![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I have also posed this question at the umpires task force talk page: Should the first ejection of an umpire's career be considered notable enough to be included on his page? I think the answer is clearly yes in cases where the umpire only has a small amount in his career, but I would also argue that it is enough of a milestone to be added on any page. However, these kind of questions are what this page is for. AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 17:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I jsut created {{ Bethune-Cookman Wildcats baseball coach navbox}}, and a coach by the name of Don Williams was the head coach for just the 1988 season. I am going under the assumption that it's got to be either Don Williams (1958–1962 pitcher), Don Williams (1963 pitcher), or Don Williams (baseball scout). Can someone please help me figure this out? Jrcla2 ( talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
We could really use more input on this article regarding the presentation of his 2003 baserunning gaffe. Please see the talk page and get involved. Thanks. – Muboshgu ( talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This user has been continuously updating player statistics without updating the date for the stats. He has been asked about this three times on his talk page, but as far I as know he has not responded. What is the next step? AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 17:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Carthage44 (
talk ·
contribs)
This user has been known to us for his past behavior. Now, he's starting to edit war about the smallest of things: he wants us to wait until the All-Star break before the next stat update, and is rolling back valid edits. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated two baseball-related lists as
FLCs and they are waiting for reviewers. Please check out the
20–20–20 club (nominated 18 days ago) and
50 home run club lists. Feedback and comments will be much appreciated. Thanks a million! —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
11:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Mayday call. The
20–20–20 club list has now passed the 22 day mark and could easily fall off the FLC if consensus isn't reached. The main sticking point is whether or not this list passes criterion 3b or not. Only one review has come in the last 13 days, so a discussion is urgently needed if action is going to be made (i.e. pass or fail). The current support–oppose is deadlocked at 4–3.If a few more folks from our baseball community can give it a quick look as well as input, that would be great. Cheers! —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
14:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:MLB OriolesNationals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
23:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
An ip has twice in the last 24 hours changed the teams that played in the 1937 World Series. Not sure why, but I reverted it as vandalism both times. Better to keep a good eye on that page for a few days. Also I had to revert some deliberate factual errors at Chicago White Sox as well, by the same ip.-- JOJ Hutton 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There is edit warring at Template:Chicago White Sox roster. Can others either help edit if it is against consensus or otherwise help with the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Chicago White Sox roster?— Bagumba ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I have issued a final warning about the attack since it was a separate issue from edit warring. If it continues let me know and I will block. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree too. This has to be the final warning; if they cross the line again at all, this should hit WP:AN/I. - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I just received a phone call from MLB.com. The statement I was given was that the site is "currently focused on modern leagues", and that the PL and UA will be included in a future MLB.com update. I asked for an official citation for the fact that these should be considered major leagues, and was told that they would have to transfer it to their New York team, and I would likely receive another call on Monday. So, unofficial confirmation that these leagues are considered part of MLB history, hopefully with something more official to come. - Dewelar ( talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Come here [1] and tell us if you think the article should be deleted. Bringing your glove and bat are optional. ...William 00:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this article should exist... seems like it contains a lot of original researc and it's definition of "controversy" seems unclear. Spanneraol ( talk) 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict-related break) Way too many problems with this article. Addressing some earlier subjects about what it should address: "Steroids", certainly. "Jackie Robinson" per se, no, but "Major League Baseball color barrier" or similar. "Black Sox" is in no way controversial in the way, say, the banning of Benny Kauff was. After all, there aren't a lot of people who will speak out in favor of throwing games. Stow is in no way a controversy either. There might be an argument for Bartman, since although he didn't do anything technically wrong there was certainly a lot of uproar over it, but it's much less controversial than, to pick a similar occurrence, the Jeffrey Maier incident. Really, either this article should be renamed "Major League Baseball scandals" (which seems to fit its actual content), or it needs to be about actual controversies -- e.g., the designated hitter, the wild card, instant replay, quality of umpiring, the stewardship of Bud Selig, and so on. - Dewelar ( talk) 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Instant replay would seem to be a natural addition to this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 22:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have other concerns. What makes the Reds briefly calling themselves the "redlegs" controversial, per se? There was nothing controversial about Brian Stow's beating. We're going to mention Barry Bonds and steroids, but not many others who have been accused or caught? The Gallaraga near-perfect game isn't even