Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 4

message: I notice above that there was a big movement to shriink the succession boexes.  I have noticed that some of them were done incorrectly. I have noticed that both the Sandy Koufax and Barry Bonds succession boxes were not closed correctly.  I do not know how widespread this problem is but I had to make the following edits to correct these problems:  and .
Since the problem edits   were by different individuals, I do not know how widespread the problem is.  Please check tht you have closed all your succession boxes properly. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tecmobowl went through and removed a lot of the succession boxes for some of the top players as he ran roughshod through a number of article (prior to his ban).  I have been trying to replace them and correct some of the edits as well as I have gone through doing other edits.  - Masonpatriot 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And his latest sockpuppet, User:Long levi, was blocked today, so it's safe to go back into the wiki-waters again. Baseball Bugs 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mason -- thanks for that.  I believe Longlevi (one of his socks) did the same.--Epeefleche 03:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box glitches 

message: You may want to visit Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/All-Star Final Vote to participate in the discussion of our latest featured content candidate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  19:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been promoted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[All-Star Final Vote]] featured list candidate 

message: Firstly, you're right about the id from the baseball-reference.com template being transcluded into the new template. My bad there. But now that's been settled, take a look a few things that will happen if and when we redirect the templates: 
*For a basic retired Major Leaguer like Joe Azcue (I picked the first guy from :Category:Milwaukee Brewers players that used ), the five external links generated by the template will be: 
*#MLB - Only one of the results on this search page have anything to do with Azcue, and all it is is a list of anybody who played with the Brewers.
*#ESPN - This is just a placeholder page ESPN has for many former Major Leaguers. There isn't anything of use here that isn't duplicated in the other ELs. (I'm particularly fond of "Joe Azcue has not been involved in any transactions this season" Of course not, he's 68 years old.) 
*#Baseball-reference Good link for subject. Again, the id parameter survived the redirect, about which I was originally mistaken. 
*#Fangraphs Goes to the search page, which returns the result for the subject. OK link. 
*#Baseball Cube Link to the home page of the site. This is of little use to the casual reader looking for information on Azcue.
::The end result is one direct link to useful information about the subject which was already contained on the article prior to the redirect), one link to a page that links to useful information about the subject, a link to a placeholder page that contains nothing of use; a link to a page of search terms with marginal relevance to the subject and a link to the front page of a site that likely has information about the subject, but the reader would have to enter it in manually.
*Now let's look at something more complex: Jeff Robinson (starting pitcher) picked because of the complex disambiguation problem)...
*#MLB - No relevant search terms to either of the Jeff Robinsons who played in the bigs. 
*#ESPN "Search: Jeff Robinson (starting pitcher) No players matched your search criteria." Nothing more needs to be said here. 
*#Baseball-reference Again, the correct link for the subject.
*#Fangraphs "No Results Found - Please Search Again"
*#Baseball Cube See above for comment. 
::Now we're in a situation where only one of the five links has any validity. Assuming that at least a hundred of the 3500+ articles that transclude  use parenthetical disambiguators or accented letters, that's several hundred bum links we're inserting into articles with no net gain in useful information for the novice user. People will have a problem with this. 
*Finally, let's look at a popular current player like Albert Pujols (picked because of the thoroughness of the "External Links" section):
*#MLB All the search terms are relevant, but the MLB profile page contains more current news links for the player, plus the biographical info and stats. 
*#ESPN Correct link for subject.
*#Baseball-reference Correct link for subject. 
*#Fangraphs Link goes to search page for subject. A more direct link already exists in the article, which would require two extra clicks from the template link. 
*#Baseball Cube Link to site home page. The correct link to the player's Baseball Cube page already exists in the article.  
::The danger here is editors who try to clean up the "External Links" section will see the template and may not realize that the links therein may not be as good as the ones already in the article. This may lead to the unnecessary removal of correct links in favor of those that less relevant (MLB) or require extra mouse clicks (MLB, Fangraphs) and/or data entry Baseball Cube) than the extant links on the page. I'm afraid that this could wind up a net minus in useful information in the articles. 
In short, I think that there are too many problems with the template in its current form and too little immediate gain to justify a redirect from . And considering the unwanted negative light that the previous EL arguments shone on this project, making changes with several glaring flaws would be a very bad idea. 
On a more positive note, I still think that the template has tons of inherent value, but to implement with as little friction as possible would require one of two approaches:
:a) Add the template to articles manually. If several dedicated editors -- and I'll be the first to volunteer -- set about it, it wouldn't take that long. Besides, the manual correction of all of the bad links will take just as much time, longer if you consider the extra time needed to hunt down which articles needed fixing. 
:b) Set the default condition of =no to all of the parameters except baseball-reference, then redirect. That way the template could be implemented at once, but without the distraction of a slew of bad links. (Again, this will still require the manual addition of the template to include the correct id's for the other sites. Plus, there's still several hundreds of articles that don't use . Regardless of the way we go about it, it'll take a lot of thankless work.)
I hope this makes some sense to people... Caknuck 07:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know what the implications are -- it must have taken you awhile to write that. Well, since at this point our arguments are just based on a subjective feeling of what the added or subtracted value is of varying types of links are, and since we don't have any other community input to form a consensus, I am willing to acquiesce to your position (b) since your arguments are at least reasonable, although I still think mine are stronger. (b) has some positive aspects, and it is what I was planning on proposing if we couldn't reach another agreement. The template becomes relatively simple in this case. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 07:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi there. Sorry Basar, but I like Caknuk's argument better. I mean, Caknuk's right, if you go through with your proposal, it coild take a long time to cleanup all the articles. And I do have a lot going on for me already, so I couldn't just do it in a week even if I tried. Neither could anyone. So I will revert your redirect as no true consensus is reached. Better to be safe until your given the OK. Soxrock 22:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously haven't followed the discussion. I gave into Caknuck's request; the template was changed. You need to understanding what is going on before reverting other people's edits. And as for accusing me of needing to wait for a consensus, I am the only one who has properly discussed all changes before making them; you have made your changes without participating in any discussion, and I have left ample time for discussion at all stages. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Case studies

message: These seem somewhat redundant.  There's very little different information between the three pages.  I have a feeling we could easily merge them all into one page:
500 home run club
600 home run club
700 home run club
What does everyone else think? Bjewiki 00:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion--At minimum, I would suggest you leave notes on the discussion pages for those 3, indicating that you are soliciting comments on the suggestion here.  Also, whether merged or not, I would think it would be better to have the page or pages be as robust as the most robust of these pages ... I notice that the 700 club has more info (date at which the home run leading to entry into the club was hit, for example) than others, and that not all indicate the number of home runs to date (more or less).--Epeefleche 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support merging them.  It's not like the largest of them is particularly large.  The baseball list articles tend to get a little redundant.  All three of these could probably be merged into List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters since all three above lists are subsets of this fourth.  Put all three lists into their own section in List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters with the extreme detail and then leave everyone below 500 in the less-detailed table below.  If anyone else likes this idea, I may do it myself.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. - Masonpatriot 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  500, 600 & 700 HR club?... 

