Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 3

message: Hello. The start of the MLB season is 2½ months away. Similar to what I am doing with my NHL team season articles, I have started the concept of doing a similar project for the MLB baseball season this year. If anybody would like to work on this project, click here. The details and information is available on this site. Simply add your name next to a team, and feel free to create the article. I hope that this project is successful and has enough people working on it to get the articles for all 30 teams. Thanks. Ksy92003 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLB Team Season Articles 

message: This article is a complete mess and needs work ASAP. Quadzilla99 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bobby Cox]]

message: I notice that articles on players generally don't include their statistics.  I assume the reason for that is that MLB statistics are widely available from other sources, such as baseball-reference.com, which can be accessed through an external link.  My question is about players for whom this is not the case -- specifically, pre-1950 Negro League players and notable career minor leaguers. (I've edited articles for a few of these players.)  For early Negro League and minor league players, their statistics may be scattered among various books or old baseball guides.  Would it be considered acceptable to include the statistics for these players within the article (while citing the sources)? — BRMo 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about player statistics 

message: I am proposing that the projects become one, I don’t see why the projects are separate. There are different ways you can do this and one way would be to make the WPBBP a subproject/taskforce of the main WPBB. This would have them using the same template, the discussions staying closer, etc.
Please comment --Borgarde 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's WPBBP? -- KirinX 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WikiProject Baseball players --Borgarde 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for merging somehow.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I support merging.  There's so much natural overlap, I don't see what the benefit would be in keeping them separate.  This way we could keep consistent style/organization/etc. through all baseball-related pages.  --Wayne Miller 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How long should we wait before taking any action, a simple move of the project to something like WikiProject Baseball/Biographies is all that is needed right now. --Borgarde 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition of a merge between WPBB and WPBBP 

message: I think it's about time we discussed naming conventions on articles.
While editting I've noticed articles that have players names and then (baseball), ones that have (baseball player) and ones that have (LEAGUE NAME player).
I can understand the use of league name player once there has been two players with the same name, but what is the default? (baseball) or (baseball player)?
Same goes with baseball teams. I've seen (baseball), (baseball team), and (LEAGUE team). Which one?
Should we not use (baseball) at all and simply put (baseball team)? And then if there has been two teams with the same name, one goes with the (LEAGUE team)?
I support the article that has the most significance to not carry a name in brackets. For instance, if a team has world wide significance, let them use the name of the article, and the one that is a hardly known minor league team to use (baseball team) at the end.
Any thoughts? --Borgarde 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions 

message: How should the sub-categories within this category be named? They are currently :Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of Country or this way, :Category:Country players in the 2006 World Baseball Classic
The current categories are:
*:Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of Australia
*:Category:Canadian players in the 2006 World Baseball Classic
*:Category:Cuban players in the 2006 World Baseball Classic
*:Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of Japan
*:Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of South Korea
*:Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of the Netherlands
*:Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players for Taiwan
*:Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of the United States
*:Category:2006 World Baseball Classic players of Venezuela
I prefer "Canadian players at the 2006 World Baseball Classic". Just want some thoughts into this. --Borgarde 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:World Baseball Classic players]] 

message: User:WatchlistBot has finished tagging baseball articles, with the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Articles. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help (like check the categories again and tag new articles at some point in the future). Ingrid 21:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Tagging 

message: Doug Harvey has been tagged as being part of the baseball project because it is is in :Category:Buffalo Bisons players a category which says it is for a baseball team. It seems like this is a mistake though, since Doug Harvey is a hockey player (who played for a hockey team called the Buffalo Bisons). There may be other hockey players in this category as well. I'm posting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey as well. Perhaps someone from here and/or someone from there could work this out. For now, I've just got Doug Harvey explicitly excluded from tagging by User:WatchlistBot. Ingrid 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't there once an umpire named Doug Harvey?  I vaguely recall there being one.  DandyDan2007 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doug Harvey 

message: I did the Billy Rogell page about six months ago but didn't get any feedback on it.  Originally I'd planned to do a whole series, or at least continue my work through a good number of players.  Is this what we're looking for here?  Because if so I'd definitely be interested in taking time to work on some more baseball pages.  Someone drop me a line here or email me: desjardfan@gmail.com
Desjardfan 09:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Billy Rogell]]

message: I have been involved with a dispute with Fahima07 about whether or not the scores of every single game should be listed in that article.  After February 28, the actions needed will be taken to the article.  Any disagreements may be posted here.  Ksy92003 talk·contribs
*Don't Keep All the scores are gonna be on the individual team articles, and it would be a waste of time and space, and it wouldn't be that organized also.  Please place your input.  Thanks. Ksy92003 talk·contribs
*Do Keep I can't be bothered going to each team article to know the score, might as well have it on one page, just look at the FA Cup 2006-07 Qualifying Rounds page, that has around 1000 games on it but it's still useful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.118 (talk • contribs).
:Comment I don't believe that FA Cup 2006-07 Qualifying Rounds is a fair comparison.  The teams in the FA Cup don't have their own individual article to show all their games.  All 30 MLB teams have their own article for the 2007 season to show all the scores, whereas the FA Cup does not. Ksy92003 talk·contribs
*Don't Keep There are 2,430 regular season games in a MLB season, the article would be forever long.  --Holderca1 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment What is the point of putting a lot of information in an article, for 2430 games, if you're just gonna delete it anyway?  Does this really make sense?  And if there is an agreement to keep this included in 2007 Major League Baseball season, would you really want to be the only one to fill all the games in?  Ksy92003 talk·contribs 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2007 Major League Baseball season]] 

message: The traduction is wrong. There is no "Caribbean Baseball World Series", but "The Caribbean Series". In Spanish the event is called "La Serie del Caribe", not "La Serie Mundial del Caribe de Béisbol". Someone must fix this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.45.125.51 (talk • contribs).
This is correct. A non-admin can't do the move, since Caribbean Series already exists as a redirect. I'll post it to be moved, when I have a minute, or maybe someone else can beat me to it. --Djrobgordon 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm requesting the move now. --Djrobgordon 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Should the template  be altered and the other links be moved? Seeing as the correct name is Caribbean Series? --Borgardetalk 03:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Caribbean Baseball World Series]]" 

message: It's probably been discussed before, but I find it annoying that teams like the Philadelphia Athletics and St. Louis Browns are listed under their current incarnations.  Shouldn't they have separate articles?  At the least, it would seem to make the current articles not so long.  Hockey has articles for the Minnesota North Stars and Winnipeg Jets, I think baseball ought to be the same way.  DandyDan2007 13:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously existing teams 

message: I'm having a problem on the Atlanta Braves page. An anon user with multiple IP addresses keeps changing the article so that the Braves only have 11 consecutive season division championshps from 14. He/she/it refuses to enage in any discussion at all on the issue, and has reverted several attempts at a compromise that gives both positions. If wyou would like to weigh in on this specific issue, the discussion and details of the problem are on Talk:Atlanta Braves.
I would like to know if the project has dealt with how to handle the strike year and its effects on team records before. Is there a consensus from the project on what to do in these situations? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. - BillCJ 03:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, all fourteen championships were consecutive because at no point in that span did another team hold the title of division champion. For what it's worth, Baseball Reference doesn't credit the Expos with winning the division that year. The Nationals' official website credits the Expos with having the best record in baseball, but not with winning the division crown.  The Braves' official site credits them with fourteen consecutive division championships.  The anon's edits may be in good faith, but they're not correct. --Djrobgordon 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1994 strike year controversy

message: Hello, I am a member of this project and WP:RADIO too. I grew up listening to Vin Scully and Jerry Doggett. I've added a couple of the Dodger (no booing or hissing, please) to the Radio project with the talkpage tag. You can see it on those articles.
It is a real shame that great announcers like Doggett does not have much of an article. Like all the greats, he drew a picture and I remember scoring games as they were announced on radio. Those were the days when you had a program to do boxscores. Just a thought and a tip of the hat to my Dad who started me down this route. Cheers, Ronbo76 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have a favorite announcer on radio? Please think about being bold and placing a [[WP:RADIO]] banner tag on their talkpage 

message: Any idea if Roush Fenway Racing should be included under this project?  While it seems this turn of events will have the largest impact on NASCAR itself, it seems to me that this is going to have an important and extremely notable recognition within Major League Baseball as well, since this is the first time anything like this has happened within any of the so called "four major sports" in America. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is marked as a baseball stub, I think you'll find that when Watchlistbot updates the articles through the use of categories, this page will be added. I'm not to sure on it's context though, just that if it is marked a baseball stub it will be added automatically. --Borgardetalk 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm holding that it will gain relevance as it could introduce a new demographic to baseball.  --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roush Fenway Racing 

message: This page now automatically archives, discussions that are 28 days without comment are archived into the current archive. I put 28 days because 4 weeks seems a reasonable amount of time to consider a discussion dead. I've also made a link to all the archives in the project to try to organise it a little better, might put it in a table or something later, but for now it's all fine. --Borgardetalk 03:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: ===Assessments===
The 2007 team pages for the Major League Baseball season, right now they are all more or less at a start level I'd say. Does anyone have opinions on their importance? Low? Mid?
You could say they are mid-importance for the current season, but in the overall project they are low. Just want some opinions before I mark any. Thanks. --Borgarde (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mid seems reasonable, as long as they're demoted at the beginning of the 2008 season. I sort of despise season articles, particularly current ones, but they're nonetheless visible, so maintaining them needs to be a priority. Djrobgordon 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See: WP:Baseball/game log — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 MLB team articles 

message: The 2007 team pages for the Major League Baseball season, right now they are all more or less at a start level I'd say. Does anyone have opinions on their importance? Low? Mid?
You could say they are mid-importance for the current season, but in the overall project they are low. Just want some opinions before I mark any. Thanks. --Borgarde (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mid seems reasonable, as long as they're demoted at the beginning of the 2008 season. I sort of despise season articles, particularly current ones, but they're nonetheless visible, so maintaining them needs to be a priority. Djrobgordon 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessments

message: Are we just going to go with one month at a time or are we going to go with an entire season in the article? Also, why do we need to show off days? It take up unnecessary space in the article. Kingjeff 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See: WP:Baseball/game log — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Logs

