stuff is moronic! I was just trying to make the suggestion as a means of helping Sportskido8 avoid some conflict. Rolando 15:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the section either. If List of famous New York Yankees fans is created, (if anyone nominates it) it could go through AfD. -- Win777 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved it yesterday. Nobody seems to mind I guess. --Sportskido8 11:14 EST, 22 August 2006
As I recall, the pattern for the "Famous Fans" has been unregistered users adding the section and registered users removing the section. Like before, it could just take a while before someone adds it back. -- Win777 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping baseball articles of "high" importance uniform (and using the Yankees entry as a guide), I deleted the following sections from the SF Giants page: Quick Facts, Spring Training (??), Broadcasters (????), and Baseball Hall of Famers (...). I don't think any of these sections are directly relevant to the specific topic or encyclopedic in general. I also deleted the "All-Star Games" section because there's already an entry for it elsewhere. Oh, and I got rid of a section entitled "Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame." I don't think it belongs there, and most MLB entries don't have a section devoted to a regional hall of famers list. If anyone cares enough, they can create a separate page for it. Someone might notice though, and in that case I've referred them here. - Smuglife 07:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Those weren't deleted from New York Yankees, they were broken out into List of New York Yankees people. Has the same been done for the Giants? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't a "List of San Francisco Giants People" as part of the article; I don't understand? Nothing was truly lost in this particular deletion anyhow since it looks like people had copy & pasted excerpts from other articles to create new (irrelevant) sections. And by the way, I'm responding to the original topic; the one about deleting "quick facts" sections from team pages and/or other misc. sections -- 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Baseball scorekeeping

This article was marked for cleanup back in June, but it doesn't appear anyone got around to doing it. As a former official scorer, and now "the guy with the clipboard" at my local minor-league teams, I've reworked it from scratch with a better outline and a lot more "official info". The old one has a rather bad example that doesn't even add up right, but that could be related to all the comments where the author admits he spilled beer on himself.  :\

The proposed brand-new page is under my own subpage for right now, at User:Dakern74/Baseball_scorekeeping. Anyone from the project who'd like to give it a going-over, feel free. I realize there are a lot of generalizations ("some people do...", "most scorekeepers will...") because everyone keeps score in a slightly different way. Feel free to leave comments on that talk page, and maybe after a few reviews/recommendations, we can get around to replacing the original. Thanks for your help! Dakern74 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I-55 Series nominated for Good Article Status

Just a heads us since I saw this article on the Cubs-Cardinals series has been tagged for Wikiproject Baseball. I've contributed extensively to this article and I would appreciate any feedback (positive or constructive) on what can be done to approve the article. Thanks! Agne 00:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you did a good job on the article. At the risk of being a killjoy, one glaring omission is any references to this "series" even existing. I've been watching baseball for over 20 years and I've never heard the term, "I-55 Series". None of the references seem to make a big deal about the series and only the George Will commentary makes any substantial mention of the two being nearby. Maybe there's more in the references that don't have websites. Otherwise, it seems well put together. One interesting thing I found recently is that Lee Smith was the all-time saves leader for both franchises until recently - that might be worthy of a mention somewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be for the article to be called "Cardinals-Cubs Rivalry" (or "Cubs-Cardinals" :p) which is currently a redirect. I didn't create the article so I left the name as is. Growing up in St. Louis, I've obviously heard I-55 series often but I agree that it is not as prevelant outside the area. Also, thanks for the info on Lee Smith. I'll see where I can add it. Agne 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Career stats table

Do we have a career stats table for players? Kingjeff 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden sombrero

See my comment on this article's talk page. Dakern74 11:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Boston Massacre