message: I am looking for some feedback on an evergrowing template.  Do you think that defunct leagues should be split off from :Template:Professional Baseball as a separate template or do you think this is a better navigational aid with a unified template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Professional Baseball 

message: Recently, an editor zapped most of the documentation from the New York Yankees page that documented how old the nickname "Yankees" is, i.e. it's about as old as "Highlanders", despite historical revisionist attempts to make it seem like "Yankees" appeared overnight in 1913. Presumably the reason the editor did that was to make the article a bit less wordy. In light of that, I'm thinking it might be useful to make a separate article about the origins of the team nicknames, and reduce the minutia on that subject in the individual team articles. Before I start that, I would like to know (1) is there already such an article; and (2) does it make sense to write such an article? I have plenty of citations for the info, FYI. Baseball Bugs 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a separate discussion with a user over the Hilltop Park page, he scanned some site, presumably a New York Times site, and found that by 1908, "Yankees" was already very prevalent. The intriguing questions are (1) why was it more popular, although I would guess it just sounds more "American"; and (2) when did it become "official", i.e. when did the Yankees start calling themselves by that name? I don't know those answers, but that doesn't stop me from starting the article, assuming one doesn't exist already. Baseball Bugs 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There this already: List of baseball nicknames#Baseball Team Nicknames. The article is already pretty long, so I would probably have a spinoff article from that point that discusses the historical details. But this is good, as I don't have to totally invent the wheel. Baseball Bugs 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: That would be here. This is the page of the terms of the website you took the data and formatting from. Specifically, I want you to read this. 6. Site Content. You may not frame, capture, harvest, or collect any part of the Site or Content without SRI's advance written consent. SRI may make changes to the Content, this Site, or the products or services made available in connection with this Site at any time, with or without notice, and makes no commitment to update any of these items. Despite any efforts of SRI to provide accurate information in the Content, errors may occur. Before acting on any information appearing on the Site, you should verify its accuracy. That means we cannot copy their content, especially in their format, What yall have done is copied in his format and we have to delete because his terms forbid it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See nofollow.  My understanding is that it means search engines that find our articles will not follow the links on them, i.e., they won't get to baseball-reference.com.  That means baseball-ref is not helped search-engine wise by us linking to them.  I think that was a calculated decision here fairly recently.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-22/Nofollow as well.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, basically, the nofollow tag puts us above everyone else and it's highly controversial because of that.  Soxrock 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't get Google juice from links on our site.  It's an anti-spam measure.  Otherwise people sneak in little links to their site here and they slowly crawl up the Google rankings.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for us here, that may actually affect whether we are allowed to have stats up here. I'm involved in a discussion with b-r, and Sean Forman, the person I'm talking to, is said to be "galled" by the nofollow tags. Soxrock 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So where is this copyvio?

message: Rule 10.02 states that the official scorer is to gather certain records for each player in each game. The batting figures, for example: AB, R, H, RBI, 2B, 3B, HR, TB, SB, SH, SF, BBB, IBB, HBP, INT/OBS, SO. Additionally, the following stats are to be calculated from the tabulated records: BA, SA, OBP. Interestingly, CS and GIDP are not required, although they are typically captured at the major league level. The sequence above does not totally square with either MLB or Baseball-Reference, but it's similar.   Baseball Bugs 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then use that sequence, and not the sequence found on the websites. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To further elaborate, for fielders it's: PO, A, E, DP, TP, PB (catchers only) and FA. For pitchers: IP, # batters faced, # batters officially at bat, H, R, ER, HR, SH, SF, BB, IBB, HBP, SO, WP, BK, W, L, GS, GF, Sv, ERA. Also G (games played), which would typically be the very first item in all of these records. I wouldn't necessarily argue that the order given in the rules book is gospel. Some of it comes down to convention. W, L, Sv, ERA could come ahead of most of the other stats for a pitcher. I would use MLB as a guideline along with the rules book. Baseball Bugs 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice I said guideline, not absolute. Also, in looking at some of the yearly pages, it's only a subset of the possible stats anyway. I don't see where the argument is coming from that they "look like" baseball-reference. Baseball Bugs 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm saying is follow the baseball order as given by MLB for official scoring rather then copying the order of these websites. It does not hurt to be different. —— Eagle101Need help? 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats sequence 

message: Looking at the articles for each of the baseball positions (like Shortstop, First baseman, Right fielder, etc) you see several lists down at the bottom. I can see reason for including the hall of famers at a position but is it really necessary to have the very subjective and POV listing of "notable" current players. Does that really add any value to the article? AgneCheese/Wine 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, no and it's certainly POV unless we come up with some objective criteria to define "notable" (e.g., specific award-winners, all-stars?). --Sanfranman59 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cutting to HOF players seems reasonable to me, but I do wonder about the MLB-specific perspective of doing that. It may be cleaner to link to separate lists. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List farms on BB Position articles 

message: The above article and a similar article for each year up to 2007 exist and I don't see the notability of it.  Can someone with a bot tag each article for deletion?  
DandyDan2007 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Major League Baseball managers in 1992]] and all years after 

message: Ok, you wanted this. Here is my conversation with Sean Forman, operator of Baseball-Reference.com
*Soxrock: Hi there. I am someone who edits Wikipedia. Are we allowed to use a portion
of your stats for our seasonal pages? I only ask because I read the Terms
and Conditions.  Any response will be appreciated
*Forman: To what extent will you be using the stats?  Will this be an automated
culling of the stats on all pages, or just a citation of stats from a
handful of pages?
*Soxrock: Check out the 1921 New York Yankees season
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_New_York_Yankees_season).
The plan is to use the prominent stats, you know, Games played, At-bats, HR,
RBI... but not to use the in-depth stats (like OBP). In the external links,
we have you cited for the in-depth stats. As for the usage, we'll have you
cited on every page that we have stats from your site on (that's every
single individual season page we create, which will be for all 30 teams). If
you cannot grant it for us on all those pages (roughly 2500 pages with a
portion your stats and citation), then we'll try to find a reduced way to
use them, if you allow. Thanks for the response
*Forman: I have to say I have some problems with using this much of my stats on
your pages.  Why do you want to take so much time entering that data
when there are much better formatted sources for statistical data
available?  Why not focus on the narrative for the team rather than
factual data that is available elsewhere?  I'm assuming the gamelogs
are also being transcribed from my site or retrosheet's.
 
Wikipedia takes a lot of traffic from my site and due to the use of
the nofollow tag, I get only some benefit from the use of the data and
the links to my site.  Would it be possible to have my site
white-listed and have the nofollow tags taken off of links to my site?
 
I'm not saying no out of hand, but I feel like Wikipedia does not
compensate the content holders for the data they provide.  The use of
the nofollow really galls me.
Let me explain the nofollow tag.  Search engines rank sites on the
basis of the sites that link to them.  Adding a nofollow tag (do a
view source on a page with my site and you'll see a rel="nofollow" in
the code for links to any external site) tells the search engine to
ignore this link.  I have thousands of links from wikipedia and there
is some benefit to that, but my standing in the search engines is
hampered because Wikipedia is a giant link juice sink.  It benefits
from everyone's link to it, but does not return the favor to sites it
links.  It is very selfish behaviour.  I would appreciate if you would
ask someone in charge that you are going to use data from my site on
1000's of pages and will be linking to it, but would like to remove
the nofollow from those links.   If this really is such a great
project, that should be no problem.  I'm not a spammer.
 