message: I'm in the early stages of reviving Portal:Baseball, and it occurred to me that this might be a better place to post a notice than the talk page of a moribund Portal.  Ideally, I'd like to have it up and running before opening day.  Right now, I'm working on a redesign, since the color scheme and layout make it pretty difficult to read. If anyone's interested, my work in progress is at User:Djrobgordon/sandbox.  I realize doing edits in my sandbox isn't the most transparent way of going about it, but I thought it was better than using the real portal for my experiments.  Even if you're not interested in being permanently involved in the portal, I'd love some constructive criticism. If you have any comments please leave them at Portal talk:Baseball, rather than my sandbox talk page. That way I won't have to move them there after the redesign is complete.
Ideally, I'd like to have a few other editors help evaluate articles and images to feature on the page, as well as to update the News and Did You Know... sections.  I don't particularly mind doing it myself, but it's not really in the spirit of Wikipedia.  It seems like the Portal has had two spurts of activity, led by individual editors who abandoned it soon after.  I don't plan on abandoning it, but I could get hit by a bus or something.
Thanks for any help you can give.  --Djrobgordon 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still working on a few minor things (I'm not really happy with the "Topics" section yet), but for all practical purpose, the redesign is complete and the portal is live.  I have it set up to rotate the articles automatically, so it's not a simple matter for someone to help with the coding, but what I could really use is for people to keep an eye out for articles and images that could be featured there.  Each section has a "Nomination" link at the bottom where any user can suggest material to be featured.  It takes more time to find good material to include than to author the portal itself, so any noms would be a great help.  Also, any user can vote for or against a nomination. --Djrobgordon 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball Portal 

message: Hey all ... this project is attempting to cover a wide variety of things within the category of baseball.  Although commendable, its certainly hard to manage everything all at once!  I would like to help by proposing to develop standard article templates for all team and league articles to promote consistency among the articles.  I understand that some aspects of this has already been done (for example, major league teams should follow a specific ToC), but may not be consistently applied (especially for minor league teams and leagues).  What I'm proposing is ensuring that we have a standard a number of things, including:
* Tables of contents
* Infoboxes
* Tables within articles
* Article introduction language
I propose to establish standard templates primarily for the minor leagues, including both current and former teams as well as current and former leagues.  Part of this sub-project will be to identify and catalog every minor league team and league that has existed and to create, at a minimum, stub pages for them.
I have a lot of ideas, and intend to leverage as much work as has been done in the general WikiProject Baseball as possible.  I will begin to work on this, but seek to identify a couple of volunteers to provide input and help.  I would like to keep the initial involvement to a few individuals as that will promote efficiency.  If anyone is interested, please leave leave a comment on my talk page.  --CPAScott 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your proposing a Manual of Style for baseball team and league articles?  I think this is a very good idea, and I suggest using the football club manual of style as a guide.Timpcrk87 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article standardization project proposed!! 

message: I have compiled a listing of all major and minor leagues as well as most current and some historical independent leagues.  See User:CPAScott/Template01. This can be the master list to track the creation of the league pages once the template is developed.  Right now, no one has yet expressed an interest in joining this task force -- please let me know if you can help!  I will work on a template for leagues and seek member opinion before updating or creating the stub pages. 
A task force page has been established --CPAScott 20:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your proposing a Manual of Style for baseball team and league articles?  I think this is a very good idea, and I suggest using the football club manual of style as a guide.Timpcrk87 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2/28/07 Update 

message: I was wondering if someone could create a cap with the team's cap logo for each MLB team for use in the infobox instead of the current square with cap logo.  I'm thinking of something like the NFL team's have with the helmet in the infobox only a baseball cap.  I am not artistic or graphic skilled in any way so I can't do it. If someone else can and will, I think it would really improve the appearance of the team pages and infoboxes.Timpcrk87 06:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball Cap for Team infoboxes

message: If anyone's interest, I just requested a peer review for Youngstown Ohio Works.  The peer review is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Youngstown Ohio Works.--Djrobgordon 04:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Notice 

message: not for guys trying to make the team in spring training, they are not.  more important than minor league stats, as the major league staff is watching. imho.  --Epeefleche 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I followed them, yes, I would post their stats.  
Spring training serves different purposes for different players.  What you say as to spring training being about getting into shape is the case for players who have made the team, but that is not what it is about for Newhan.  For Newhan, it is about impressing Willie and the coaching staff, so that they pick him for the team.
And as to spring training stats being thown out the window, the trend is the reverse.  See, for example, http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/N/David-Newhan.shtml , in which you can see that Newhan didn't have very good springs hitting wise in 2005 and 2006.
As far as referring it to wiki-project baseball, that sounds fine to me if you are unwilling to undo your revert.
Might I prevail upon you to do it for me, as I am not sure how that is done.
Thanks.  --Epeefleche 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: newhan -- are spring training stats trivial?

message: The founder of Retrosheet has an article, which I found while working on uncategorized articles.  I placed him in the Category:Baseball Statistics, but in retrospect, didn't think it fit.  If you'd like to come up with a better category, or if you think it's good enough, come up with one.  DandyDan2007 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He should probably be wherever Bill James is.--Djrobgordon 02:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[David Smith (baseball historian)]] 

message: --After Midnight 0001 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World Series championship teams at CfD

message: I came across the article of Harry Simmons today. It really needs to be cleaned up. I don't know anything about this guy, but if anyone can cite sources or do anything to clean it up it would be appreciated. It doesn't read very well at all right now. --Borgardetalk 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some wikification and prose cleanup.  The writing's not great now, but it's passable.  Still no sources, of course.--Djrobgordon 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It looked like when they typed up the article, they hit return a lot, so I just undid that.  I also eliminated one redundant sentence about staying in Montreal as well.  DandyDan2007 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Simmons 

message: This is something of a followup to my previous question about David Smith.  Looking at Category:Baseball statistics, you got a number of statisticians or analysts.  I suppose you could say sabermetricians.  A good number of them are employees of Baseball Prospectus.  It seems to me that should be a separate category.  If you agree, what's the best name for the category?  DandyDan2007 08:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball statisticians category? 

message: Most of the college football teams have a template at the bottom of their page with a link to each of the coaches' entries.  Could we do that with baseball teams and managers? Tomdaddy53 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manager templates 

message: I would like to impose a March 28 deadline on deciding how to do these.  March 28 is four days before the season starts, so I would like to get this part straightened out by then if possible.  Ksy92003 talk·contribs 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use coloured boxes, having the teams score first is unneccessery. --Borgardetalk 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. That's true. Thanks for pointing that out. I then personally go for colored boxes. Now, I actually think green and red are a bit too loud. What about white/dark grey instead, as shown above? And I'd like to add another plug for listing the pitchers' records. Tytrain 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/game log for the example that I have posted for April of the Minnesota Twins 2006 season.  If you've noticed that it looks a lot different, that is because the previous example listed there did not show wins/losses, and red/green was how I knew how to do them from working on the 2006-07 NHL season articles.  In my example, the "@" symbol is used to indicate road games, and no "@" is a home game.  Second, I don't think it's necessary to have the home team's score listed first and have the boxes shaded to indicate wins and losses.  It's redundant information to list it twice with two different formats.  I personally like the red and green because they are very different colors, not to mention they are complimentary colors and go well together because of that.Ksy92003 talk·contribs 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The example you linked me to looks fine. I would say that's what we go with with one modification: the addition of pitcher's records. Tytrain 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you feel that it's necessary to include the pitcher's records in these game logs?  Personally, I don't feel like they are needed.  I can't explain why, but it just doesn't seem like it's gonna do any use to list those there.  Please state your rationale behind wanting to include the pitcher's record in the game logs.  Ksy92003 talk·contribs 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to show win loss records because it shows progress through the season. Starters who are on the team the entire year will accumulate large win/loss totals, and this will make them jump out from the September call-ups/bullpen pitchers. It will also make it obvious when the team encounters a team that had a great year (losing to a 15-3 pitcher, for example) or when the team beat a weaker team (winning against a 1-9 pitcher, for example). I understand that this info is not crucial, but I feel it is appropraite for a game log, whose overall ideal is to show a season at a glance. I think win/loss records will add quite a bit to that. Tytrain 14:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadline

message: Okay, it's been a while since we've really had anybody comment about how to go about doing the game logs.  I think we can safely say that we have the format taken care of (Date / Opponent / Score / Win / Loss / Save / Attendance / Record) and that those are the headings that we are going to include in our game log table.  That said, I think we only have two items of discussion still ongoing.
:1) What colors should we use to indicate a win or loss: Green/Red or DarkGray/White?
:2) Should we include the pitchers records next to their names in the game log: Yes or No?
Please state your opinion and hopefully we can get a consensus.  Ksy92003 talk·contribs 16:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Green and red. 2. Show records. Tytrain 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To be consistent with season articles for other sports, I suggest using similar red/green (the lighter #ffdddd and #ddffdd) and displaying "W" or "L" before the score, especially if the team's score isn't always first.  You might also want to consider using a set of templates like , , and . —Mike 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Proposal

message: If nobody proposes any more ideas for this or states their opinion about the game logs, then we'll just have to go with whatever we have, which right now is Red/Green and pitcher's records.  During the season, we might be able to have another discussion about this and make the necessary changes, but we will only be able to take stuff out, not put stuff in.  Ksy92003 talk·contribs 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: Alright, our deadline has come and passed.  So, here is our final proposal.  Again, during the season we may remove some stuff from the game logs that we already have, but we may not add any information already included.  Here is our final proposal; this is what all of our game logs are gonna be modeled off of.
# 	Date   	Opponent	Score  	Win            	Loss          	Save      	Attendance	Record
79	June 30	Cubs    	6 - 2  	Garland (12-3) 	Marshall (6-6)	          	40,720    	52-27
80	July 1 	Cubs    	8 - 6  	Cotts (3-1)    	Dempster (1-4)	Jenks (19)	41,027    	53-27
81	July 2 	Cubs    	15 - 11	Zambrano (12-4)	Buehrle (10-6)	Howry (22)	40,919    	53-28
Ksy92003 talk·contribs 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadline's Passed

message: Moe Berg has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please help resolve the remaining citation tag on Moe Berg?  See the comments on the FAR link (above).  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moe Berg FAR

message: I proposed adding some additional optional sections to the season articles format page.  You can find the discussion here: /MLB team season articles format#Additional sections.  Comments are welcome.  —Mike 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sections for MLB team season articles format 

message: Hey everybody... be sure that your team's roster is updated prior to Opening Day.  Some of the teams have not finalized their rosters; make sure that your team's roster matches the roster on the team site prior to Opening Day.  I've already updated several of the rosters.  All of the teams should be finalizing their rosters this weekend. Tomdaddy53 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And while you are at it, please take a second to double check that links are going to the right page. Non-baseball folks will be quite confused to click on Milton Bradley and end up on a page about games. Thanks!--Kathy A. 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosters

message: I was thinking it may be useful to create a template that can be put on a gamelog if it falls behind on being updated.  Then all the gamelogs needing updated will be in one category and easy for someone to take care of before it falls 10+ games behind. ---CWY2190TC 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog

message: Jim Thorpe has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Miskwito 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim Thorpe FAR

message: I have put up an RFC here to decide how best to disambiguate baseball players (ie. using "(baseball)" or "(baseball player)". Your input is appreciated. Caknuck 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope of the RFC has been expanded into a draft proposal to create a naming convention for baseball players. Please review and add your comments, feedback and suggestions. Thanks, Caknuck 04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball player naming conventions

message: I'm cross-posting the following from the WP:WPBBP discussion page to try and get as much input as possible. If you have comments, please post them over there. Thanks, Sanfranman59 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <Minor League Team> players categories 

message: See discussion here: /2007_MLB_team_articles#Discussion_whether_to_keep_or_remove_player_stats.  --Holderca1 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player stats on season articles 

message: Are we allowed to copy and paste things straight from the baseball-reference.com bullpen? They use the same license we do. Just don't know if that means copy-edit, or copy-paste, etc. Any tips?--Borgardetalk 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest against it, as wikis shouldn't be regarded as reliable sources. If you can substantiate the information, go ahead (remembering to cite the sources as required). Also, using material licensed under the GFDL requires attribution, so it would be best not to C&P, if only to set a good precedent for editors who may not be conscientious enough to credit the Bullpen. Caknuck 04:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball reference bull pen 

message: Has there been any discussion or preferably a consensus reached about updating statistics in the infoboxes on player pages? I've got all of the Indians player pages on my watchlist and a couple of them have been updated with statistics from this season, but most have not. This is certainly a monumental task and seems to me to be unnecessary in an encyclopedia since there are ump-teen other more reliable sources for current statistics. The problem I have with it is that unless the statistics are updated for every player on a regular basis, the currency of the player pages will be uneven. I'm inclined to revert these in-season edits. Once the season is over, it makes perfect sense to update the infoboxes then. --Sanfranman59 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, statistics shouldn't be updated during the season. Wait until the season is over before updating. For instance, include "As of 2006", and then in the external link section include a link to current statistics. When a baseball player will play a game every day and multiply that by all the players on the team and then the league, that's a lot of statistics to be updating all the time, so at the end of the season with a link to current ones is my suggestion. --Borgardetalk 09:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating stats in baseball player articles 

message: There is a discussion going on in the Japanese baseball task force, about merged teams. Please provide input as it concerns baseball teams all around the world. --Borgardetalk 16:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged teams 

message: There are a lot of baseball articles about events in a specific year that need rating, and I'm looking for some input as to recommendations for judging their importance and quality.  Here are a few types:
* YEAR in Baseball (ex. 1900 in baseball)
* YEAR World Series (ex. 1903 World Series)
* YEAR Major League Baseball All-Star Game (ex. 1933 Major League Baseball All-Star Game)
* YEAR College World Series (ex. 1958 College World Series)
* YEAR AL/NL Championship Series (ex. 1969 National League Championship Series)
* YEAR AL/NL Division Series (ex. 2002 American League Division Series)
Is it appropriate to give each of these categories blanket ratings, or, for example are some World Series more important than others?  My opinions for importance ratings:
* YEAR in Baseball - High
* YEAR World Series - High
* YEAR Major League Baseball All-Star Game - Mid
* YEAR College World Series - Mid
* YEAR AL/NL Championship Series - Mid
* YEAR AL/NL Division Series - Mid
Any thoughts? Thanks for your input. - Mattingly23 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got it about right imho. I might be tempted to rate the two playoff series categories a little higher than the College WS and All-Star Game, but I don't think the latter should be rated as 'low'. --Sanfranman59 03:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe instead of what I wrote above, the solution is to rank 'in Baseball' and World Series Top, Championship & Divison High, All-Star and College Mid? - Mattingly23 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "top" should be left for articles that are only important to the actual topic of baseball, like shortstop and bunt. I think you pretty much got it in your first post.--Borgardetalk 04:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at  and I see that many of the 'in Baseball' articles are listed there and I think it makes sense.  There's no really way to assess an article that's a list of events, so I'm going to start assessing the 'in Baseball' articles as NA. The other yearly articles are actually articles, so those will need assessment.  - Mattingly23 13:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoops, I mistook Category:Year in Baseball for Year in Baseball articles.  I still think they should be rated NA, since they are more lists than anything else.  I'll hold off on rating the rest until I hear a response. - Mattingly23 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the division and championship series couldn't be considered high either, they are both important events of the season.--Borgardetalk 05:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason for rating the other post-season series lower than the World Series is that for the vast majority of baseball history (i.e. until 1969), the other series didn't exist. --Sanfranman59 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating yearly articles 

message: The article, Baseball, lost it's featured status a while ago. I was wondering, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive is inactive, if we start it up again and work on baseball as the first article? Thoughts? --Borgardetalk 05:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that Baseball definitely needs to be worked on, I think it's a monumental task to restart the project with.  I think it would help to get the project rolling to start with an article that may be a little less time consuming.  Personally, I would suggest beginning with Ty Cobb, which is already a Good Article and is full of citations.  However, if more people agree to restart the improvement drive and want to start with Baseball, I would be on board for that as well. - Mattingly23 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, Ty Cobb may be easier to start it with. I'm not too fussed either. --Borgardetalk 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be easier to start with Cobb (or another famous player), because we could then tap into the folks at WikiProject Biography to do assessments & peer reviews and to help improve the articles. After improving a few player bios,  we can move onto more daunting tasks, like fixing up baseball. Caknuck 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't we take a quick straw poll to see who would be interested in contributing to a revived AID. I, for one, would be in. If we can get a core of dedicated editors to sign on and get things started, then the drive should gain momentum as the current season progresses. Caknuck 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested as well, if we get the thing operating it should gain momentum like you said. --Borgardetalk 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball article 

message: Hi!  I would like to add to Wikipedia articles about each professional North American baseball league and team to Wikipedia, similar to the content included at the BR Bullpen (also wiki-based), but with more focus on encyclopedic content and with the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community.  I've spent a fair amount of time compiling a listing of all baseball leagues from about 1877 through today in the following categories:
* Major leagues
* Minor leagues (affiliated)
* Independent leagues
* Collegiate leagues
* "Other" leagues
Right now, I have about 365 leagues in my database.  They are listed, in alphabetical order, on my user page.
I've also compiled a listing of all baseball teams associated with the above leagues for the same time frame and have just under 5,000 teams.  They are listed on my user page as well.  This data also exists in an Excel spreadsheet so it can be sorted.
Obviously, this is a lot of data, but an interesting project for sure.  Much of it does not yet exist in Wikipedia, although many articles do exist for current leagues and teams.
The first thing I need to do is devise a page template for leagues and a page template for teams.  These templates would then be applied to all new articles AS WELL AS existing ones, so careful consideration of content, infoboxes, etc. is warranted.  I'd like some input from the community.  I only need a couple of people to help.  I've created a task force page, but no content appears there yet.  I can't do this alone!  Leave me a message on my talk page and let's build this together!!  --CPAScott 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help! 

message: Can we add categories for high school baseball and high school baseball venues? Jerry Uht Park in Erie, PA uses its park for minor league ball, but also hosts high school and college games. There are already categories for college baseball and college baseball venues, but I couldn't find anything for high schools. I think it would be useful to track the high school activities, which I'm sure are common. Let me know if I missed them somehow or if there is something I am supposed to do besides this to request that categories be established. Pat 10:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High school baseball and venues 

message: I drafted a page for them on a sports wiki (ArmchairGM.com) I run.  It's here.  You're welcome to fork it, with attribution, if you'd like. --DNL 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1986 New York Mets 

message: I've been working on fixing links to disambiguation pages - so that links go where they're supposed to - in this case on links to Record.  A lot of them are from the MLB player infobox on baseball player pages, e.g. Josh Beckett, where the editor has wikilinked the stat label Record, presumably so it fits in colour-wise with the other selected stats (?), but the link just goes to the disamb page, not to anywhere baseball-related.  This is also the case with Infobox asian baseball player, e.g. Pan Wei-lun.
Is there any way round this - if I de-link them your colour scheme gets upset, perhaps there's an appropriate baseball-related article to which they could be linked instead?  -  Struway 18:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "the colour scheme gets upset". I just removed the brackets from around 'record' on the Beckett page and it didn't affect the color scheme. In any case, I suggest that instead of using 'Record', we use the more descriptive label, Wins-Losses, as I did in the Jeremy Sowers article? --Sanfranman59 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, all I meant was that the colour of the word 'Record' obviously changed from blue to black if the brackets were removed, clearly that isn't important. If your Win-Loss label is generally acceptable then I'll use that. Thanks for your help. - Struway 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if the label I used on the Sowers article is generally acceptable or not. What do you think gang? --Sanfranman59 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox stat label "Record" disambiguation 