controversial, as everyone agrees it was an incorrect call. The lack of MLBers in the Olympics is unlikely to have been a significant controversy, and it certainly was not why baseball was removed from the program. The dilapidated state of Athens' Olympic baseball stadium is a good example of what was the cause. Jackie Robinson should not be listed by name as a controversy, but rather the colour barrier should. Nothing on the owners getting caught colluding in the 80s? That article is just a complete mess. Reso lute 23:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The user has engaged in clear vandalism (page blanking, smart aleck remarks) -- multiple times. Zepppep ( talk) 02:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:NPB franchise and postseason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, the page to track recent changes in this project is no longer working. Does anyone know how to fix this problem, or create a new recent changes page? AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 17:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It's the trade deadline today, so it goes without saying that there is going to be a lot of activity on some articles for players involved in trade situations. It could be helpful if those who see this note would be willing to keep an eye on the activity of some of these pages, to prevent vandalism from sneaking in or all-out edit wars from breaking out. AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Have all issues of BD been completely removed from Google Books? It seems I can't access any of them for sources (they result in HTTP 404) and unfortunately, Internet Archive doesn't seem to have copies of them either. Say it ain't so! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It just blows my mind to find that there is no article yet on the Babe Ruth League. Unbelievable! All I can offer for starters is this downloadable 2010 Inquiry Kit, an informational pdf prepared by the league. -- Kenatipo speak! 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I know that this suggestion is likely to immediately draw some opposition, however please don't dismiss my idea without at least giving it consideration. I am proposing that we as a WikiProject create an award, the MVE (Most Valuable Editor), to be given out monthly to the editor who has made the most significant contribution to the WikiProject over the past month. Some will say that this is unnecessary, but I think it could help to encourage editors by reminding them that their contributions are not going unnoticed. Obviously, there are details that would need to be worked out, and I'm willing to take on that task if there is enough support for it. Automatic Strikeout 21:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
As it stands now, we have an article for the 1951 National League tie-breaker series and a separate article for the Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), which as we all know, happened during that series. A good deal of the "shot" article overlaps the series article, while much of the rest of it looks like fluff. I wonder if a merge might be appropriate. As a sidenote, this is the only outstanding issue before we nominate the MLB tie-breakers as a good topic. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like there's certainly enough merge sentiment for me to formally open a merge discussion. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I opened a merge discussion at Talk:1951_National_League_tie-breaker_series#Merge_discussion. Please vote there. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:MLB SoxCubs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
04:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:MLB MarlinsRays has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
04:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the 30–30 club list for FLC three days ago. It would be great if I could get a wide range of comments and feedback from members of our baseball community for this list. Cheers! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 07:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Nominated this list for deletion, since it is an exact reproduction of information found in the main New York Yankees page's infobox. — Bloom6132 ( talk) 11:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The 20–20–20 club FLC has now been placed under "Nominations urgently needing reviews." After more than a month now, with the support to oppose votes tied at 5–4 and no imminent consensus, should I just withdraw this FLC and wait till another time to re-nominate it? — Bloom6132 ( talk) 18:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
We could sure use a lot more input here in order to break up the current 5–4 stalemate. Can anyone else please give some feedback? Over a month now and this FLC discussion continues to drag on (to say the least). — Bloom6132 ( talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Tim Lincecum, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. — Bagumba ( talk) 21:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The article Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Achowat (
talk)
19:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm hopeful one or more project members may be able to assist me on the List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins. User:EdelweissD has all but claimed ownership of the page (he has made only 4 edits to pages other than this list) and refuses to allow anyone to change any aspect of the page, often giving a poor explanation/no explanation at all for reverts. I attempted to split the 3 long tables into 4 to increase readability, which was reverted. After undoing that and explaining myself on the user's talk page, it was again reverted with a poor explanation. The user has not responed to my explanation, only making some remark about a "know-it-all attitude". I asked User:Muboshgu for help, and he reverted to the 4 table version for readability, which was met with another revert by EdelweissD (with the explanation "readability"). Muboshgu also recommended I post here to ask for assistance. Trut-h-urts man ( talk) 20:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, now that I'm on my work computer, I can see that four columns is problematic for the smaller resolution. I'm boldly cutting the list now. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be chopped. I would even go as far as right down to 100. 500 is clearly ridiculous. A page with only the top 10 in each stat category might even be a worthy endeavour instead of an individual page for each to avoid issues with NOTSTATS. - DJSasso ( talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested in removing splitter and forkball from the fastball section of Template:Baseball pitches. I think these belong under changeups. I have started a discussion on the template talk if anyone objects. -- Jprg1966 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the Golden Spikes Award list for FLC yesterday. It would be great if I could get a wide range of comments and feedback from members of our baseball community for this list. Cheers! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 06:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong....if a pitcher is traded in the middle of the season to a team in the other league, his statistics are 'zeroed' out and his current record includes only statistics obtained during play in the new league. Should we apply that rule when updating the pitcher's won-loss record in the team results? Juve2000 ( talk) 17:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
National League and American League statistics are separate, and that includes win-loss records. Vidor ( talk) 00:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the "forum" comment, but the third perfect game this season? So who's writing the article about it?-- JOJ Hutton 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
According to this and this, Charles Teague was the first CWS MOP, not Tom Hamilton. Other sources say it's Hamilton. Which is it? – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been involved in an attempt to start a project called Today's article for improvement. While I am still interested in seeing that project get underway, I thought it might also be a good idea to propose something similar for this specific WikiProject. I see that we used to have the Article improvement drive, but that seems to be pretty much defunct at this point. I would suggest having a collaboration in which we choose one article, preferably a biography, to be improved per week. Of course, we can still work on other articles, but I think if at least some of us work together focusing on a specific article, we can bring significant improvements to that article in a relatively short time. If there is support for the idea, perhaps we should test it out by picking a random article, maybe Robert Fick (is that random enough?), and seeing how much improvement can be done. Automatic Strikeout 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed vandalism from a contributor named Ccoffee99. I'm not sure if he's been blocked yet.-- 71.54.241.128 ( talk) 14:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.
Has anyone ever noticed that List of Major League Baseball perfect games and Perfect game are pretty much the same article? Except for the spots were they contradict each other:
Over the 135 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 23 official perfect games by the current definition.
That's from List of Major League Baseball perfect games. On perfect game we see:
Over the 143 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 23 official perfect games by the current definition.
The next sentence in both articles is:
More people have orbited the moon than have pitched a major league perfect game.
And it goes on like that. The prose is substantially similar on both articles. It appears that perfect game sees more regular editing attention as the correct statistic
During baseball's modern era, 21 pitchers have thrown perfect games.
appears there, while on "List" we see
During baseball's modern era, 19 pitchers have thrown perfect games.
Perfect game also has a lead section that "List" does not, but other than that, the two articles are nearly identical. And forgive me if this is controversial, but do we need two virtually identical articles? I would say redirect one to the other, but as perfect game is in better shape of the two and List of Major League Baseball perfect games is hardly a likely search term, the latter article should simply be deleted. Green-eyed girl ( Talk · Contribs) 18:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest deleting the List of Major League Baseball perfect games article and merging its content into this article as appropriate. The "list" article is pointless. Vidor ( talk) 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Look at
Vladimir Guerrero and
Wilton Guerrero's birthdates. They are clearly indicated as brothers, but their birth dates are 108 days apart. I don't even... --
67.180.161.183
(talk)
06:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
67.180.161.183
(talk)
19:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
67.180.161.183
(talk)
03:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Hardly uncommon to refer to a half-brother as simply a brother. Vidor ( talk) 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Featured list article Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award states an active player is: "A player is considered inactive if he has announced his retirement or not played for a full season." I believe this definition shall be applied to other articles, such as List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits. Please post your comments here or to the article's Talk:List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits where a thread has been started. Zepppep ( talk) 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Pitcher Bobby Mathews is listed at 297 wins in the all-time wins article. He needs to be removed. Many of those wins came with the NAPBP and the AA. I would think that the lists should only have MLB stats, thus NL and AL. Arnabdas ( talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"Several other defunct leagues are officially considered to be major, and their statistics and records are included with those of the two current major leagues. These include the Union Association (1884), the American Association (1882–1891, not to be confused with later minor leagues of the same name), the Players' League (1890) and the Federal League (1914–1915). In the late 1950s, a serious attempt was made to establish a third major league, the Continental League, but that league never played."