The other issue is that reference.com and answers.com and others can
take a dump of wikipedia database strip out the external links and
then make money off of my content.
That is all well and good, but what happens when I go out of business?
You say you enjoy the site, but your work actively undermines its
health. You can say "C'est la vie", but those are the facts.
I can't stop you from using the data and I appreciate the link, but I
feel that these actions essentially only benefit Wikipedia, and damage
me.
*Soxrock  Oh, so your concern is that, by using a portion of your stats on our pages,
we will reduce the number of visitors on your site, which will lead to fewer
ads, which in turn will lead to less money, makinf ir harder to keep your
site on. I see your concern now.
I'll continue to find white-listing. I mean, I hope that you say yes, but,
then again, I would hope that saying that wouldn't hurt your website and
your life at the same time. Thanks for your response
*Forman: Yes, that is what I mean.  For example, if Wikipedia were to move
ahead of me on searches for ballplayers, it is not outside the realm
of possiblity that I would be forced to quit working on the site
full-time as I've been doing for a year and go back to my day job.  I
have a hard time encouraging that to happen.
I know that the data is in the public domain and can't be copyrighted,
but I just wish WP was a little better at compensating their sources.
*Soxrock: Yeah, I see now. I try to list all my sources whenever I make pages, but
I'm not trying to hurt people's lives or sites. And seeing how Wikipedia is
always ahead of your site on searches (sometimes I don't even see you), I
see why you wouldn't be happy about the nofollow tags. I feel sorry that
they apply, because it affects what both of us do, because if there were no nofollow tags, you might be able to say yes and not be affected. I feel sorry for that. Eitherway, I'll look into white-listing, it might be fair
compensation for you. Of course, there is a dispute over at Wikipedia about
how the numbers are copyrighted or not. It appeared we might be able to use
stats until I saw your terms of use, which is why I'm talking with you.
Thanks for the reply
*Forman: Thank you.  You are welcome to use stats in a manner such as hand
entering data, but I would be opposed to machine-aided copying of
large numbers of pages.
*Soxrock: Wait, by hand entering, do you mean typing it in, or writing it out on a
paper or something? And, by machine-aided copying, do you mean using
something like a robot to do so quicker? Thanks
*Forman: Yes, if you want to go and type in all of that data, that would be ok.
My concern is in you using a robot to grab the data and auto-enter it
into wikipedia.  You should also keep in mind that occasionally the
data does change as corrections are found.
*Soxrock: Oh, why didn't you just say so? Of course it's hand entering, we have to format it and everything, we can't just copy and paste or it would look
too-similar and it would look crappy anyway, so it will be hand entering. It
takes at least 20 minutes to add stats to a page, and we do not use robots
for adding stats, it would create a huge mess. Thanks for your permission to
use the stats and your site will be linked on every page. I'll tell other
users. Thank you so much, and, again, they will be hand entered, not
machine-aided copying. I don't even know how to use a robot on that site
*Forman: OK, that's fine.
In other words, it is OK to use the stats from baseball-reference. Soxrock 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this makes me want to remove all stats from the site.  Never mind the copyvio issues, we're actually hurting Mr. Forman's bottom line for no particular reason!  We're just doing this for fun - now we're actually hurting someone's life and livelihood.  This is one of the reasons I never make huge copies of stats when I put articles together.  Then it just makes Wikipedia like other sites instead of an encyclopedia.  Sheesh, now I feel awful...  I've had discussions with folks at baseball-ref and Retrosheet and they're all very good people trying to do a good thing.  The Retrosheet people aren't even doing it for profit!  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder how much he wants to compensate us in return for our having added ELs to Wikipedia articles that point people to his site, thus adding a lot of traffic to his site.--Epeefleche 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not much since we copied all the stats nullifying any reason to even go to his site.  This may start me on a crusade of removing the huge tables of stats anywhere I see them.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in player bios, certainly.  There, we don't reflect 1% of the stats discoverable on the BR link.--Epeefleche 04:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for posting your discussion, Sox. What really hit home for me was when he said, "Why do you want to take so much time entering that data when there are much better formatted sources for statistical data available? Why not focus on the narrative for the team rather than factual data that is available elsewhere?" I say, amen to that, brother. I can't believe how much time people spend out here on talk pages arguing back and forth about what seem to me to be relatively minor and cosmetic things (colors in infoboxes, how many ELs are too many, which ELs are okay and which are superfluous, team nicknames to name just a few recent examples) while actual article content and quality of narrative (i.e what should be the bread and butter of an encyclopedia) go largely undiscussed. --Sanfranman59 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Sanfranman. I like the stats, but not if it is at the expense of someone else. I do agree that prose is not discussed most of the time, tidbits are. You know, to hell with colors and stats. We need to focus on content! So I will currently abandon all stat efforts, but I will not remove stats that are already here. I want to know if Forman suffers from what is already up. Soxrock 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stats are pretty clearly mentioned as #4 of the policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Rather than just listing every single pitcher's stats in an article, write which pitcher had the best record and which was disappointing and which had the best ERA in the league, etc., etc.  I'm considering going to WP:RFC to ask the community's opinion about removing easily-found-elsewhere statistical tables from all sports-related articles.  They're counter to what we're supposed to be doing here IMHO.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I liked the stats, but not at someone else's expense. So go ahead and remove them, I guess. Articles can be built without stats Soxrock 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that there's not a place for stat tables here. To my mind, baseball is very much a statistical game and I don't think it makes sense to exclude them completely from articles. Tables convey and summarize statistical information much more succinctly and more clearly than prose. I just don't think it's necessary to include the season-by-season and player-by-player details that are the forte of sites like baseball-reference. Nor do I think it's a good idea to try and keep stats up to date with the current season here. In player articles, I've been in the habit of including a table with minor league and major league career totals of the major statistical categories complete through the end of 2006. At the end of 2007, they can be updated. --Sanfranman59 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why do you want to take so much time entering that data when there are much better formatted sources for statistical data available? Why not focus on the narrative for the team rather than factual data that is available elsewhere?" - Just thought I'd chime in and say I completely echo Sanfranman59's sentiment on Forman's comment.  Lets stick to what Wikipedia is good at: prose, collaboration, and research.  Leave the automatable tasks to the already awesome websites out there.  Prosey dissection of stats with sourced commentary is far better than just reproducing what already exists.  Wickethewok 05:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is better suited for WP:VPT but couldn't a nofollow whitelist be created as Mr. Forman hinted?  Nofollow has obvious benefits for us but there are many equally obvious exceptions - major news sources, stats sources, etc., etc.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to check if I could expand one of those MLB season articles in which we could place every team in detail, and redirect the seasons article to there. That's better than individual seasons and keeps baseball-reference in buisness. We need to be a encyclopedia. Jaranda wat's sup 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion with Baseball-Reference.com 