message: On the Detroit Tigers page there is an animated gif which someone had created, and it shows a tiger grabbing and chewing a baseball bat inside a circle marked "Detroit Tigers".  This image (), if one looks at the file summary, shows who created it, and the copyright claim, which states it was released into the public domain.  I had used this image on my own user page, as I am a fan of the Tigers.
However, upon checking with Ron Wade, an official with Detroit Tigers managment, this image is copyrighted by the Tigers, and it was used by the Tigers for their television broadcasting beginning in the early-1980's.  I was further told by Mr. Wade that any image or logo owned by the MLB is copyrighted, and permission must be granted for use apart from what they have specified.  This means unless specific permission has been granted to Wikipedia, there isn't a single baseball logo that is allowed here for any article on any team.
So, whoever are the powers that be in Wikipedia had better get to contacting MLB about getting permission, because they're not going to be happy with fair use.  Carajou 22:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of logos on wikipedia (Wikipedia:Logos) is considered fair use.  It doesn't matter if MLB is "happy" with it or not because we do have a right to use them if we have a legitimate claim of fair use.  However, the animated GIF that you show does not seem necessary to the Detroit Tigers article and should probably be removed. - Mattingly23 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what you're stating is Wikipedia does not have to get MLB's permission for the use of their logos and images?  Getting permission would not hurt at all, and it would cover a lot of legal problems.  Carajou 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on this issue but it is my understanding that if you can establish that you are using a copyrighted logo or image under fair use then Wikipedia does not need to get permission.  You could try to get permission if you'd like, however, MLB will not release the images under any free license so I'm not really sure what it would accomplish. I don't think Wikipedia is in danger of being sued by them, if that is your concern, because 1) Wikipedia is not making any money from using the images, and 2) MLB is not losing any money from Wikipedia using the images.  Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself can give their opinion.  - Mattingly23 18:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask the MLB teams to release their logos under GFDL or something similar, but I'm quite sure they won't.  Specific licensing to Wikipedia isn't helpful, because we reject that.  Where they fall under "fair use", they can be used, otherwise no dice. WilyD 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imo, this image doesn't meet #8 of WP:FU, as it doesn't contribute significantly to the general team article and serves only as decoration.  I doubt you want to discuss something as specific as TV advertising, which is probably what you need to justify this as clear fair use.  Talking to MLB about licensing would be futile, as I doubt they are interested in releasing rights to brand names/logo that they spend so much money on building up.  General team logos certainly still fall under fair use, as long as their used only when necessary.  As the Detroit Tigers article is now, the old-timey logos in the "Glory in '68" look like their only used for decorative purposes and probably don't meet fair use at the moment.  I'm sure you could work the text so that a couple logos could be useful, but most of the team articles don't do that.  Don't mean to be obnoxious or anything (and no, I don't think Wikipedia will be sued anytime soon by the MLB), but thats my reading into fair use in this situation.  Wickethewok 06:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To have a valid fair use claim for that image, you'd probably need to talk about either the specific ad campaign or the process behind the image's creation, something like that. It doesn't add anything significant beyond the main logo (which is in and of itself perfectly kosher for fair use purposes). Too bad, because it's neat, but we have to be fair to the rights-holders. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Baseball Team Logos...the bad news

message: #10 Milt Bocek should be removed from the list. Milt, my grandfather, passed away on 4/29/07 in a retirement home in Brookfield , IL. I would remove this myself, but I do not know enough about editing pages to do it with any confidence. Information of Milt Bocek can be confirmed by searching Google News.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottBocek (talk • contribs) 
*It's been amended. Thanks for letting us know, and sorry to hear about your loss. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update for [[List of oldest living Major League Baseball players]] 

message: Just a pair of reminders.
# When you write a new bio/stub for a MLB player, remember to add him to the list.
# When adding someone to the list, make sure that he's already played in the majors. (This is sometimes an issue with prospects who were added to the 40-man without receiving a callup, etc.)
-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Major League Baseball players]]

message: I put together a page in my user space (here) that compares the team color schemes used by MLB.com to those we use. (In case you're interested, the colors they use are identified in .css files for each team. Cleveland's is here.) For about half the teams, the colors are either identical or only subtly different than what we're using. For the other half, at least one of the colors is quite different. The latter group includes BAL, CWS, CIN, CLE, COL, DET, KC, LAA, LAD, OAK, PHI, SD, STL, TB and TOR. Personally, I prefer the page header colors (i.e. the last two columns in my table) MLB.com uses for CLE, DET, KC, LAA, PHI, SD and TOR.
I propose that we change the color schemes for at least these 7 teams. What do others think? --Sanfranman59 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors in player infoboxes and on roster pages 

message: Someone just added an infobox to Jim Eisenreich; I corrected the dashes on the date ranges to conform to WP:DASH.  Just pointing out that ndash is used on date ranges; you can find it under your reply screen when in edit mode.  Hyphen (-) is used to hyphenate words; ndash (–) is used to separate number and date ranges; mdash (—) is used as punctuation, for example, in place of a comma.  This are often misused in sports articles.  Thanks for improving Eisenreich!  Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A [[WP:MOS]] note 

message: An anonymous user has added this box to the pages of each of the players on the White Sox 2005 WS roster. I stumbled across it because I have Cliff Politte on my watchlist. Is this a new initiative? I'm guessing that it's not and am inclined to revert these edits. But I thought I ought to post the question here first so as not to step on any toes. --Sanfranman59 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's needed, a category would do the same job.--Borgardetalk 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 World Series Champion Chicago White Sox box 

message: I've listed several seemingly notable baseball-related individuals buried at Trinity Cemetery in Erie, Pennsylvania. I don't see a way to categorize the page to highlight the baseball information it contains. It is, after all, a cemetery article. But maybe someone from WikiProject Baseball can figure out a way to link the information? None of the individuals have a dedicated Wiki article. Greetings from Wikiproject Erie.Pat 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trinity Cemetery, Erie, PA 

message: Referring to the discussion above I have re-opened the article improvement drive in hope to see it start once again. If it doesn't work we'll just have to re-mark it as inactive. But for now, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive. I have also changed the votes to 2 to make it more realistic in nominations. I'll volunteer to organise this until it gets running properly. Feel free to nominate. I nominated Ty Cobb.--Borgardetalk 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the initiative to start it back up.  I supported Ty Cobb's nomination. - Mattingly23 13:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement drive 

message: Hello, I'm just seeking some opinions on Talk:Josh Hancock regarding Infobox color schemes of deceased players.  Please feel free to add your opinion and help to build consensus one way or the other. Thanks!  I am hoping to create a guideline for Baseball infoboxes of deceased persons based on the outcome of this debate. -- KirinX 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking opinions on baseball-related topic 

message: The content in the 1964 College World Series was copied from the Baseball-Reference.com Bullpen without attribution.  The Bullpen is a wiki site that allows copying, but only with attribution.  I suspect that other CWS results pages were likewise copied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.92.112.144 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes! So what do we do about this? Do we notify the editor who created these pages (User:Seancp) that this is a no-no? Do we tag the plagiarized pages for deletion? --Sanfranman59 00:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this needs to go to WP:CP, so I'll go ahead and list it now. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1964 CWS page Copied from the Baseball-Reference.com Bullpen 

message: Based on my experience at Talk:Chris Young (baseball pitcher) the player task force categories are not working yet. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Players task force cats not working 

message: Are we supposed to use 'yyyy in baseball' wikilinks in articles every time a year is mentioned (or at least the first time each year is mentioned in the article)? Personally, I'm not sure that I see the point, but it seems to be done with some regularity. For example, when the sentence is "Wedge was drafted by the Boston Red Sox in the third round of the 1989 amateur draft.", should I wikilink 1989 as 1989? While I'm at it, is this the appropriate way to wikilink the first-year player draft? --Sanfranman59 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? --Sanfranman59 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is correct. By the way, Template:BY is much easier. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 22:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yyyy in baseball wikilinks in player/coach/manager articles 

message: I'm going to start a major project relating to individual MLB seasons. Any help by anyone would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Soxrock 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do the same thing with the other seasons that you did with 1995 Major League Baseball season (i.e. copy everything from the 1995 in baseball article and add a few paragraphs of text summarizing the season), I think it's a waste of time and space. Why not just add your text to the 1995 in baseball article? --Sanfranman59 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Waste of time, these articles are carbon copies of the yyyy in baseball articles, also Soxrock thinks that his newly created articles will be used on all player infoboxs that will take years of work to change on all MLB players. MetsFan153 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with MetsFan and Sanfranman -- right now we really only need one yyyy in baseball page, not multiple.  If we do branch out, I would expect that the first branches would be yyyy in Japanese baseball, yyyy in minor league baseball, yyyy in Negro league baseball (for earlier years) etc. -- right now almost all of the yyyy in baseball articles are already yyyy in MLB.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  xxxx Major League Baseball season 

message: I'm still looking for sources for minor league players.  I posted about this before, but never really got an answer.
The baseball cube has a list of ballplayers who are alumni of University High School (LA) .  Unfortunately, they only have draft records and no info on whether or not they actually played.  This came up because someone added Damon Farmer with info about his career, and I have a feeling that the baseball cube's records are incomplete--that many of the players on the list did play--that they weren't just drafted and that was it.
But unless these people have wiki articles (which they don't), I need a source for both their attendance at the school and their notability.  the baseball cube gives me the former, but not the latter--I need sources for their actually playing in the minor leagues.  Can anyone help?
Also--there seem to be some professional women's baseball players who attended Uni as well.  Do you have notability standards for women ball players?
See the alumni list in question: List of notable alumni of University High School (Los Angeles, California) Miss Mondegreen  talk  01:40, May 26 2007 (UTC)
:Hi again, Miss M ... I think there's only limited information available online for historical minor league baseball information. The Baseball Archive has AAA stats from 1995–1998. Other than that, if you know what team or teams the guys played for, you might be able to find something at the teams' web sites. Sorry I can't be of more help. I was told by someone at The Baseball Cube that they're working on making their minor league data more complete, but I don't know any more details than that. Good luck. --Sanfranman59 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  still looking for notability sources 

message: The members of the Baseball Players Task Force have been discussing a set of naming conventions for baseball player articles. I have posted the draft copy here. Please feel free to discuss/propose changes at the talk page for the draft copy. Thanks, Caknuck 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions for baseball players

message: This article is quite inaccurate in that it says "the top 8 teams are given National Seeds which guarantees them home field advantage (provided they continue to win) throughout the tournament until the Women's College World Series."  This is completely untrue in that no team is "guaranteed" home field advantage.  A number of top 8 national seeds have been sent on the road.  One example is Texas A&M being sent to UMass in 2006 despite being given a national seed.  I can't really think of a better way to describe how home field advantage is gained through since it has quite a bit to do with how close other tournament teams are (regionality) and facilities.  If anyone else has a good knowledge of softball NCAA tournament play, and can phrase this better, I think it would be good.Gwright86 09:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the softball article to reflect the way the tournament was played in 2007.  Anyone better versed in the history of the softball tournament could add a "Past Formats" section like in the NCAA Division I Baseball Championship aricle.  Seancp 23:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NCAA Division I Softball Championship]] 