I worked a bit on this. Any thoughts? --Sportskido8 14:28 EST, 23 August 2006

Seems a little Yankee-fan-crufty in all honesty. Does every 5- or 6-game regular season sweep get its own article? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well...this one is a little more significant I think. But I guess it is a little one-sided. --Sportskido8 15:16 EST, 23 August 2006
Exactly. I don't find this series any more significant than any other 5-game sweep. Even Game 6 of the 1986 World Series doesn't have its own article and I think most would consider that more notable than some 5-game regular season series sweep. People have deleted articles about entire Minnesota Twins seasons. How about an article about the 1995 month-long collapse of the Angels? Or the Miracle Mets of '69? All seem more notable - but I guess they didn't happen within the last 48 hours... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
But maybe I'm off-topic and on a rant. From a strictly article-quality point of view, it looks quite good. Citations at the bottom, pictures, aesthetically-pleasing tables, etc. Nice-looking article - I'm just not crazy about the subject. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is quite good as well. My recomendation would be to merge more of the info into the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page-maybe even add some of the newspaper images. (Though probably only 1 would be needed). Agne 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Major League Baseball seasons and years

It is just me or does the "Calendar" section of "2006 in baseball" seem a little too MLB-centric? For example, it says "Active rosters expand..." but neglects that this applies only to Major League Baseball. There is an article for the 2005 MLB season, but the equivalent 2006 article, which redirects to "2006 in baseball", is where the information would probably be more appropriate.

On a secondary note, should the seasonal articles for Major League Baseball not be titled more like the NFL articles are (2006 NFL season, for example)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tocapa (talk • contribs) .


Good idea and as far as the redirect for the 2006 season, some ass insisted on doing that. Kingjeff 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of delving too far into the minor league baseball world. At the very least, I think the major league coverage should be expanded further before the minor league coverage. Why should there be articles on A-level minor league players and mentions of minor league news when 12-year major leaguer, Craig Swan, is still a redlink even though he was the 1978 N.L. ERA champion? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we need to put focus on minor league baseball, but I'm saying that the Calendar is simply a list of important MLB dates, the sole exception being the LLWS. We should also mention important dates for international baseball, methinks. In addition, almost all of the "Events" are Major League Baseball events. Since a skimming of the talk pages indicated that size was an issue, we could trim by moving a lot of that information to an appropriate article for the specific season. My implication was actually that the article is too Amerio-centric, even though baseball, as I recall, is one of the more popular international sports. --Tocapa 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the key is that the title of the article is baseball in 2006, not MLB in 2006. Kingjeff 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly would be included outside the MLB for 2006? What is the signifcance to rosters expanding in the minor leagues in a season? Does that even happen? Oh, I just did some math as I was typing this - you broke out the Major League Baseball season 2005 article. Doing that for the size limit is not standard practice. Just take a look at List of Seinfeld episodes which is 85 KB and has dozens of little images making dial-up users slow to a crawl. And God help you if you suggest breaking that up (I tried on the talk page of that article and met heated opposition). There's really no good reason left to have that Major League Baseball season 2005 article. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand again. The point I attempt to make is that the article should be more internationally relevant and that the calendar of important MLB events is not relevant in that capacity, and is more appropriate for a season article. I'm saying contract, not expand. --Tocapa 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm intrigued - and apparently prone to misunderstanding things. What international baseball events do you figure should be added to the calendar? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All-Star categories

Currently, there are separate players categories for each year's All-Star game (see Category:American League All-Stars and Category:National League All-Stars). This is fine for most players, but for someone like Hank Aaron it results in a ridiculously large set of categories. I'd suggest that the annual categories should be merged, perhaps by decade, so no player would have more than four or five. That would leave us with:

  • Category:1930s National League All-Stars, Category:1940s National League All-Stars, Category:1950s National League All-Stars, Category:1960s National League All-Stars, Category:1970s National League All-Stars, Category:1980s National League All-Stars, Category:1990s National League All-Stars, Category:2000s National League All-Stars
  • Category:1930s American League All-Stars, Category:1940s American League All-Stars, Category:1950s American League All-Stars, Category:1960s American League All-Stars, Category:1970s American League All-Stars, Category:1980s American League All-Stars, Category:1990s American League All-Stars, Category:2000s American League All-Stars