message: Instead of a whole table of all stats, would something like 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season's stats be better, where we just show the team leaders (or possibly a top-3) in select categories?  That way, we aren't showing all the stats and the season articles wouldn't be a substitute for whole websites like Baseball-reference, yet we still show the important starts.  Ksy92003(talk) 03:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's far better, yes.  And it gives the most important information, not the indiscriminate information like who finished sixth in triples for that team for that year.  No one cares about the latter so why would we present it?  That's why WP:NOT#INFO is in place.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented this feature to 1961 Los Angeles Angels season, 1962 Los Angeles Angels season, 1963 Los Angeles Angels season, 1964 Los Angeles Angels season, and 1965 California Angels season, so feel free to check it out and give feedback.  Thanks :)  Ksy92003(talk) 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  Maybe it's because I have a big monitor but it looks like both tables would fit if you put them in a two-column table.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to do that, but I didn't know how.  When I first started last November, I saw that around a couple times, but I never was interested in how to actually do it.  Boy, did that bite me in the ass.  If you know how to make a two-column table, then you can tell me or implement it yourself into those articles.  I would greatly appreciate it.  Ksy92003(talk) 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making a two column table is done like this, I believe. You have your basic column (like on the listed pages you have) but then you go to a fourth column and type in the same thing as the first, then type in the category. Something like this:
Stat	Player	Total	Stat	Player	Total
That way, you have two columns. But that's the way I think it's done. I'm not sure. However, the section headings will need to be adjusted to something like simply "statistics" Soxrock 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of the templates documented in :Template:Col-begin.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see what your saying now. I didn't even know of that place. Good idea Soxrock 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried them in 1965 California Angels season.  Of course the infobox at the top screws up spacing in other ways (so feel free to undo) but something along those lines.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to try out my style. Feel free to undo if any of you don't like it. But, sorry Wknight, but your thing is looking pretty bad due to the infobox. Sorry :(  Soxrock 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once content is added, it will fill in the blank space though.  Keep that in mind.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. And, FYI, here is my version for the double-column stats at 1965 California Angels season Soxrock 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good.  I added another heading at the top.  We may just need an empty spacer column between the hitting and pitching.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about that?  We're almost back to where I started a few messages ago with the .  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How, with the seperate columns? I think that, if it is a problem, we just remove the spacing and put them side-by-side  Soxrock 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: Should articles about milestones, such as 40-40 club and the like, be merged into one article, perhaps baseball career milestones, with redirects?  If nothing else, this will cut down on AfD requests like the current 40-40-40 club action.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sporting milestone articles 

message: Does anyone know why someone Copy/Paste moved the Closer article from Closer (baseball) to Closing pitcher? And then another person moved Talk:Closer (baseball) to Talk:Closing Pitcher instead of Talk:Closing pitcher, so the whole thing is a bit of a mess. I would have tried to get it all set right but I don't know what the consensus on the article title is. --Rabbethan 03:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the cut and paste move.  No comment on why the move was done.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closer article moved. 

message: Currently, the list of HOF-inducted players within team articles includes mention of almost any HOF-inducted players who happened to have once played for that team, regardless of number of seasons played. For instance, Hank Greenberg is listed as a HOF Pittsburgh Pirate despite having played only one season for the Pirates (his last season, in 1947). He was actually inducted as a Detroit Tiger, and is listed (correctly) in the Tigers' article as a Tigers' HOFer.
Shouldn't a respective team's listed HOF players include mention of only those players who were inducted specifically for that particular team?
-- J.R. Hercules 03:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about listing MLB teams' HOF-inducted players 

message: Hello everyone, #wikipedia-baseball has now launched on IRC. If you would like to join the conversation, please feel free to visit the channel. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, we should have many people in the channel by now, are you guys stuck, or should I cancel the chat room, if nobody is interested? -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Project Chat 

message: FYI, an AfD has been posted for one of the Indians' bullpen catchers, Dan Williams. I thought it might be of interest to people here. Here's the link in case you'd like to comment. --Sanfranman59 16:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, I think I'm staying out of that one.  I am a bit tired of all the Kinston Indians stuff though.  This is like the 10th article I've seen involving someone related to Kinston, but not a major league player, that has been dragged to AFD - and that's just including ones I've particularly seen.  It's starting to feel like a spam attack.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, it's more about whether or not Major League coaches are sufficiently notable to warrant their own WP article. I don't find the Kinston Indians argument particularly compelling in and of itself. --Sanfranman59 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD proposal for [[Dan Williams]] (Indians bullpen catcher) 

message: Portal:Baseball has lots of redlinked features.  It is fallen into disrepair.  If anyone interested in baseball wants to work with it, it really needs work.  It is setup to run everything weekly right now ... that could be changed to monthly if there isn't enough interest to add content every week. --B 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, from looking at the history, it has NEVER been kept up to date.  I am going to change it to work monthly and backfill July.  If someone wants to take it over and do August, that would probably be a good thing. --B 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Baseball]] 

message: You may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds home run watch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  13:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry Bonds home run watch AfD 

message: Just so you know, I've enlarged the standings templates to fit all the teams in one line to conform to more computers. I operate off two computers that are completely different in how they have standings load up, and so, for mine and all others who had wide computers, I have modified it to fit better. No harm done in my mind. Soxrock 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head's up 

message: I expanded this article significantly with as much useful info that I could find. Maybe we could extend it to a WP:FA. If anyone want to copyedit or add useful info (especially anything on his after-playing days), we should. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 05:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given it a twice-over and fixed most of the typos. I don't think that there will be any problems with getting it to GA status. Great work on it! Caknuck 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bob Meusel]] 

message: From Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, we request your input on the following guidelines for sports facts included in articles about numbers (quoted below). For example, should the article about the number 42 include Jackie Robinson's jersey number? How about the jersey number of a famous hockey player for whom the number was never retired? How about the #42 draft pick for the Boston Red Sox? I've also included the guidelines for NASCAR as an example of how the guidelines for a specific sport might look like. Knotslip12 20:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Baseball jersey numbers, other baseball numbers 

message: You may want to come by and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chris Young (pitcher).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Young FAC 

message: First off, my apologies if this has been discussed in the past.  99% of my contributions are in the ice hockey project, so I am just here because I have one interest.  I was wondering if you feel it would be worth my time and effort (which I am willing to offer) to create a List of Barry Bonds home runs.  As the man is about to become the most profilic home run hitter of all-time, I think it would certainly be wiki-worthy to have an extensive list of all his home runs (date, opponent, pitcher, stadium).  In fact, I think it would be a slam dunk featured list.  I am willing to create the list (I've just started it in my sandbox; but then I thought I should come here and ask if it's been discussed before).  What do you think? Skudrafan1 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For my work-in-progress, to see what I'm sort of envisioning, check this out: User:Skudrafan1/List of Barry Bonds home runs Skudrafan1 03:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion it belongs in a baseball wiki, not here, per WP:NOT. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jaranda .  Plus, it's one thing for us to provide general statitstics and league leaders (which are pretty clearly encyclopedic), but isn't this something that is directly provided by Baseball Reference and other baseball sites?  Seems like if we do stuff like this we're just poaching the efforts of those sites. - Masonpatriot 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds home run watch. While this page only dealt with the runs directly leading up to 755, the subject of listing all Bond's home runs did come up there. I think the whole discussion will give you a good idea of the overall issues involved in this. - BillCJ 06:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is probably already such a list elsewhere (and for Aaron, Ruth, etc.) which could be linked to. Baseball Bugs 12:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, cool.  I guess it's a good thing I decided to come and ask before I continued working on it.  Thanks for the input. Skudrafan1 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Barry Bonds home runs 

message: A very important discussion is taking place regarding the possible deletion of :Category:African American baseball players.
This category is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the articles in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.
The discussion opened on August 3, and will probably close in the next day or two. If you wish to add your comments, don't delay. Cgingold 14:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:African American baseball players - up for deletion 

message: Is there an online site that list the pitches a pitcher uses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Baseball America usually discusses pitchers' repertoires in their scouting reports. But I think these pages are often only available to subscribers. --Sanfranman59 06:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitching repertoire 

message: The requested baseball articles assessments list is now months old, and double digit, if anyone would like to address it ... . Tx. --Epeefleche 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessments Anyone? 

message: Should we begin to add articles for individual team seasons for 2008? jj137 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet; there isn't anything we can add to the articles, and thus there really isn't any purpose for the articles at this time.  I think we should at least wait until the 2007 World Series ends before we begin adding anything for the 2008 seasons.  Ksy92003(talk) 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say no, at least not until the end of the World Series. Once the offseason starts, and player transactions begin, you can begin an article with that info. Otherwise, you have a two sentence stub for the next three months. Caknuck 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 seasons? 