message: I'm interested in started a new task force for college baseball.  I was going to create a new project at first, but I feel that is unnecessary considering there is already a baseball project.  So how do I go about getting permission to start a college baseball task force?  Thanks for the help. Seancp 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one wants to help me? Seancp 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Sean, but I prefer to devote the time I have for WP to improving the articles about professional players and teams since I am much more familiar with these areas than I am with college baseball. College baseball is an awfully broad topic. I wonder if you might garner more interest if you proposed something a little more specific. What kind of priorities do you have in mind for this task force? --Sanfranman59 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My first goal would be to get all of the NCAA Division I tournaments documented.  I've already done a lot of that but there is still more to be done.  The 2007 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament is going on right now and we're busy keeping that updated.  My next goal would be to create articles for each school that warranted an article, for example, Miami Hurricanes baseball.  There are many schools with a great baseball history that hasn't been documented on wikipedia yet.  To go along with that, I'd like to see articles for the stadiums and head coaches of most major universities.  Really, what I'm looking for right now is a community workspace where myself and other contributors can communicate with each other and establish standards, set priorities, etc.  I figured a task force under this project would be best as it would require less overhead, but I have no problem with creating a new project.  I just wanted to see if anyone here was open to this idea.  Seancp 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a fine idea and I also think you've come to the right place to set it up. I wouldn't suggest creating a separate project. I think it makes sense for your effort to be a task force under the WP:WPBB umbrella, although I don't know the protocol for establishing a task force. One thing you might consider for recruiting other people is to check the histories of college baseball-related pages and see who's been making edits. Then you could post a note on each of their talk pages to see if they'd be interested in joining your task force. Just a thought. --Sanfranman59 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Task Force

message: I just want to call to attention that :Image:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg is being deleted. I am making a replacement svg image to replace the ball.++aviper2k7++ 05:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a place that uses the previous image that large, but the svg can be scaled to whatever. The template has the mit and glove in it now, I think it looks pretty slick as it is not a boxed image of a baseball and has a bit of shape.++aviper2k7++ 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the one with the gloves better than our previous one.--Jerry 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball image 

message: Can you guys here at this WikiProject please try to regulate these categories so they are only used on players that appeared in a major league game for the team, and not just spring training? I keep seeing these cats. pop up on players who just went to spring training for the team and never appeared in an official major league game. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I regularly patrol the roster lists and player categories, and remove those who have never played a game for the team. (People also like to add players who only played for the team's minor league organization). AWB is a big help in this, but it does take time to do -- anyone who wants to lend a hand is more than welcome.--Kathy A. 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to monitor this also, but it's almost impossible to stay completely on top of. If someone mistakenly adds a category to a player page, I leave a note on the editor's talk page (which, of course, often results in a disparaging, defensive comment on my talk page). We're doing the best we can. --Sanfranman59 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: xxxxxxx Team Players 

message: I have noticed a lot of pages like 1901 Baltimore Orioles season. Are these part of some WikiProject? Fbdave 19:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're encompassed under WikiProject Baseball. Also, some of the individual teams have WikiProjects, like the New York Yankees, so they would also be managed under the respective team's WikiProject. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season team pages 

message: I personally do not see a need for a listing of any starting rotation, since rotations are continuously changing due to injury and other circumstance, so I put it up for speedy deletion. There could possibly be others, but I don't know if any exist, but I simply don't see the value of such a thing.  DandyDan2007 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree that this template is superfluous. The team roster templates identify the current starting rotation for each team. --Sanfranman59 07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:2007 Chicago Cubs Starting Rotation]] up for deletion 

message: In the case of the Ty Cobb page, for example, MLB.com has to be cited, because certain other websites insist on posting private research figures for Cobb's career as if they were the official numbers, instead of posting the actual official figures shown on MLB.com. Baseball Bugs 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't remotely true.  Private research figures should be eschewed, but SABR publications are probably more reliable sources than MLB. WilyD 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Baseball Bugs, and am not sure where WilyD is coming from on this. Quadzilla99 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Baseball Bugs and Quadzilla, but am open to hearing more from Wily as to why he believes that his statement is true.--Epeefleche 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wily's argument would be that the private research is more reliable because it has been revisited by multiple pairs of eyes, as opposed to MLB's stats in which they basically decided, That's it, no investigation. From the pure data standpoint, the private research might be "more reliable", but the MLB stats are still the official stats. Thus, you can't favor private research over the MLB in writing about them. It's fair to acknowledge both. Baseball Bugs 00:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  As I discuss in my para entitled MLB.com up above, among other things Wiki policy specifically indicates that articles about any person "should link to the official site if any." Which I gather would be mlb.com.--Epeefleche 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it ain't, I don't know what is. :) Baseball Bugs 01:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLB.com 

message: I recently was able to get Happy Chandler promoted to good article, but the weakest section of the article deals with his time as commissioner of baseball. Would a member (or members) of this project like to help expand this section with an eye toward making the article FA-worthy? If so, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Acdixon 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also consider getting a peer review for the page. Those help weed out minor errors and things --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Chandler 

message: Though I'm not a member of the project, I noticed something that, as a baseball fan, piqued my interest. Earlier today, an editor changed the infobox on Rochester Red Wings from  to . I have no objections to this (IMO, the MiLB infobox, since it was apparently derived from the MLB box, looks much better than the former), but it seems redundant to have two infoboxes that perform the same task. From the looks of it, the number of transclusions to  is much higher than the number to , likely because the latter is relatively new. Which should be used? I prefer the latter, but mostly, I just wanted to bring this point up and let the project decide. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes on MiLB team pages 

message: Someone put a lot of effort making a nice 2007 Major League Baseball Draft article. However making articles for all the picks is just spending a lot of time writing garbage that will be delted, and rightly so. Being drafted does not make someone notable enough for an article. This should be elementary. For more discussion on the topic please visit the Talk page there, but I wanted to bring this to the attention of everyone here. Ekillian 05:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Major League Baseball draft 

message: *Hi.  Question.  Is it perfectly fine for me to place Nippon Professional Baseball teams along with MLB teams in the infobox?  I'm sure we're only supposed to list only Major League teams in them, but quite a few players I follow have experience in Japan...and I wonder if it's okay to list it in the infobox instead of leaving gap years.  Just a thought. -- transaspie 08:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned this issue over at WP:WPBBP (here), but there was no real discussion of it. I don't have any objection to including Japanese professional league teams in the infoboxes on MLB player pages. I think it's useful to know at a glance that a player spent time playing in Japan. However, I think it's equally important to include text in the article about the player's Japanese league experience. --Sanfranman59 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (a little late in the discussion): I am for it -- I think that professional experience at the top level of one of the world's important leagues is something that our readers will care about.  ESPN does (or did) list Ichiro's previous experience on his stats page. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese teams in infoboxes? 

message: As far as I can see, BR-Bullpen is a wiki. Are we considering this to be a reliable source? (I lean towards no on this). If not, does it have value as an external link?--Kathy A. 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  I would deem it unreliable for encyclopedic purposes UNLESS the information therein was pulled from an authoritative source.  Much of BR Bullpen's information comes from the Baseball Encyclopedia which would be authoritative. --CPAScott 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, wouldn't it be better to track down the source and cite it directly?--Kathy A. 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I agree.  I have used BR Bullpen as a "reference" in a few stub articles I've created here (defunct minor leagues such as Sophomore League, but cross-reference them with Mike McCann's page.  I consider that the risk of incorrect information on these topics is fairly small and, as a stub created, many will expand on what I start -- hopefully using more authoritative sources.  I can't quote Baseball Encyclopedia directly, 'cause I don't have a copy, but I trust that what information I pull from places like BR Bullpen is of low risk.  Anyway, an interesting discussion for sure. --CPAScott 18:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if this applies in this case, but Item 12 under "Links normally to be avoided" is "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I don't know if BR-Bullpen qualifies as an "open wiki", but if it does, this probably (in general) rules it out as an external link. --Sanfranman59 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP defines an open wiki as one open to the general public, without requiring registration. I just checked, and BR Bullpen does not require registration. Does it have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"? That's obviously open to interpretation, but after reading the discussion here, I'd definitely err on the side of not including it in the external links section (and definitely not the sources section).--Kathy A. 20:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Ron Liebman sockpuppet some of us dealt with once upon a time previously put his useless data in the bullpen.  This is all the convincing I need that it's not a legitimate source.  In rare occasions, it's a beneficial source...the problem is few people who write for the Bullpen cite them so I have to take them with a grain of salt, which is a problem when it's the only place I can find certain types of data.  And, as it is an open wiki without a lot of editors, it probably does exclude it from being a legitimate source.  It would only be useful if more of the articles were cited.  -- transaspie 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BR Bullpen should not be used as a source. First, because like us, it's a wiki, so anyone can change the info there. Second, there are zero sources in any articles, including main page ones. If it hadsources, we could use the ones used there to fix up the articles though.--Wizardman 14:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wizardman's right. BR Bullpen is a wiki, and is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. The stuff there is never sourced. However, you could use it as a reference for information, but you need to find a different source when you actually reference it in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Wizardman, Nishikid, CPA Scott, and Kathy say makes sense to me.  It appears to be a wiki.  Many of its pages do, btw, reference sources -- while others do not.  As pointed out, many people do not have access to Baseball Encyclopedia directly, but do to BR Bullpen -- and access is one thing that wikipedia does focus on.  I also wonder whether it has a "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" -- how do we check this (contact them?); and this would seem to be a relative judgment in any event.  I would guess that its number of editors will increase if it is mentioned as a link on more Wikipedia articles.  Thoughts on applying the history/number of editors test?--Epeefleche 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on BR-Bullpen as a source

message: I'm in the process of putting it back into order, but I would appreciate it if some people would help me with the upkeep. Leave a message on Portal talk:Baseball if you're interested. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Baseball]] 

message: We really need people who can speak French to edit the :fr:Projet:Baseball on the French Wikipedia. Most of the hall-of-famers and current stars like Justin Morneau and Torii Hunter do not have articles on there. If anyone is interest contact User talk:Mglovesfun. Mglovesfun 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you speak French? 