Each category would have around 100-150 articles, by my count. The detail on which players played in which years could be moved to an article (possibly there already is such an article, but I couldn't find one). Any thoughts? — sjorford++ 13:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One problem is the definition of "ridiculously large". Hank Aaron I believe was in the AS game more than anyone and really his list of categories is not that large IMHO. I lean towards leaving it the way it is. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if 24 isn't ridiculous, I'd like to know what is :) It just seems like an abuse of what categories are for. Surely there's a better way of listing that information in his article (in the infobox, perhaps?) But to see Aaron at the top of Special:Mostcategories seems rather unnecessary. — sjorford++ 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The categories aren't for seeing what all-star games Aaron played in - they're for easily finding who else played in those all-star games. Seeing them on the Aaron article itself is supposed to be a helpful by-product. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, it does seem a little odd that 13 of the top 20 on Mostcategories are baseball players. Surely that can't all be due to All-Star appearances, but still. I think I'm more curious about things like Category: 1957 Milwaukee Braves World Series Championship Team.
At the risk of creating 77 more articles, why not have a separate roster page for each ASG? (With NL and AL together). If you click the category, that's all it says anyway, is "here's a list of players who were selected". Then on Major League Baseball All-Star Game, we'd also be able to link the rosters next to each game, instead of just listing the score and site. Thanks to the categories that exist already, I don't think this would be too hard a "conversion" to do. (Am I volunteering here?) Dakern74 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I love having the categories for championship teams. That's a fantastic and almost-self-maintained way of grouping the articles related to that championship. That's the point of categories. I'm not sure it's such a bad thing to have a lot of categories attached to an article. The positives may be limited but I don't see any negatives at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Softball

Why does this project have a SOFTBALL as its icon? Wahkeenah 08:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

LMAO! Now I could make an offhand remark about size and the like but I'll be good. :P Agne 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to be small and hard than to be big and soft. d:) Wahkeenah 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have left a comment at the photographer's user page on Commons. Of course, anyone is free to replace the picture in the meantime. — Scm83x hook 'em 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the original uploader was playing a joke, to see how long before someone would notice. The answer: about 15 months. I have replaced it in the template with a generic Little League-type ball. Sometime later I'll see if I can find a major league ball instead. Wahkeenah 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've got a handful of foul balls from the majors. I could try to snap one and upload it if we don't find one already out there. Lemme know. -- dakern74 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr Pepper Ballpark

The article Dr Pepper Ballpark is up for featured article candidacy at the moment and is having a sluggish repsonse by the overall community; only two users have come by to vote (however, both supporting the article's passage). If members of the WP Baseball community could come by and take a look at the article and comment on the candidacy here (hopefully supporting it! :-) ), it would be greatly appreciated. — Scm83x hook 'em 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ballpark rankings?

I'm curious where the ballpark rankings on MLB ballpark articles come from, and why they're included? As it is, they're not correctly sourced, and I don't know of any acknowledged authority on ranking ballparks. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just took the time to glance through all 30 parks, and I only see "rankings" listed for the two in Pennsylvania {PNC Park and Citizens Bank Park). And the "Ballpark Digest" aren't really rankings, they're scores (5 out of 5). I'd suggest we just eliminate it from these two pages. -- dakern74 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Funny, those were the two pages I looked at, so I assumed it was on all of them. I agree that those sections should be deleted. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You'll probably get an argument by the guy who posted them, but they should go. They have no context (maybe unless you read the article connected with them) and in any case they are just one magazine's opinion. Wahkeenah 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Away they go. Bring on the argument. -- dakern74 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Local AID

Should we make an combined local Article Improvement Drive for this project and the Baseball players one like the one the soccer wikiproject did, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive. This way we can make our baseball articles higher quality and quicker to WP:GA or WP:FA status. What you guys think. Jaranda wat's sup 00:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sign me up. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure we should. As a participant of soccer AID It's been good for soccer articles. Kingjeff 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Who is going to start it though, I'm not good in working with templates and those types of pages. Jaranda wat's sup 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are questions that needs to be answered before we can really get this off the ground like if this is going to be a weekly , biweekly or monthly and how many votes it needs in a specific time period before it is taken down and archived. Kingjeff 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Weekly looks ok to me, and needs to have at least 3 votes an week to stay, with the one with the most votes is selected. Is that good. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One week might be ok to start. But from experience from the football aid, it'll eventually be better off with a fortnight or monthly. Kingjeff 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, agree, agree. One week and - oh, did I mention sign me up?  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a standard career stats table for baseball players? I don't think we have one for players. I tried to use the one for soccer players but it ended up to massive. This will be a key for improving ballplayer articles. Kingjeff 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For who ever wants to sart it. Here's the link. Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive Kingjeff 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a standard stats table. There was once an infobox push for baseball but it failed pretty contentiously and was globally deleted. In bio articles I watch, I constantly see people reversing the order of stats, putting RBI higher than HR or vice versa, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible to get a standard table year by year table? Kingjeff 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For each season's stats for a particular player? I think people frown on simply listing out yearly stats for a particular player calling it indiscriminate information. Wikisource might be a better place for that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I started it, mainly copying WP:AID, still needs work. Jaranda wat's sup 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rules for the Baseball aritcle improvement drive can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive Kingjeff 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We should add a new system...