message: I am trying to add a new section to Chris Young (pitcher) and am wondering why there are no articles for control pitcher & power pitcher.  Neither appears at List of baseball jargon (C) or List of baseball jargon (P) although control artist does.  I could write these, but I imagine another writer would do at least as well. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As these are terms with no firm definition, I'd suggest adding them to 
List of baseball jargon (C) instead of creating new articles (which would probably never get past the "stub + an arbitrary list of players" stage.) Caknuck 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested articles [[control pitcher]], [[power pitcher]] 

message: :PrimeFan meant to post the following here yesterday. Anton Mravcek 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no at this point.. Each home run he hits will change his number... maybe after he retires the final number can be included. Spanneraol 20:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sure hope he quits or is proven guilty of steroid use before he gets to 800. Well, that's my POV. As for NPOV, I'm leaning towards taking Spanneraol's advice and waiting until Bonds stops playing professionally. Anton Mravcek 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to maintain that daily, feel free. Otherwise, it's probably better to just wait it out and get the final tally. Sidatio 21:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would gladly maintain that daily... if there wasn't such a big (though unofficial) asterisk on Bonds' record. Anton Mravcek 23:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about Barry Bonds? 

message: Since this page is so large, could we move to 7 days for the archive bot? Basar 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only reason it's so large right now is all the hoo-ha about external links. With any luck, that storm has now passed and things will get back to whatever passes for normalcy here. --Sanfranman59 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Finally, some of it archived. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like a high amount of conversation is continuing; would it really be that bad if we moved it to 7 or 10 days? It is 236kb right now. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to 10 days until the page is reduced a bit, it's nearly 200kb right now. Next archive should reduce greatly.--Borgardetalk 10:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive date 

message: The template Professional Baseball is massive. Is there anyway to reduce this? Split it? Hide sections? Somehow to make it smaller?--Borgardetalk 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I question whether the template is needed at all—readers who wish to navigate between articles about leagues can easily do so using the relevant categories. But, if the consensus is that the template is needed, I'd start by dropping all of the defunct minor leagues.  BRMo 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional baseball template 

message: At , I'm automating the "team color" process - it will autofill the boxes when i'm done.  It's a multi step process so if you guys see something funky going on with the team affiliations and such... don't be shocked. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I tested the implementation and it worked (i used Brandon Webb).  However, the coding for the box is somewhat outdated, and i didn't want to open up a debate regarding how many colors a box should use) - i stopped.I move the "edited version" to the sandbox there.  The two templates that it relies upon are  and .  You can see I implemented this at . You guys will have to go in and set colors for everyone except the Diamondbacks.  I inserted them in the templates as an example. If someone wants to finish up my work - go right ahead. I'll be glad to help create subtemplates for multiple colors that need to be used.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Change 

message: Hi, I am an admin who was cleaning out the Candidates for Speedy Deletion Backlog and ran across an article for Desmond Jennings tagged for deletion under criteria A7, no assertion of notability. The most relevent portion of the article reads (or read) "Desmond Jennings (b. October 30, 1986 in Birmingham, Alabama) is a baseball outfielder in the minor league program of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. He bats and throws right-handed. He was drafted in the 10th round of the 2006 MLB Draft."  I have defered on making a decsion on this article, as I am uncertain on whether or not a claim of playing minor league baseball counts as an assertion of notability. (I am sure that another admin will delete it shortly.) For my future reference, what is the fate of articles on minor league baseball players? Are they uncontroversial deletes, are some kept and some deleted, or are they all kept? Dsmdgold 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My observation has been that minor leaguers who have a good chance of making the majors sooner than later are kept.  This includes high first-round draft picks and current AAA players who are being mentioned as likely current-season call-ups.  Neither of these seem to apply to Mr. Jennings so the article was rightly deleted.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto, high prosepect = keep, common minor leaguer = delete Jaranda wat's sup 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for answers. My concern isn't so much as for whether or not an article should be deleted, but whether it should be speedy deleted. If some minor league players are kept on the basis of high prospects and others are deleted then none, in my opinion, should be speedied. Deletion through PROD or AfD allows more people to evaluate the individual merits of the subject. Dsmdgold 14:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would open the door for people to clog up AFD with no-name minor leaguers - and there are a lot of no-name minor leaguers and a lot of editors who would like to see a lot of them on Wikipedia.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor League Players 

message: I have taken the liberty of adding a line item to the Departments section of your WikiProject navigational template entitled 'Deletion sorting'.  This link leads to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball, a page created by the Deletion Sorting WikiProject to assist in topical notifications of articles nominated for deletion to any of the several deletion forums, with emphasis on WP:AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion sorting 

message: The Red Sox project needs more members.  We're just getting started, and any interested users may join.  New England Review Me! 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members Needed 

message: So I'm looking through the mlb.com rosters, and I notice that MLB.com uses the term "restricted list" when referring to players that are suspended.  There is currently only one team that has a player in this situation, the Tigers and Neifi Perez (see  and ).  Therefore, I am proposing that the label "Suspended List" is replaced with "Restricted List" as that is the term that MLB.com uses. X96lee15 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems official enough to me.  Go for it.  MLB.com is the official source of all that is the MLB, so what they say should dictate what we say.  Seems logical enough for this change.  Ksy92003(talk) 03:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template roster change 

message: As a wine editor and baseball fan I got a chuckle out of an article in the Sept 30, 2007 Wine Spectator about a special wine set being produced by VinLozano Imports with Tim Wakefield, Curt Schilling and Manny Ramírez for children's charity. I'm looking to buy a set myself so that I can hopefully take a picture but I'm wondering if these would be a worthwhile mention in the players articles. I love the wine names Manny Being Merlot, Schilling Schardonnay and CaberKnuckle. Here is an online article for more info Red Sox Wine for Charity'. AgneCheese/Wine 10:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a member of this project (I'm a member of WP:BOSOX) but I would say go ahead and add it.  I also saw an article on these wines in Sports Illustrated.  New England Review Me! 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial or worth a mention? 

message: I would like to call people to join in an imortant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates ranges in infoboxes/templates.  This project has a number of infoboxes where this discussion is applicable. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style Discussion 

message: Carl Zamloch (first half of 20th century pitcher) is currently on the main page, and desperately needs some cleanup. Anybody up to it? Circeus 03:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup for article on main page 

message: I noticed this category today. I'm not sure if Summer Baseball leagues warrant inclusion or not, is this part of some organized effort?  FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Summer baseball leagues]] 