Well, I finally got my secondary reply from MLB, and it was...less than hoped. While it is, technically, a confirmation that all the leagues that we presume were "major leagues" are, indeed, considered such by MLB -- or, more precisely, the Elias Sports Bureau, which is MLB's official steward of all things statistical -- it was neither a confirmation that they are "part of Major League Baseball" as requested above, nor a document usable as a reference. It was nothing more than an e-mail containing that statement. However, the e-mail did pointedly exclude the National Association in its list of major leagues, which at least gives us a clue to how MLB views its status. I don't know how much help this has been, but I am loath to press the issue any further. All in all, a disappointing, if expected, result of the inquiry. If anyone would like a copy of the e-mail, I will gladly provide it. - Dewelar ( talk) 21:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
is it proper for us to start differentiating between "Major League Baseball" and "major league baseball" for the purposes of the thousands of articles to which the distinction makes a difference? No. Because there aren't very many articles where the distinction makes a difference, or at least not an interesting or important one. Well, except maybe for the Major League Baseball article, which devotes itself to the history of the current entity. To recap: Major League Baseball currently consists of two leagues. It recognizes as "major leagues" for statistical purposes four more leagues: the American Association, the 1884 Union Association, the 1890 Players' League, and the Federal League. It does not recognize the 1871-75 National Association. A player's season and career stats include stats from any of those six leagues, but not the National Association (see Cap Anson as noted above). Nor does MLB have a "nebulous stance" on its history. This is how the numbers have been counted. Some sources count the National Association, like Baseball Reference and Retrosheet, but MLB does not and their statistics at MLB.com reflect that. Vidor ( talk) 00:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I think one could make a pretty solid case that the National Association should be included in career totals, and many websites do that, like Baseball Reference, which vaults Cap Anson all the way to sixth in career hit totals. But to date MLB does not. I guess it would be worth noting in pages with players like Anson who straddled the NA and later leagues. Vidor ( talk) 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of a list, IMO, is for readers to be able to compare "X player" with their peers (the others in the list). However, it is not an uncommon thing to see article lists receiving only partial updating, thus causing the articles to not be accurately organized. The two most common partial update examples are one player's stats (while the other active players get ignored) and players with a current team (typically the editor's favorite) consistently updated. Meanwhile, the other active players in the list languish and receive no updates until an editor comes along to update the full article, such as with this article.
Additionally, the overall "updated through" date becomes null in void, since the article contains stats that have not in fact been updated (or the date is left unchanged and readers are left to think some players have advanced further in the list than might actually be factual). Failing to do so appears to violate NPOV as it appears to make a player look better amongst their peers than he may in fact be and might raise verifiability issues from readers. Some of the articles could be argued to be drifting towards opinion pieces with the targeted updating. (Some users have pointed to lengthy lists perhaps being one reason why editors choose to only update some of the listings within the article. While I might agree it could be one reason, most of what I've seen comes from favortism displayed towards players and/or teams, not editors updating half of the list and then coming back later to finish the other half. There is no doubt an issue with length with some article lists, however.) Zepppep ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
These are the two baseball articles currently up for debate in WP:FAC, if anyone is interested in commenting. Thanks Secret account 17:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This FLC was nominated 10 days ago and there still aren't a considerable amount of reviews. I think it would be great for WP's baseball community to have an active say in this. Cheers! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 19:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I have also posed this question at the umpires task force talk page: Should the first ejection of an umpire's career be considered notable enough to be included on his page? I think the answer is clearly yes in cases where the umpire only has a small amount in his career, but I would also argue that it is enough of a milestone to be added on any page. However, these kind of questions are what this page is for. AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 17:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I jsut created {{ Bethune-Cookman Wildcats baseball coach navbox}}, and a coach by the name of Don Williams was the head coach for just the 1988 season. I am going under the assumption that it's got to be either Don Williams (1958–1962 pitcher), Don Williams (1963 pitcher), or Don Williams (baseball scout). Can someone please help me figure this out? Jrcla2 ( talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
We could really use more input on this article regarding the presentation of his 2003 baserunning gaffe. Please see the talk page and get involved. Thanks. – Muboshgu ( talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This user has been continuously updating player statistics without updating the date for the stats. He has been asked about this three times on his talk page, but as far I as know he has not responded. What is the next step? AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 17:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Carthage44 (
talk ·
contribs)
This user has been known to us for his past behavior. Now, he's starting to edit war about the smallest of things: he wants us to wait until the All-Star break before the next stat update, and is rolling back valid edits. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated two baseball-related lists as
FLCs and they are waiting for reviewers. Please check out the
20–20–20 club (nominated 18 days ago) and
50 home run club lists. Feedback and comments will be much appreciated. Thanks a million! —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
11:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Mayday call. The
20–20–20 club list has now passed the 22 day mark and could easily fall off the FLC if consensus isn't reached. The main sticking point is whether or not this list passes criterion 3b or not. Only one review has come in the last 13 days, so a discussion is urgently needed if action is going to be made (i.e. pass or fail). The current support–oppose is deadlocked at 4–3.If a few more folks from our baseball community can give it a quick look as well as input, that would be great. Cheers! —
Bloom6132 (
talk)
14:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:MLB OriolesNationals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
23:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
An ip has twice in the last 24 hours changed the teams that played in the 1937 World Series. Not sure why, but I reverted it as vandalism both times. Better to keep a good eye on that page for a few days. Also I had to revert some deliberate factual errors at Chicago White Sox as well, by the same ip.-- JOJ Hutton 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There is edit warring at Template:Chicago White Sox roster. Can others either help edit if it is against consensus or otherwise help with the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Chicago White Sox roster?— Bagumba ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I have issued a final warning about the attack since it was a separate issue from edit warring. If it continues let me know and I will block. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree too. This has to be the final warning; if they cross the line again at all, this should hit WP:AN/I. - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I just received a phone call from MLB.com. The statement I was given was that the site is "currently focused on modern leagues", and that the PL and UA will be included in a future MLB.com update. I asked for an official citation for the fact that these should be considered major leagues, and was told that they would have to transfer it to their New York team, and I would likely receive another call on Monday. So, unofficial confirmation that these leagues are considered part of MLB history, hopefully with something more official to come. - Dewelar ( talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Come here [1] and tell us if you think the article should be deleted. Bringing your glove and bat are optional. ...William 00:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this article should exist... seems like it contains a lot of original researc and it's definition of "controversy" seems unclear. Spanneraol ( talk) 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict-related break) Way too many problems with this article. Addressing some earlier subjects about what it should address: "Steroids", certainly. "Jackie Robinson" per se, no, but "Major League Baseball color barrier" or similar. "Black Sox" is in no way controversial in the way, say, the banning of Benny Kauff was. After all, there aren't a lot of people who will speak out in favor of throwing games. Stow is in no way a controversy either. There might be an argument for Bartman, since although he didn't do anything technically wrong there was certainly a lot of uproar over it, but it's much less controversial than, to pick a similar occurrence, the Jeffrey Maier incident. Really, either this article should be renamed "Major League Baseball scandals" (which seems to fit its actual content), or it needs to be about actual controversies -- e.g., the designated hitter, the wild card, instant replay, quality of umpiring, the stewardship of Bud Selig, and so on. - Dewelar ( talk) 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Instant replay would seem to be a natural addition to this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 ( talk • contributions) 22:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have other concerns. What makes the Reds briefly calling themselves the "redlegs" controversial, per se? There was nothing controversial about Brian Stow's beating. We're going to mention Barry Bonds and steroids, but not many others who have been accused or caught? The Gallaraga near-perfect game isn't even controversial, as everyone agrees it was an incorrect call. The lack of MLBers in the Olympics is unlikely to have been a significant controversy, and it certainly was not why baseball was removed from the program. The dilapidated state of Athens' Olympic baseball stadium is a good example of what was the cause. Jackie Robinson should not be listed by name as a controversy, but rather the colour barrier should. Nothing on the owners getting caught colluding in the 80s? That article is just a complete mess. Reso lute 23:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The user has engaged in clear vandalism (page blanking, smart aleck remarks) -- multiple times. Zepppep ( talk) 02:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:NPB franchise and postseason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, the page to track recent changes in this project is no longer working. Does anyone know how to fix this problem, or create a new recent changes page? AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 17:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It's the trade deadline today, so it goes without saying that there is going to be a lot of activity on some articles for players involved in trade situations. It could be helpful if those who see this note would be willing to keep an eye on the activity of some of these pages, to prevent vandalism from sneaking in or all-out edit wars from breaking out. AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Have all issues of BD been completely removed from Google Books? It seems I can't access any of them for sources (they result in HTTP 404) and unfortunately, Internet Archive doesn't seem to have copies of them either. Say it ain't so! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It just blows my mind to find that there is no article yet on the Babe Ruth League. Unbelievable! All I can offer for starters is this downloadable 2010 Inquiry Kit, an informational pdf prepared by the league. -- Kenatipo speak! 22:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I know that this suggestion is likely to immediately draw some opposition, however please don't dismiss my idea without at least giving it consideration. I am proposing that we as a WikiProject create an award, the MVE (Most Valuable Editor), to be given out monthly to the editor who has made the most significant contribution to the WikiProject over the past month. Some will say that this is unnecessary, but I think it could help to encourage editors by reminding them that their contributions are not going unnoticed. Obviously, there are details that would need to be worked out, and I'm willing to take on that task if there is enough support for it. Automatic Strikeout 21:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