Hi. I think this comment I got from Talk Page on my Pal says it all.

"...It might be worthwhile for WikiProject Baseball to come up with a rating system that applies only to baseball articles (to get a broader range of evaluations)... - Pal"

We should use another rating system, which will give another rating, one that is decided upon the same way any rating below GA is: Reviewer decides it. But on this system, there is no voting involved, so it gives an immidate rating. Think of it as the Zagat Survey of baseball articles. I have 2 ideas for the system, let me know what you think, along with which idea you like, if you support this new system.

IDEA 1: Just use a modified 1-10 system, 1 is worst, 10 is best, with amazing articles given HQA, which will stand for High Quality Article. Or, if you think we should have more of a baseball theme, instead of HQA we could have HR, home run.

IDEA 2: We create a second page for each article, in which we ask that people leave a rating, using the 1-10 HQA/HR system, and a coment, if they want. Then, every week, they are all averaged together (HQA/HR goes in as 11) and that is how the rating is decided.

Let me know what you think! {{User:Aido2002/signature}} 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Baseball related article on AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball in the UK
Article was originally an advertisment spam but a rewrite has been started to put it on the right track. A request has been made for those with more knowledge about the subject to give it a look. I figure what better place to ask? :) Agne 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japanese baseball team

I've recently created this infobox for use in the articles about Japanese professional baseball teams. Almost all the information is already on all the pages in non-infobox form, but I thought this would be a bit more organized. The box is currently featured on the Orix Buffaloes page for testing. If everyone likes it, we can go ahead and apply it to each teams page. El Cid 05:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks okay for now. Call me a color freak, but it seems really plain. If you add some colors, I'd absolutely love this template. --Nishkid64 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems like there's an opportunity to merge this template into Template:Infobox baseball team. There are pages for teams from the Mexican League too (e.g., Sultanes Monterrey) which could benefit from infoboxification. It would not be hard to make some of the infobox labels into parameters (think, seriesname=Japan Series championships)

In any case, rather than just listing the colors, maybe the Japanese template could use Template:Baseball uniform--the soccer uniform template on which it's based has been very successful. Rolando (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think merging might be a good idea, but I don't want to leave out any information. The Template:Infobox baseball team seems a bit more sparse. I'm new at the infobox game, so if someone could merge the two while keeping all the information, and allow boxes to contain league-specific data (like Japan Series wins), I'd be all for it. And I like the uniform template approach to team colors, but I'd personally need some help with how to edit those if I was going to contribute. : ) El Cid 07:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. I can work on expanding Template: Infobox baseball team, and then we can worry about merging. How does that sound? Rolando (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great. Let's go ahead and get to it. El Cid 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Orix Buffaloes. Rolando (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Alert

Hello all, I noticed a vandal going through some pages I watch (University of Michigan) who did some blatant vandalism. Tommerrigan then moved on to some baseball pages, and I suspect most his edits there are untrue and purposefully misleading. I'm not too knowledgable about baseball, so I figured I should just let you guys know. -TheMile 01:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell which edits are vandalism and which are not but almost none of them are sourced. Of the only two that were cited, one cited a source that didn't match the text being cited and one was a blatant copyvio. They've all been reverted for various reasons by various editors (including me). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution
Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 11:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Baseball_Archive_1_7683.html"