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Jordan Brown (baseball player) is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 08:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: Jordan Brown (baseball player) 

message: Do you know if there has been discussion at regarding Championship team templates like they use for National Basketball Association teams?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  01:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see :Template:1995WorldSeriesBraves, :Template:1983 Chicago White Sox in :Category:Baseball templates.  I think the latter should be cleaned up and all years should be made. I noticed this while working on Hector Lopez.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created :Category:World Series championship templates.  I have created :Template:1955 Brooklyn Dodgers, :Template:1981 Los Angeles Dodgers, and :Template:1988 Los Angeles Dodgers and User:Ksy92003 has created :Template:1961 New York Yankees, :Template:1962 New York Yankees, and :Template:2002 Anaheim Angels to get the category going.  We modeled these after :Template:1995WorldSeriesBraves.  Help is welcome.  In several places, it will be necessary to hide these in a compressed box.  See New York Yankees, Los Angeles Dodgers and Mike Scioscia for examples.  We have been using composite box scores, which only show players who played in the games and not the entire 25-man rosters.  Help filling out the rosters, of course, would be appreciated. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Series Champ Templates 

message: In baseball, there are certain qualifying numbers that are significant.  There are the number of at bats or innings one needs to accumulate to qualify for Rookie of the Year.  There is another set of numbers (I believe 162 innings and 510 plate appearances) needed to qualify for annual statistical leadership.  What is the number of career games, at bats, plate appearances, innings necessary to qualify for career statistical leadership?  I am trying to clean up the WP:LEAD at Hector Lopez and need to correctly state the fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just ran all-time career lists at mlb.com. They use 5000 ABs for hitters and 2000 IP for pitchers. --Sanfranman59 05:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that ABs or PAs?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says ABs. These cut-offs are used for historical players. They use 3000 ABs and 1000 IP for career leaders among active players. --Sanfranman59 20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Seeing as no-one has mentioned this here yet, there is a proposal being written about the notability for sports. Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports). --Borgardetalk 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports) 

message: We've been running into endless sockpuppets of the banned User:Ron liebman. Some of those socks are now citing SABR as a source. Unfortunately, this puts SABR references in a compromised spot, because Liebman himself is a contributor to SABR. In short, any references to SABR as a source could be "circular" references and have to be considered suspect or invalid until or if they can be independently verified... which defeats the purpose of even using SABR as a source. Therefore, sadly, SABR has to be ruled out as a valid source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SABR]] as a source? 

message: If anyone is interested, there is a very long discussion going on over at Talk:Josh Gibson about the best way to explain the home run total of Negro League Hall of Famer Josh Gibson.  —Wknight94 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Josh Gibson]]'s home runs 

message: Just the baseball seasons are oversized by themselves, now;  I've proposed re-splitting either by team, or by decade:  please comment there.  Alai 06:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another BB stub-split required 

message: Anyone besides me suddenly having trouble with the flag icons displaying on the team roster pages? --Sanfranman59 07:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the job-queue on wikipedia is currently really big (over 3,000,000) because of this Wikipedia:Template standardisation thing. It should all work normally again soonish... --Borgardetalk 08:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icons on roster pages? 

message: An editor has brought up concerns at Talk:Cardinals-Cubs_rivalry#Another_break_in_the_action about the encyclopedic relevance of rivals canceling game after a tragedy. To my knowledge, nothing like the deaths of two players in the middle of a rivalry series has ever happened to two teams before. However I would like to get a broader input from other baseball folks for the sake of perspective. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated. AgneCheese/Wine 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivals canceling games over tragedy 

message: User:StormXor and I worked together to come up with a pretty good colorization scheme in the presence of heavy editorial activity in the weeks immediately after 756 at Barry Bonds. Now, there is a move afoot to uncolorize Bonds. Opinions are needed at Talk:Barry_Bonds#stats_section_use_of_color. We are debating the use of colors in stats tables with respect to WP:WAI section 4 and the current Barry Bonds page versus the former color scheme. The debate will probably shape color scheme usage throughout baseball bio article stat sections so be thoughtful. You may want to look at other pages that have colorized stat sections such as Roger Clemens,  Hector Lopez, and  Chris Young (pitcher). Keep in mind what Bonds before colorization looked like. If you know any other editors who you think may have strong opinions one way or another please ask them to comment as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorized stats 

message: the teams' current season's payroll should be a part of Template:MLB infobox, with a link provided to List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll for further reference. payroll is extremely significant, as well as a potential indicator of so many things such as revenue, fan support, ability to acquire/keep players/coaches, and possibly potential to win. here's what i'm proposing, followed by an example.... Riphamilton 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say I'm at all enthusiastic about adding payroll to the infobox. Despite the arguments that it's important, other bits of trivia could be equally important -- last year's attendance comes to mind. Payroll and its effects certainly belong in an article about the team's season, but not the infobox.--Fabrictramp 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the importance of team payroll.  After all, all that it is is an indicator as to how much the team pays their players.  It doesn't have anything to do with the team, and it also gets all complicated with players being traded, waivers, free agents, designated for assignments, and the "A-Rod/Texas paying 1/2 of contract" crud.  It gets far too confusing and doesn't really have anything to do with the season itself as far as the team's actual play.  Ksy92003(talk) 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add current season payroll to MLB infobox template 

message: This user, who had nominated numerous baseball-related articles for deletion over the last several months, was just indefblocked for abusive sockpuppetry. As such, it may be appropriate to revisit some of these deletions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, looks like quite a few need to be reviewed.  Any idea how many of his AFDs were tainted by his own socks?  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but my guess is a bunch. Fortunately, at least two (Craig Stansberry and Armando Galarraga) have made their ML debuts since their articles were deleted, making them eligible for history-undeletion, regardless of the AFDs. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Truest blue]] 

message: I was editing the New York Yankees all-time roster but took a few days off, when I returned a user named Fabrictramp had edited the page about 30 times in a row, adding a hundreds of red links for non-notable players who never played a game for the team, do we really need to name a bunch of useless players and links when all it does is make the article look like sh... crap? TheNextOne 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say "shit" - we're not censored!  :)  Why would there be players listed who never even played a game for them?  That sounds absurd.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's an all-time roster not just a roster of people who have Wikipedia articles. It doesn't matter what it looks like. The encyclopedia isn't made to make pretty pages, it's made to impart information. Kinston eagle 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to get the facts straight here, after I was done with the page it only contained players who had played at least one game for the team, as per the standards that were discussed here several months ago. Since those people had played at least one game for a fully professional team, they are, according to the current draft at :Wikipedia:Notability (sports), notable, and are definitely qualified to have articles. --Fabrictramp 23:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification -- I haven't checked every single red-linked player yet. The info came from the New York Yankees all-time player roster pages at MLB.com, which does occasionally contain the odd person who made the 40 man roster but didn't play a game. In working on other all-time roster pages, I generally find one or two of these per team, and remove them when I find them, with appropriate edit summaries.--Fabrictramp 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you dont like the red linked names on the page, go ahead and create articles for those players. Spanneraol 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much.  I'm unclear on what the original complaint is here but if an all-time roster includes red-links, so be it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I could create articles for some of those players but it would take me a long time to create pages for all of them, perhaps a little help would help TheNextOne 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Time Rosters 

message: Should we start creating them yet? The season's just about over and I think it's time we get a move on that. -jj137Talk • Contribs 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  And why not 2009 while we're at it?  (Sorry, but I'm not a big fan of the empty season articles we already have, let alone creating new ones we can't possibly have content for).  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. Were you being sarcastic there? Honestly, I couldn't figure out. -jj137Talk • Contribs 02:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit, yes.  But I know people like creating placeholder articles so I don't pry.  Enjoy.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I've begun creating some of the 2008 articles. -jj137 Talk • Contribs 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Anybody wants to help, feel free. Thanks -jj137 Talk • Contribs 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Individual season articles 

message: I've put Seattle Mariners up for peer review here, as I've made substantial improvements to it and think it's nearing GA-quality.  Any input from project members would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks! -Elmer Clark 05:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Seattle Mariners]] up for peer review 

message: I propose that on the main project page, the suggested infobox template for a minor league team be changed from Template:Minor league team to Template:MiLB infobox. The first one (currently suggested as the temp to use for minor league teams) is only used on a handfull of articles. The second one is used on the majority of articles.
I thought that I could just make this change myself, but I didn't want to be to BOLD.  -NatureBoyMD 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prodect guidelines - Template:Minor league team / Template:MiLB infobox 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NatureBoyMD 22:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Minor league team}}]] 