message: Hi,
I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but I was wondering if there has been any discussion of creating a "This Date in Baseball" box on the front page of the portal. Does anyone know about this, and would people like to do this? There are certainly plenty of places to find information like this.Msmays 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Date 

message: All four of the sites serve important and separate purposes. 
*mlb.com - Site contains official biographies and statistics, most reliable to-date season stats. 
*thebaseballcube.com - The best site for minor league statistics. (Admittedly, my familiarity with this site is morelimited than the other three.)
*baseball-reference.com - Most comprehensive and easily-accessible historical statistics. 
*fangraphs.com - I'm in favor of using this site in certain situations. Please see my explanation here. 
Thanks, Caknuck 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biographies were only mentioned by Caknuck above with regard to mlb.com.  Without even addressing your analysis, do you mean to suggest for a moment that we not include mlb.com?  The official site of mlb?  I pointed out weeks ago that Wiki policy specifically states that articles about any person "should link to the official site if any." If you are not suggesting that mlb.com not be included, what is the purpose of your comment? Miss M, this has been addressed, there is consensus for its inclusion, Wiki policy mandates it. I fail to see the need for any more discussion about mlb.com.   --Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first sentence makes sense.  As to the answer to your second sentence, it goes to Wiki policy, which provides that we "should" link sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail, "such as professional athlete statistics."  In addition, sites "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article."  Other considerations are whether the url is useful, informative, and factual.  I believe that the urls at issue here all meet these criteria.--Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See my above comment, which explains why it makes a good EL.  The formatting that we are referring to in baseball statistics is not how pretty the material looks, or choice of cute words, but accessabilty of data and ability to manipulate it.  If that has been rejected as a reason to include an EL, please point us to the citation.  It fits within the aforementioned Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your language in the above paragraphs, as in many of your contributions, is replete with your personal opinion of what editors "shouldn't" be going around doing, and "you need to," and "you shouldn't."  Ignoring for a moment the fact that one might mistake it for bossiness, which by itself would of course only be an irritant, I do believe that you are making up rules as you go along and speaking as an authority to try to sell your point of view.  If those statements are true, please quote the relevant wiki guidelines.  They will be of interest, and your point will be more easily appreciated.  If you are just expressing your opinion, please clarify that.--Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Caknuck's analysis of mlb, baseball reference, and baseball cube.  As for fangraphs, I contributed my thoughts on his thinking at the url that he directed us to above (yet another location at which Tecmo opened up the discussion we are seeking to address on this page).--Epeefleche 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My rationale

message: Just a heads-up that I've proposed modifying the "25/40-man roster" section of Major League Baseball transactions here. Thanks in advance for any and all feedback. --Sanfranman59 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit to 25/40-man roster section in [[Major League Baseball transactions]] 

message: You guys/gals should seperate all your team pages (like you've done with Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals). It cuts down on 'bloated' historic information about teams. It's how we do it at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey. Just my opinon. GoodDay 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a continuity in baseball that transcends cities. The one exception, splitting the Expos with the Nats, was done with a fair amount of debate, as it broke the pattern. It was pushed, as I recall, by fans of the Nats who wanted to separate themselves from the Expos. There could be an argument for when teams change their identities by changing their names, but with teams like the Dodgers, Giants, Braves, A's, etc., there is an implied continuity. And what do you do about the Seattle Pilots? Baseball Bugs 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pilots would be an exception (since they relocated after 1 season). However, I won't push things further. After all, each WikiProject has it's own critera (which I respect). GoodDay 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS- It's too bad that 1 of the MLB teams goes against the grain (in terms of merging), it's inconsistant. All your 30 teams should follow the WikiProject's consensus (no seperation). GoodDay 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was done right after the Expos moved, and maybe emotions were running high. It might be time to revisit that. I was also thinking that in terms of the NHL, a lot of teams changed names when they switched cities, as if to deliberately separate themselves from their past; Colorado Rockies (NHL) and New Jersey Devils, for example. For a comparison, though, check out Minneapolis Lakers, which redirects to Los Angeles Lakers. They're kind of like the Dodgers, in that, apart from L.A. "stealing" a team, they also continued a winning tradition. The St. Louis Browns and the Washington Senators abandoned losing traditions, but also the nicknames didn't make sense in the new cities, and Orioles and Twins did make sense. Not that Los Angeles has to dodge trolleys or has 10,000 lakes, but maybe you see what I'm getting at. :) Baseball Bugs 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully, someday (for consistancy sake) the Expos and Nats will be re-merged (though again as a primary Hockey editor, I'd recommend 'seperation' for 'all' MLB team pages). Anyways, goodluck on the Expos/Nationals situation. GoodDay 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that consistency should be the goal.  Rather, the decision of whether or not to have separate pages should be guided by the reality on the ground.  The Nats have explicitly repudiated their Montreal past, not even preserving the Expos' retired numbers.  For the Dodgers, to give an example on the other hand, the Brooklyn years are an integral part of team lore.  I think different solutions are appropriate for these different situations.  There is also the fact that the Expos-Nats move is the only one to have occurred less than 35 years ago, which is a legitimate reason that there is little demand for defunct teams other than the Expos to have pages.  --BlueMoonlet 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That puts wikipedia in the position of being a marketing arm for the team in question. It's a fact that the Expos and Nats are the same franchise, whether they like it or not. The Expos-Nats situation is a bit like the Baltimore Ravens, who "surrendered" their history to the expansion Cleveland Browns. That has a parallel to 1961, when the Twins were officially regarded as the "expansion" team, for P.R. reasons, and the new Senators (temporarily) absorbed the history of the old Senators. That situation was corrected in a few years, and the Twins now fully embrace their D.C. roots. They even gave out a Walter Johnson bobblehead doll once. Baseball Bugs 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the Browns-Ravens situation currently has the same solution as the Expos-Nats.  Rightly so, I think.  Organizational continuity does not necessarily imply entwined history, unless the successor franchise chooses to make it so.  --BlueMoonlet 16:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's crystal clear in the artcles that the two teams are the same franchise. One dilemma, if you separate the Dodgers, for example, is the "established" item in the infobox. Does it mean the "Atlanta Braves" were established in 1871, or is it that the "Braves" were established in 1871. (Never mind that Braves wasn't their nickname until 1912). Baseball Bugs 16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, but I think the current Nats, Expos, and Braves pages are quite clear on these points.  Don't you?  --BlueMoonlet 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like. Meanwhile, for wikipedia to blindly parrot the NFL company line dating the current (expansion) Cleveland Browns from 1946 is a blatant falsehood. Baseball Bugs 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to both Bugs and Dandy, I'd prefer some healthy editing to spinning off history sections when possible, because more people are likely to read the material if it stays in one piece.  It seems to me that articles get so long primarily because people get insanely detailed about modern history, not the old stuff (also, one-third of the Dodgers' page is taken up by the season-by-season record, which seems like it ought to be greatly condensed or moved to a side page).  The difference between the  Colonels or the original Orioles and (say) the Dodgers is that the former have no successor today.  The Dodgers article is not about baseball in Brooklyn or baseball in LA, but about the Dodgers organization, which has had a lot of continuity between the two places (O'Malley, Scully, Alston, Lasorda, Koufax, Snider, etc).  --BlueMoonlet 23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A somewhat-similar discussion has been going on at the New York Yankees talk page. I asked the editor to bring it here, as it's related, i.e. it's about the articles being too long. Baseball Bugs 05:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate Pages

message: This discussion kind-of started up a couple of sections, but it seems a good idea to give it a new start here.  Many MLB team articles are much longer than Wikipedia's recommended length of 40kb (it was recently pointed out that the Yankees article is 108kb!).  In my opinion, this is not so much of a problem as it might be.  If we were talking about 108kb of solid text, then that is most definitely too long.  But these team pages have accumulated quite a number of tables and infoboxes and endnotes and other assorted information, which add to the length in kb but not to the average reader's burden.  Personally, I think most of this information should stay on the main team pages, where it is most accessible.  The main exception is the "season-by-season record", which gets exceedingly long for the century-old teams and throws up a barrier against the casual reader getting to whatever comes after it.  Can't the record be put on a side page?  As for team histories, the pages I've seen are mostly all right, though some vigorous editing is needed to keep a concise historical perspective on recent events, rather than giving a detailed blow-by-blow account of each season.  That's my take on the topic.  Bugs?  Yankees fans?  --BlueMoonlet 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I look at it, the team history on the Yankees page does get a bit long and could use some editing.  Must we always archive this info on a "History of the Yankees" page that no one will look at, just because it's too painful to slim it down?  As a counter-example, I submit the Dodgers page, a team with hardly less tradition.  But there we hit the highlights and don't get bogged down in too many details (except in the section on the move, which I haven't gotten around to taking a hatchet to).  This is an encyclopedia, not a library.  --BlueMoonlet 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Do I just add my name to the list, or are there other things I have to do. --HPJoker 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the usual proceedure on most other Wikiprojects. - BillCJ 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining wikiproject baseball. 

message: I have restarted a discussion on including dates in the MLB division standings templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles#Standings dates (again). Please chime in, whatever your views on this issue. - BillCJ 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates on division standings

message: I created an article for Town Team Baseball (Minnesota), and because I know that town team baseball exists in other states, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have a parent article.  I also would like to tie this in with the baseball project, but don't know how to proceed.  Somebody want to advise me? Spottacus 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur Baseball 

message: Thanks to a tip by User:Miss Mondegreen, I learned of a reprint of Ernest Lanigan's pioneering 1922 book, the Baseball Cyclopedia, which I ordered from McFarland Publishers  and which arrived today. Lanigan was the original "Figger Filbert", and the record books and encyclopedias that came afterward built on his work. Baseball Bugs 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball Cyclopedia 

message: The Babe Ruth article was completely replaced by a much older version on June 30, with the cryptic edit summary "rv to last good version" by User:Mr Monty Marbles. This older version has a dozen dead image links and not one single in-line citation. To compare with last pre-replacement version, click here. I for one find this objectionable and have proposed reversion by consensus on the article's talk page. Because of the importance of Babe Ruth to baseball, I thought it would be a good idea to bring this to the attention of the Baseball Project members, as well. JGHowes talk -  05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the editor in question didn't bother to give the version number or date of where it came from, I have to take that as a malicious edit that should be re-reverted. Then the changes over the last 5 days should be reviewed, to see if any of them still work. The sad part is that this blatant act slipped by everyone who was watching the page. Baseball Bugs 12:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Near as I can tell, it goes back to a version from about a year ago. I recognized some of my own long-since-replaced verbiage. It should be reverted as I noted above, especially if the editor in question doesn't answer my question as to which version he reverted from. It's worth mentioning that I had stopped watching that page as part of trying to minimize contact with the now-blocked user Tecmobowl... the gift that keeps on giving... otherwise I would have caught it when it happened. Baseball Bugs 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back to just before Mr Monty Marbles made his malicious reversion, and made what changes I could. I asked one editor to review his changes, and it looks like he's working on it. I'm watching the page again, so like Barney Fife, I can "nip it in the bud" if it happens again. I also contacted an admin about the situation. Baseball Bugs 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of Babe Ruth article 

message: ...does not work. Its intent is to look up the player's page on the Hall of Fame website.  However, they are listed by an ID rather than by player name. For example, the posted link to Sparky Anderson  takes you to a default "I can't find it" page. The actual page for Sparky is playerId=110238. Baseball Bugs 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:BrOnXbOmBr21 notes the same thing over at WP:WPBBP (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players#Fixing the use of Template:Bbhof here) and proposes a solution. To date, no one has commented. --Sanfranman59 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last I looked, someone is going through and correcting them one by one. Baseball Bugs 05:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall of Fame template... 