As it stands now, we have an article for the 1951 National League tie-breaker series and a separate article for the Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), which as we all know, happened during that series. A good deal of the "shot" article overlaps the series article, while much of the rest of it looks like fluff. I wonder if a merge might be appropriate. As a sidenote, this is the only outstanding issue before we nominate the MLB tie-breakers as a good topic. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like there's certainly enough merge sentiment for me to formally open a merge discussion. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I opened a merge discussion at Talk:1951_National_League_tie-breaker_series#Merge_discussion. Please vote there. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:MLB SoxCubs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
04:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:MLB MarlinsRays has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
04:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the 30–30 club list for FLC three days ago. It would be great if I could get a wide range of comments and feedback from members of our baseball community for this list. Cheers! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 07:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Nominated this list for deletion, since it is an exact reproduction of information found in the main New York Yankees page's infobox. — Bloom6132 ( talk) 11:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The 20–20–20 club FLC has now been placed under "Nominations urgently needing reviews." After more than a month now, with the support to oppose votes tied at 5–4 and no imminent consensus, should I just withdraw this FLC and wait till another time to re-nominate it? — Bloom6132 ( talk) 18:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
We could sure use a lot more input here in order to break up the current 5–4 stalemate. Can anyone else please give some feedback? Over a month now and this FLC discussion continues to drag on (to say the least). — Bloom6132 ( talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Tim Lincecum, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. — Bagumba ( talk) 21:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The article Logos and uniforms of the New York Mets has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Achowat (
talk)
19:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm hopeful one or more project members may be able to assist me on the List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins. User:EdelweissD has all but claimed ownership of the page (he has made only 4 edits to pages other than this list) and refuses to allow anyone to change any aspect of the page, often giving a poor explanation/no explanation at all for reverts. I attempted to split the 3 long tables into 4 to increase readability, which was reverted. After undoing that and explaining myself on the user's talk page, it was again reverted with a poor explanation. The user has not responed to my explanation, only making some remark about a "know-it-all attitude". I asked User:Muboshgu for help, and he reverted to the 4 table version for readability, which was met with another revert by EdelweissD (with the explanation "readability"). Muboshgu also recommended I post here to ask for assistance. Trut-h-urts man ( talk) 20:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, now that I'm on my work computer, I can see that four columns is problematic for the smaller resolution. I'm boldly cutting the list now. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be chopped. I would even go as far as right down to 100. 500 is clearly ridiculous. A page with only the top 10 in each stat category might even be a worthy endeavour instead of an individual page for each to avoid issues with NOTSTATS. - DJSasso ( talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested in removing splitter and forkball from the fastball section of Template:Baseball pitches. I think these belong under changeups. I have started a discussion on the template talk if anyone objects. -- Jprg1966 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the Golden Spikes Award list for FLC yesterday. It would be great if I could get a wide range of comments and feedback from members of our baseball community for this list. Cheers! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 06:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong....if a pitcher is traded in the middle of the season to a team in the other league, his statistics are 'zeroed' out and his current record includes only statistics obtained during play in the new league. Should we apply that rule when updating the pitcher's won-loss record in the team results? Juve2000 ( talk) 17:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
National League and American League statistics are separate, and that includes win-loss records. Vidor ( talk) 00:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the "forum" comment, but the third perfect game this season? So who's writing the article about it?-- JOJ Hutton 00:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
According to this and this, Charles Teague was the first CWS MOP, not Tom Hamilton. Other sources say it's Hamilton. Which is it? – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been involved in an attempt to start a project called Today's article for improvement. While I am still interested in seeing that project get underway, I thought it might also be a good idea to propose something similar for this specific WikiProject. I see that we used to have the Article improvement drive, but that seems to be pretty much defunct at this point. I would suggest having a collaboration in which we choose one article, preferably a biography, to be improved per week. Of course, we can still work on other articles, but I think if at least some of us work together focusing on a specific article, we can bring significant improvements to that article in a relatively short time. If there is support for the idea, perhaps we should test it out by picking a random article, maybe Robert Fick (is that random enough?), and seeing how much improvement can be done. Automatic Strikeout 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed vandalism from a contributor named Ccoffee99. I'm not sure if he's been blocked yet.-- 71.54.241.128 ( talk) 14:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC) --J.S.