message: I have found it to be extremely annoying that Wikipedia does not have an article (and yearly series of articles) on the postseason as a whole, as we do with the other major sports. Has anyone considered creating such, or has a consensus been reached against it? The way, the truth, and the light 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postseason 

message: Since it looks like the Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports) guidelines are not going to be adopted by the masses, does anyone have any interest in adopting the baseball guidelines from that proposal to replace the WP:Baseball notability guidelines? I think the newer ones are somewhat more clear than the vague wording on the current project guidelines. Spanneraol 14:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinston, the reason for the new guidelines originally was all the afd debates over the minor league players.. the new guidelines are much more inclusive than the current WP:Baseball guidelines. Granted the people who were constantly nominating stuff for deletion are gone..  but I feel the guidelines on here should definitely be changed and the ones in the proposal are certainly an improvement. Spanneraol 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that the new guidelines are more inclusive, than you've failed to examine the lines about minor league baseball executives, coaches, and managers. Under the current baseball guidelines, these people are notable. Under the proposed guidelines, they are not. Kinston eagle 16:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't even mentioned in the new guidelines I think.. so we add a line on them.. the new guidelines allow for minor league all-stars and all AAA players which is certainly an improvement and gets us over the old "never played a game in the bigs, delete" criteria. Spanneraol 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Executives, coaches, and managers are mentioned but only for the enumerated leagues. I have added lines on them, and they are repeatedly removed. I see no reason why baseball has to have any restrictions above and beyond WP:BIO. Kinston eagle 17:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the guys that kept removing those lines are gone now so you could probably get them in.. In any event, we should change the WP:BASEBALL notability guidelines to something close to the proposal or get rid of it entirely to say something along the lines of "players are notable if they pass WP:BIO.. The current guidelines on the project page are bad. Spanneraol 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main person objecting and reverting was User:Hit bull, win steak who is still alive and well. I have no problem with WP:BIO being the standard. In my mind, it already is. Kinston eagle 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Guidelines 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NatureBoyMD 23:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Baseball team}}]] 

message: Now that the Chicago Cubs all-time roster has survived an AfD debate, it seems time to revisit the standards for the all time rosters.
It seems to me that the goals for having standards are two-fold. One is that it's nice to have each of the all-time rosters looking a bit uniform. The other is that it's nice to know what information should be included (to make the rosters both useful and more than a duplication of the categories), and nice to know what information is just clutter.
The current standard is to include every player who played in at least one regular season game. Also listed are the years the player played, main position (P, C, IF, OF, DH, PH, PR) played for that team, and whether the player is in the Hall of Fame. (Hall of Fame info has not yet been added to most of the rosters). So far most of the rosters have been formatted in 3 columns (using  to make the column breaks automatic), but I can't honestly recall if this is standard. Also, links to the other MLB all-time rosters (using the  template) and the team link template (in this case ) have been added to most, if not all, of the all-time rosters.
A couple of editors have suggested that flags to show the country of origin of each player would be a welcome addition to the rosters (such as on Boston Red Sox all-time roster). Other editors have expressed a dissatisfaction with the information included, but haven't offered suggestions for improvement. I think a more complete, standard wording for the introduction would also be useful.
So I'm proposing a two-fold discussion. Part 1 is what information should and should not be included in the all-time rosters. Part 2 is how best to format that information. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I initiated New York Mets all-time roster which I'm pretty pleased with.  I don't think I'd like the flags everywhere as in Toronto Blue Jays all-time roster.  I'm also not a fan of the ones with just names like Chicago White Sox all-time roster.  I like the single-column ones with just names even less, e.g. Arizona Diamondbacks all-time roster.  Maybe someone can categorize all the existing examples.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way you did the Mets roster, my only comment is that it might look nicer if it was in two collumns instead of one to better utilize screen space. Not a big fan of the flags myself. Most of the players, especially the early ones were American anyways. Spanneraol 00:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say I'm not fond of the Mets roster, if only because there are no breaks between the letters. When I'm trying to disambiguate links, it's a pain to scroll and scroll and scroll in the edit screen to find the right player. And one concern I have with the flags is I can't think of an automated way to get them in there -- looking up the info for a team with 1500 all-time players is pretty daunting. Then multiply that by the 30 existing MLB teams. Then add in the defunct teams. I doubt I'll be volunteering for that task. --Fabrictramp 13:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, it probably works ok for the Mets cause the team started in 62.. but teams that have been around since the 19th century like the Cardinals or the Reds have a lot more players so scrolling through a single column list would be really tedious. Spanneraol 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand about the letter breaks and agree about two columns, but my current goal (esp. since someone has revived my interest in it) is to get it sortable (I need to get my regex on).  To my knowledge, that's not possible if it's broken into two columns or broken along letter lines.  My pause in responding to Spanneraol was that I wanted to get it sortable first but my short attention span didn't allow for that.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which fields would you be sorting on? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of them.  Including any columns people wanted to add.  The year column would be a bit odd because it's usually a range but it would still give a good flavor of who played when.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see pros and cons to sorting. It might be nice to see all the catchers for a particular team (as Wknight94 said, the years would be funky). The downside is it's harder for readers and editors to go to a particular letter of the alphabet. Since I haven't seen a sortable list in any wiki article, I also wonder if it works well in all browsers. Does someone have a link to an article which has a sortable list?--Fabrictramp 18:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask and ye shall receive.  Check out New York Mets all-time roster for an example of sorting with a letter-link table of contents at the top.  Only down-side I see so far is that the sorting is a bit slow.  I don't know about browser-compatibility.  It works in IE and Firefox.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work in Safari. No matter what column I click on for the sort, it sorts by the first name. It does work fine on Firefox on the Mac, though. --Fabrictramp 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem with the sorting though is people with multiple positions. If you want to get all the outfielders and some guy played both second base and outfield it will put him with the second basemen. Spanneraol 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's better than not sorting at all, eh?  You could add more columns into the table and get some pretty neat spreadsheet-type activity going.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced it's better than no sorting. (Sorry!). Several problems still exist: editing would still be a major pain for the larger rosters (it's a pain even for a roster the size of the Mets), it's not working in all browsers, and WP:Lists says that the use of tables to display lists is discouraged. The sortability is very slick, but I think it's causing more problems than it solves.--Fabrictramp 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reopening the discussion on All-time Rosters 