message: I've created a template  and started cleaning up some of these articles. I was hoping to get some input on how to organize these articles. Right now, I have "history", "throwing mechanics", "uses", and "professional practitioners" as the standard headings as seen in slider. I don't like the wording of "professional practitioners" but I do not know what to change it to. I'm also planning on giving the different fastballs there own articles since the other specific types of pitches have their own articles. Basar 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to take a lot of work, because almost all of those articles have little sources and contain high amounts of original research. Nice template though. I did a quick scan and removed some blatant obvious things that needed to be removed. Maybe I'll chose a pitch and clean it up if I find sources.++aviper2k7++ 02:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check that, I'm cleaning up slurve, so nobody work on it in the next half hour please.++aviper2k7++ 02:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, there isn't much available online about slurve, but I turned the POV and OR article into a nice stub.++aviper2k7++ 03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work cleaning up those articles. They sure are some of the worst articles I've seen as far as OR and unsourced statements go. Hopefully, the ball is now rolling, and this article set will look good. Basar 06:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to clean-up the slider next. Man, I really could use a book on this because there isn't much available. But having a stub is much better than a piss poor article with a lot of original research.++aviper2k7++ 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I found almost no reliable sources when trying to help sinker (baseball). It would be nice if we could find somethings. What do you think about the "professional practitioners" section? Do you think we should have one, and if so, what kinds of things do you think would be helpful to say? I think these kinds of sections are always a little difficult. Basar 07:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever decent stuff you can find, add. I'm not sure if I would add major throwers, because then editors would just add their favorite pitchers and the list would become endless (which was happening). But if you can write about players who rely on the pitch and have great success with it and have a source for it, that could be included. I'm thinking of Ben Sheets' 88mph curve ball. I cleaned up slider. It's a pretty stub now. And I think I'm going to take a picture of my hand with the ball and trace it in inkscape so we have some images.++aviper2k7++ 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, sorry, but apparently Wikipedia has two non-pitchers writing about pitching. It looks great though, good work. Basar 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might be a good thing so I can keep original research out. I updated the picture a little bit. I can remove the arrows if they're too much.++aviper2k7++ 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball pitches 

message: Whoever decided to put team colors in the player infoboxes created a minefield of POV-pushing. There is the ongoing battle over Reggie Jackson, for example. There is some debate over Nolan Ryan. There is also the idiotic attempts to attach Casey Stengel to the Mets colors, despite the fact that Casey's greatest achievements were with the Yankees, as well as the fact that he's wearing a Yankees cap on his Hall of Fame plaque (like Reggie). The bottom line is that posting team colors puts wikipedia in the position of "deciding" which team a multi-team player is most-associated with. It's easy for one-team or mostly-one-team players. But many prominent players have played on multiple teams. The team colors are cute and pretty but they are merely decorative and are inherently problematic. Baseball Bugs 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're suggesting that we get rid of colors altogether from baseball perssonnel pages, it seems like overkill to me. Since they're only problematic for retired personnel, why not just eliminate them from these pages? There's nothing wrong with making WP pages more aesthetically pleasing. --Sanfranman59 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would prefer there be a way (if there isn't already) to have multiple color sets. Then Stengel could have his Yankee navy blue and his Mets bright blue and orange, and everyone would be happy. Maybe. Baseball Bugs 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another problem is which colors to use? They've got Nolan Ryan in the Angels current bright red. During Ryan's years with the Angels, the red was a bit less bright and was also offset by a fairly dark blue. It's only in recent years that the Angels have gone to nearly all-red. I see your point, though. Presumably the colors are to identify the current team of a current player. Obviously, there would be little or no debate about that. Once they retire, if they were associated with more than one team (which is often the case), trying to decide which one to use adds up to POV-pushing. Ryan, for example, arguably might have had his "best" years with the Angels, but he had more years with the 'Stros, he won his only World Series ring while with the Mets, and he's wearing the Texas Rangers' "T" on his Hall of Fame plaque. Baseball Bugs 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another example is Hippo Vaughn, whose infobox is in modern Cubbie bright blue and red. During Vaughn's years with the Cubs (1913-1921) the colors were either dark blue alone, or dark blue with a dash of a darker red than they use now. Someone had suggested that the colors should only be used with current players. I'm inclined to agree with that. Baseball Bugs 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Colors]] 

message: I've noticed we have articles going back to the 2004 Major League Baseball Draft.  Perhaps we should work on doing, slowly, articles on the older drafts as well?  It could be helpful for comparing the careers of players, etc. matt91486 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something that we should definitely do. I've always had to leave draft pages as redlinks in articles I'm working on. Draft pages can be easily created, so it shouldn't be that big of a hassle. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look at 2006 NFL Draft and so-forth because about five of them are featured.++aviper2k7++ 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft Articles

message: I am hoping we can create some guidelines on baseball lists. Yesterday, I spent some time creating List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases after I thought I exhaustively searched for any potentially redundant articles and found none. Today, I found List of Major League Baseball players with 500 stolen bases. It wasn't listed in the lists category, it wasn't linked in the logical places like stolen base, and I must have missed it in a search. If you look in :Category:Baseball lists, you'll find the naming conventions are varied. I am proposing we use a naming convention of "List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stat", "List of Major League Baseball stat champions", "List of Major League Baseball leaders in single-season stat", and other logical permutations. I also propose we strike all of the articles that list the players over a certain amount of stat like the 600 home run club. Not only is it redundant with the 500 home run club, but it is also redundant with the career leaders list. I think we should also specify the table formating standards and whether we use bold or some other designation for active players. Basar 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal makes sense to me. The table you've built for career SB leaders looks fine. I suggest adding a "Years played" column. I don't particularly care for the career leaders tables with the list of teams for each player. Otoh, I think it's a good idea to include "Team" in the single-season leader tables. What's the difference between "List of Major League Baseball stat champions" and "List of Major League Baseball leaders in single-season stat"? --Sanfranman59 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I looked over the list category, I observed several of the champion type. They are lists of the champion for every year whereas the single-season would list the best seasons, regardless of when they occurred. Basar 00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some of this to the main project page. I don't know about the years played column, it seems like a record is a record. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Basar 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for lists 

message: I want to submit both Ted Radcliffe and Steve Dalkowski to WP:FAR.  Do people agree that these articles are so substandard with respect to FA-class citation standards that they reflect poorly on WP:MLB for claiming them as WP:FA articles?  --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think New York Yankees should be sent to WP:GA/R. It has a lot of citations but huge major sections have no citations.  Without comment I will proceed with these actions. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those are reasonable steps to take. Ted Radcliffe seems to have acceptable citation using a hidden system though. Both haven't been touched in the two years since FAC do not use infoboxes. They are both a little on the short side, but Radcliffe seems to be fairly comprehensive to me, although I only skimmed it. Interestingly, it appears that Radcliffe has never made it to the main page. Basar 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: Can anyone shed light on why we have celebrity fan sections on MLB team pages?  This seems more like it would belong in People or Us than on an encyclopedic entry.  I have found this on a couple, such as for the San Francisco Giants and the New York Yankees. Entirelybs 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it on the Cubs and White Sox from time to time, and it probably turns up elsewhere. It's really questionable stuff. First, you're right, it's Us or People magazine kinds of stuff. It's also hard to source and it also compels wikipedia editors to decide how much of a celebrity someone has to be to qualify. In short, lose it. :) Baseball Bugs 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the first one because it was an unsourced and trivial list. I'll wait for another opinion on the second one because it has some sources in it.++aviper2k7++ 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What value does that kind of information add to a team's article? Baseball Bugs 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I wouldn't personally put this type of thing in team articles, I don't see any harm in it as long as it's sourced (which, in my experience, is a pretty rare event in baseball-related articles in general). Finding sources for this type of info could be challenging, but even a relatively uninformed person about pop culture such as yours truly knows the team allegiances of celebs like Jack Nicholson, Billy Crystal, Ben Affleck, Bill Murray, Jim Belushi and Tom Selleck. --Sanfranman59 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the New York Mets page has a page linked from their 'See Also' section to a list of celebrity fans.  I wonder if this is an acceptable alternative? Entirelybs 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That approach seems reasonable to me except for the fact that it's almost completely unsourced (surprise, surprise). --Sanfranman59 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, certain ones are easily verifiable. Jack Nicholson is frequently shown at his high-priced-but-he-can-afford-it courtside seat at Lakers games. Bill Murray is well-known for being a Cubs fan and for his interest in sports in general. Those other names are also easily verifiable. The trouble gets to be when someone "adopts" a team for P.R. reasons and is not really a fan but could get a mention here anyway. It's potentially a POV mine field. But it's also mostly harmless, it just adds nothing much, or at all, to an article. Nicholson's presence at Lakers games is notable because he's so visible, at all the games (although his summer vacations have been longer in recent years). He's not there just to be "seen", although the publicity doesn't hurt, either. Baseball Bugs 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  celebrity fan section? 

message: Sorry I may seem a little scared about the event that it happens, but can you assure me that, in the event that articles like 1921 New York Yankees season are put up for deletion that you will vote keep simply because they are notable and that it's hard work? Thanks Soxrock 11:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual season articles

message: Currently, even when there are no suspended players in an organization, the Suspended list category remains under which says "Currently vacant." Too me, this feels a little negative. Why would you just have a Suspended list on the roster page if it doesn't need to be used right now? Could you imagine an official MLB or NFL website having a blank Suspended list "just in case"? I just think it's kind of negative to ALWAYS have one on every roster whether it's being used or not. What does everyone else think?►Chris Nelson 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other. But I think it may be useful to keep the heading so editors know where to enter suspended players when the need arises. It happens often enough that I think it's warranted (as opposed to having a permanent "Bereavement list" heading, for example, that isn't used all that often). --Sanfranman59 20:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the usages of the bereavement lists and bereavement lists are entirely different. I can think of a handful of players off the top of my head that have been on the bereavement list this year. Fick, Floyd, Chulk, etc.►Chris Nelson 20:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just using today as a random sample, there are 5 players on suspension and only one on bereavement. I think that's pretty typical, although I think it's probably common that there's no one on bereavement. --Sanfranman59 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I think your argument about the frequency of it works against you. You're saying keep the Suspended list so people know where to put them. But since it happens more often, people are more likely to know where to put them. Whereas with the bereavement list, it is less frequent and therefore more people won't know what to do with them when it happens.►Chris Nelson 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really agree with that logic, but as I said, I don't care one way or the other. If you want to remove the heading, it's ok by me. --Sanfranman59 21:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Something I was thinking about, since I saw the heading used on the Mets roster earlier this season when Mota was suspended, is using the heading "Restricted list". This way, players suspended under the drug policy and players on the bereavement list can be put together. Players for a short time, such as after an ejection, should not be put on the "suspended list" because they are still part of the 25-man roster, and therefore cannot be replaced by another player. In those cases, maybe the player could remain on the 25-man roster section while also being on the other "list", as an acceptable option. bmitchelf•T•F 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspended lists on roster templates

message: We should probably create standards for showing career statistics. I think the following code formatting should be chosen:

Year	Age	Team	Lg	W	
 L	G	GS	! CG	SHO	GF	! SV	IP  	H 	! R	ER	HR	
BB	SO	HBP	
WP	BFP	
IBB	BK	
ERA	*lgERA	WHIP
2004	25 	TEX 	AL	3	2	7	7 	0   	0  	0 	0   	36.3	36	21 	19	7 	10	27	2  	1	158	0	0 	4.71	5.05  	1.266

which shows:
Year  	Age	Team	Lg  	W 	L 	G 	GS	CG	SHO	GF	SV	IP   	H  	R  	ER 	HR	BB 	SO 	HBP	WP	BFP 	IBB	BK	ERA 	*lgERA	WHIP
2004  	25 	TEX 	AL  	3 	2 	7 	7 	0 	0  	0 	0 	36.3 	36 	21 	19 	7 	10 	27 	2  	1 	158 	0  	0 	4.71	5.05  	1.266
2005  	26 	TEX 	AL  	12	7 	31	31	0 	0  	0 	0 	164.7	162	84 	78 	19	45 	137	7  	3 	700 	2  	0 	4.26	4.49  	1.257
2006  	27 	SD  	NL  	11	5 	31	31	0 	0  	0 	0 	179.3	134	72 	69 	28	69 	164	6  	6 	735 	4  	1 	3.46	4.22  	1.132
2007  	28 	SD  	NL  	8 	3 	17	17	0 	0  	0 	0 	103.7	74 	29 	23 	3 	36 	99 	4  	3 	421 	0  	3 	2.00	4.03  	1.061
Career	   	    	.667	34	17	86	86	0 	0  	0 	0 	484.0	406	206	189	57	160	427	19 	13	2014	6  	4 	3.51	4.34  	1.169
Statistics accurate through July 9, 2007
I don't have much of an opinion on which stats should be shown or which ones should be used for hitters, although I'm not too fond of lgERA, I don't think it is all that common, but I know it's useful. I think we should use the standard baseball convention of 8.2 innings meaning 8 and 2/3. I think this is the formatting I've seen on all baseball sites. Although I know many will disagree, but I think we should simply say "in progress" for current year statistics. I don't think it is Wikipedia's nature to provide readers with continually updated statistics as they change daily. I simply do not think it is what Wikipedia is meant for, and I think stat sites are there for that. Not to mention that it would be a huge amount of work to keep all baseball players pages updates on a regular basis. Not even baseballcube updates stats in mid season. Reporting for whole years would make the articles more stable. I don't think we need to link year and age. We should also define when age takes place and make it a note at the bottom of the page; is the beginning of the season standard? Should we link the years to "200X baseball season"? Basar 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to ask about the significant digits on WHIP too. Basar 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a "figger filbert", so it's not really my place... but why let that stop me? :) I'm just wondering why some (though not nearly all) player pages try to painstakingly repeat player year-by-year stats, when that info is readily available elsewhere, for example the official stats at MLB.com and also the privately researched stats at Baseball-Reference. I can see having a career line, but year-by-year is not only redundant, it runs the risk of errors cropping up... unless it's lifted directly from one of the other stats pages, in which case it's possibly a copyright violation. Baseball Bugs 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bugs.  I never trust any table of numbers I find on Wikipedia, because it is too easy for vandalism to go undetected.  Leave that business to the external links.  --BlueMoonlet 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The vandalism argument is even stronger than the mistake argument. Let's say you're watching a page and see that an IP address has changed a number. Now, unless you've got all of the guy's stats for 20 years committed to memory, you'll have to trudge over to one of the other sites and see if the change was a legitimate correction (possibly) or just messing around (more likely). And if he's changed a bunch of numbers, you've just lost an hour or two of your precious bodily fluids, er, your valuable time. Baseball Bugs 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we should cut stats sections down to career stats only? I would be OK with that. Basar 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objection to making the guideline career stats only. In the articles I've worked on, I've never added year-by-year stats, although I've been known to include college, minor league and major league totals. --Sanfranman59 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I must confess to being a "figger filbert". In fact, I'm a statistician by trade. But given how statistically oriented baseball is, I don't see how we can completely exclude statistics tables from the articles. In my mind, a table of numbers is much more effective at telling a statistical story than a paragraph of text. OTOH, the points Bugs and BlueMoonlet make about errors and vandalism are good ones. However, I don't think identifying and reverting vandalism is as onerous a task as Bugs makes it seem. It's really just a few mouse clicks and if it's clear that a vandal has screwed up a bunch of numbers, all you need to do is click the undo link to fix the problem. That said, if I want accurate player stats, I would never rely on WP articles. --Sanfranman59 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way to simply display a page from another source within a wikipedia page without (1) causing programming headaches and (2) grossly violating copyright? Baseball Bugs 01:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Basar 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm no expert on these types of things at WP, but it doesn't seem to me that comments from just four people is enough to approve a change to the guidelines. Unfortunately, people who are active baseball article editors don't always pay much attention to this talk page (or at least they don't post comments). When I initiated the process to standardize the MLB team roster pages, I posted a message on the talk page of every user who had recently edited one of the old roster pages asking them to come here and comment on my proposal. It worked out well. Perhaps you should do the same in this case (you could use the project's participant list)? I know it's kind of a pain, but I think it's important to get buy-in for something like this from more than just the four of us who have commented here. I'd be happy to help you with posting the message on the users' talk pages if you wish. --Sanfranman59 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career statistics guidelines 

message: The categorization of players such as Edwin Jackson and Glenn Hubbard (who were born at overseas US military installations) as foreign is incorrect. I suggest that all Americans born overseas as dependents to US military member parents be correctly listed as Americans before anything else. --John 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation(s)?  --Epeefleche 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The broader question needs to be, what is the purpose of putting the little flags next to everyone's name? The answer to that question should drive the rest of the discussion. Baseball Bugs 02:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should use that template for baseball. The flag template is useful for the Olympics and other international competitions, but I don't think it relays essential information in this context because MLB teams are not divided by nationality. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I think they are helpful and not at all confusing when used in roster or list-type format.  Just my $.02. - Masonpatriot 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is its specific purpose? How do you resolve the original question in this section? Baseball Bugs 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player nationalities 

message: I attempted to clarify the difference between opponents batting average and hits per nine innings.  Editorial review would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing  review 

message: You might be interested in . If this succeeds, as it may, :Category:500 home run club, :Category:30-30 club, :Category:600 home run club, :Category:700 home run club etc are very likely to be nominated for deletion next. Johnbod 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 500 HR and 30-30 are both oft-cited and used milestones.  500 HR used to be an automatic HOF milestone and many many sources have said so.  I'd agree with deleting 600 and 700 HR.  When do you ever hear of a 700 HR club?  I never have - it's only three people.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is the big one for soccer, so the equivalent of 500 or 30-30 I suppose,and there aren't any comparable 50 or 200 cats.  Johnbod 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to take your word for that.  The references on the List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps article don't make too big a deal about the 100 cap milestone.  If I'm not mistaken, entire books have been written about the 500-home run club.  30-30 is less revered, esp. since the advent of the 40-40 club, but still gets pretty good coverage.  Cap is apparently equivalent to games played?  If so, I can see why 100 caps is not a particularly well known milestone.  I'd have no idea about the baseball equivalent off the top of my head.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, it's TOTALLY well-known outside North America! I had never heard of 500 home-runs as a landmark until I went looking for similar cats, and still have no comprehension of what a 30-30 might consist of.  Have you looked at the CfD? The same "arbitary number" arguments will be used against 500. Johnbod 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you can win a reliable source battle, I'll withdraw my delete vote.  A home run is at least an accoplishment more equivalent to a goal.  Cap is apparently just someone who shows up.  There's no 2,500 games played club in baseball and I'd vote to delete such a category if it were created. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just happens to be the major landmark statistic in an international soccer career. It is 100 international matches played so obviously has no equivalent in baseball or US football. If this is deleted I will be voting for all baseball (and other sports) round-number categories to go for consistency. Johnbod 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and for the ones I want to keep, I'll be mentioning the above edit in rebuttal.  You should be mentioning references and precedents for the 100 cap milestone instead of thinly-veiled threats of retribution votes. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not retribution but consistency. I am voting against this proposal, but if it goes, so should all similar ones. Johnbod 02:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not me feeding their fire, but Wknight94, who has !voted to delete. We shall see. Johnbod 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *He's not saying he's going to go on a delete spree. He's trying to judge the template on its merits, which is the way all votes on AfDs should be done. - BillCJ 16:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD on "arbitary" career landmarks.  

message: Major League Baseball on the radio was a DYK a few hours ago. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to let all of you know 

message: I've tried to edit the punctuation in the notability section so it's rendered in proper English, but I'm stymied by the fact that one sentence is poorly written. This could lead someone with moderate English skills to think that only players for teams located in the US and Japan (and nowhere else) are notable. I don't mind changing bad or confusing punctuation, but substantive changes should be discussed, so: If your intent is to allow articles on professional baseball players from other countries, I suggest you rewrite that part of the section to say:
That way you avoid mistaken accusations of bias and your guideline is clearer.  --Charlene 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be worded that a minor league player can be notable if there are enough reliable sources on him. It's what Wikipedia Notability says.++aviper2k7++ 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree w/aviper as to minor leaguers.  Would also suggest that a ballplayer is a "who," not a "that."  Tx for addressing.--Epeefleche 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented this. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking better!  Another English point ... I believe that the phrase "their" should properly be replaced by either "his," or, if this is not deemed politically correct enough, the more cumbersome "his or her."  You can also delete the second mention of "players" in the third line, as it adds nothing to the sentence that remains if it is taken out.  Also, in the last sentence, rather than "are" ... don't you mean "may also be," or "may also be in accordance with the above guidelines?"  Then again, you could always fold them into the first sentence ...--Epeefleche 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English problems