message: While looking through the requested articles, I came across "Suspended game" and decided to give it a go. However, I'm not at all sure that what I came up with cuts it. The article I wrote can be found here. Is this good enough to start the article? Basically all I did was give what the rule book says, and since one of the links (both, actually) are just to the rule book, I wonder if there's even a point to it. If it is good enough, is there anything more that needs to be done to stress that what is written is taken verbatim from the rule book? After the article is created, then it can be improved with the history of the suspended game or notable suspended games, all I'm looking to do is get the ball rolling. I'm just not sure if this is good enough, and I don't want to bother if it's just going to be deleted. Thanks, faithless (speak) 07:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the book in front of me but simply copying the text is likely a copyright violation.  (In fact, unless someone disagrees, I'd remove it from your user space ASAP.  Copyvios in user space are no better than copyvios in main space).  Instead, I'd look for info about well-known suspended games (the 25-inning White Sox/Brewers game in 1984 or 1985 comes to mind), rules change info, etc.  Determining Barry Bonds' debut is confusing because many logs show it as April 20, 1986 but he actually didn't get into that game until August!  The April 20 game was suspended in the 13th inning and I don't know if Bonds was even on the roster then.  The game was resumed on August 11 and Bonds pinch-hit in the 17th but the game shows as an April 20 game.  His real debut didn't occur until May 30, 1986.  There are probably other similar suspended game oddities...  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. I think I'll scrap it and let someone with more knowledge on the subject write the article. That being said, I'll blank that page, but if anyone sees anything there that's salvageable, you're welcome to it. As a matter of interest, is it really a copyvio? Granted I lifted most of it, but I said where it came from and even included a link to it. Oh well, I'll just find something else to work on. faithless (speak) 12:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Wknight94. It should be sufficient to explain in general terms what a suspended game is, and then flesh the article out with what the consequences can be and have been. The fine details of the rule book could be linked-to somewhere. The interesting thing about suspended games, and what's worth writing more than a definition about, are the oddities, and Wknight94 has implicitly started with such a list. In theory, a pitcher could be both the winning and losing pitcher in the same game. I don't know that that's ever happened, but the possibility exists. And the oddity of when a player debuts, as discussed above. One factor is that once a game has been resumed, it tends to end quickly since everyone is rested and ready. Wknight94, the game you're thinking about is one I remember because Harold Baines ended it with a homer. It was on May 8 and May 9 of 1984. Then there was the game that Cal Ripken played in during his minor league days, that was played over parts of three days. There is thus typically (though not always) a close connection between suspended games and very-long games. An article on one could be tied in with (if not be the same as) an article on the other. I once listened to a 25-inning game on the radio, between the Cardinals and the Mets. That was on September 11, 1974.  Actually, I was out doing something that evening until late, and was astonished to hear that the game was still going when I got back. So I stayed up and listened to it in the wee hours. The one thing I recall is Jack Buck ending it with an amusing, abbreviated version of the usual disclaimer: "This game was brought to you under rights granted by major league baseball - and is prohibited!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually a decent article about the Ripken game under the odd title Longest professional baseball game.  (WP:RM anyone?)  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Now I'm trying to find an article about the 26-inning game of 1920. It seems like there isn't one. Maybe there's a list of the longest games, somewhere. In looking at 1920 in baseball, it crossed my mind that there is a possible connection between the 26-inning game and the death of Ray Chapman, in that they probably both involved a dark baseball against a dark background. That problem went away once they started substituting new baseballs frequently - which, along with the livelier ball, helped lead to the radical change from the "defensive" approach to batting (the "inside game") to the "offensive" approach (the "power game"). None of that explains how a game in 1981 could drag out 33 innings. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to take up the torch on this Suspended game idea. This does not preclude it being interwoven with another article, or even being deleted if someone thinks it's unworthy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a pretty good start to me, better than what I had. faithless (speak) 01:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Danke. My thought on the original was not so much about copyrights as about too much detail for the reader to follow. Hence the overview, and a link to the rules if someone wants to read that megillah. Then some anecdotal examples to illustrate the concepts. That part could probably be organized better. There could also be more emphasis (and more concrete information) on when the rules were added and changed, along with the why that's already in there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspended game? 

message: Why was this article moved from West Tenn Diamond Jaxx? Minorleaguebaseball.com, the Seattle Mariners' website, and the Diamond Jaxx' own official website all list the team name as "West Tenn." Wikipedia is intentionally being wrong...why exactly? 69.7.37.69 03:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, throttle back the anti-Wikipedia vitriol - it's the action of one user who thinks he's doing the right thing. It can be moved back, just propose it, and give sources why this name is incorrect. - BillCJ 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no throttling, no anti-wikipedia, and no vitriol. Jesus Christ, I try to help and this is the response I get. And you removing my comments, when yours were the first to assume bad faith, is really endearing. 69.7.37.69 12:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, yet another user mad the move as a cut and paste, which is the wrong way to do it. You'll have a chance to propose it be moved the correct way to your choice now. - BillCJ 03:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Profanity and overreaction aside, that IP address is right. The formal name of the club is "West Tenn", not "West Tennessee". It's listed that way on their own website  and in various other references such as Baseball America's Directory. "West Tennessee" should redirect to "West Tenn", not the other way around. However, there is a mistake on the page. It should say "are" rather than "is". And now it does. I was also amused that the article said they "hosed" the All-Star Game. Hopefully NOT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly me, I thought a move was a "move". It's actually a "copy". It must have been defined by an old Cobol student. Anyway, I've asked my favorite admin for help with this. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fixed now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: THanks for finding an admin to fix this. I did what I could as a non-admin to clean it up. I agree (and always did) that West Tenn was the proper name, per the team's website. I just objected to the confusion of one or two users with Wikipedia as a whole. It seems my strongly-worded statement was taken even more strongly than intended, and for that I apologize. Clean-up of extreme profanity and PAs (also spam, trolling, and the like) is permitted on article talk pages, but that's usually the extent allowed. We try to let everything else stand. In my opinion, his first response crossed that line, but his self-edited rewrite is allowable. - BillCJ 16:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no excuse here, ever, for vulgarity and/or blasphemy. It reflects poorly on the one who says it, and deserves to be deleted as it is the epitome of incivility. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It occurred to me later, that it's necessary to leave a redirect in place, otherwise a vandal could "move" the article to some obscure title and finding it would be a problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[West Tennessee Diamond Jaxx]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NatureBoyMD 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Baseball Coach}}]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NatureBoyMD 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Aus Baseball Club infobox}}]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NatureBoyMD 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Mlbretiredtest}}]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NatureBoyMD 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Baseball Links}}]] 

message: The Johnson City Cardinals page has recently been rescued from an ill-timed deletion. THere were some WP:BLP issuies, but those have been removed. The remaining portion is just a stub now, and could use some attention from editors with experience in improving minor league team articles. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnson City Cardinals 

message: I am making a proposal to move all baseball seasonal articles (for example, 2006 Cincinnati Reds season) to not include the word "season" (it would then read simply "2006 Cincinnati Reds"). I feel it is very self-explanatory and redundant. If you think this would take too long to move all of these, I would like to comment that at the B-R Bullpen they have a seasonal article for every season (where as here we only have maybe ⅔) and Soxrock was able to move all of them to their appropriate name there within only a few days. (I'm not saying he should have to move them all again, but I'm just making a point that it wouldn't take that long if we do it efficiently.) Thanks.   jj137 (Talk) 18:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "2006 [team name] season" format is the least ambiguous name. However, you might approach the NFL and NBA (mayber even NHL) projects to see if there is any interest in those projects in going along with the moves. We could then set up a single discussion page for the issue. I support keeping the names as is, but am not oppoesed to further discussion. - BillCJ 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to Spanneraol's comment, NHL uses "2006-07 [team name] season" as well. Right now, I say leave the name as they are. --Michael Greiner 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know the general reasoning behind the other sports including "season"?  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all sports articles including "season" could be moved. I still think it would be easier.   jj137 (Talk) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually prefer the "season" cause it's a bit more specific.. its an article about the season.. not just the team... don't really see the point of making the change. So if this is a vote, i'd vote to keep the "season" in the name for convience sake.. not a really pressing need to change all the sports articles over all the different projects. Spanneraol 22:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see a pressing need for the change. "Season" might be a bit clearer to the average reader.--Fabrictramp 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... I see your point now. It is more specific; thanks everyone for your opinion on this.   jj137 (Talk) 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move seasonal articles