Has anyone ever noticed that List of Major League Baseball perfect games and Perfect game are pretty much the same article? Except for the spots were they contradict each other:
Over the 135 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 23 official perfect games by the current definition.
That's from List of Major League Baseball perfect games. On perfect game we see:
Over the 143 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 23 official perfect games by the current definition.
The next sentence in both articles is:
More people have orbited the moon than have pitched a major league perfect game.
And it goes on like that. The prose is substantially similar on both articles. It appears that perfect game sees more regular editing attention as the correct statistic
During baseball's modern era, 21 pitchers have thrown perfect games.
appears there, while on "List" we see
During baseball's modern era, 19 pitchers have thrown perfect games.
Perfect game also has a lead section that "List" does not, but other than that, the two articles are nearly identical. And forgive me if this is controversial, but do we need two virtually identical articles? I would say redirect one to the other, but as perfect game is in better shape of the two and List of Major League Baseball perfect games is hardly a likely search term, the latter article should simply be deleted. Green-eyed girl ( Talk · Contribs) 18:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest deleting the List of Major League Baseball perfect games article and merging its content into this article as appropriate. The "list" article is pointless. Vidor ( talk) 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Look at
Vladimir Guerrero and
Wilton Guerrero's birthdates. They are clearly indicated as brothers, but their birth dates are 108 days apart. I don't even... --
67.180.161.183
(talk)
06:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
67.180.161.183
(talk)
19:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
67.180.161.183
(talk)
03:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Hardly uncommon to refer to a half-brother as simply a brother. Vidor ( talk) 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Featured list article Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award states an active player is: "A player is considered inactive if he has announced his retirement or not played for a full season." I believe this definition shall be applied to other articles, such as List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits. Please post your comments here or to the article's Talk:List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits where a thread has been started. Zepppep ( talk) 04:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Pitcher Bobby Mathews is listed at 297 wins in the all-time wins article. He needs to be removed. Many of those wins came with the NAPBP and the AA. I would think that the lists should only have MLB stats, thus NL and AL. Arnabdas ( talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"Several other defunct leagues are officially considered to be major, and their statistics and records are included with those of the two current major leagues. These include the Union Association (1884), the American Association (1882–1891, not to be confused with later minor leagues of the same name), the Players' League (1890) and the Federal League (1914–1915). In the late 1950s, a serious attempt was made to establish a third major league, the Continental League, but that league never played."
Well, I finally got my secondary reply from MLB, and it was...less than hoped. While it is, technically, a confirmation that all the leagues that we presume were "major leagues" are, indeed, considered such by MLB -- or, more precisely, the Elias Sports Bureau, which is MLB's official steward of all things statistical -- it was neither a confirmation that they are "part of Major League Baseball" as requested above, nor a document usable as a reference. It was nothing more than an e-mail containing that statement. However, the e-mail did pointedly exclude the National Association in its list of major leagues, which at least gives us a clue to how MLB views its status. I don't know how much help this has been, but I am loath to press the issue any further. All in all, a disappointing, if expected, result of the inquiry. If anyone would like a copy of the e-mail, I will gladly provide it. - Dewelar ( talk) 21:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
is it proper for us to start differentiating between "Major League Baseball" and "major league baseball" for the purposes of the thousands of articles to which the distinction makes a difference? No. Because there aren't very many articles where the distinction makes a difference, or at least not an interesting or important one. Well, except maybe for the Major League Baseball article, which devotes itself to the history of the current entity. To recap: Major League Baseball currently consists of two leagues. It recognizes as "major leagues" for statistical purposes four more leagues: the American Association, the 1884 Union Association, the 1890 Players' League, and the Federal League. It does not recognize the 1871-75 National Association. A player's season and career stats include stats from any of those six leagues, but not the National Association (see Cap Anson as noted above). Nor does MLB have a "nebulous stance" on its history. This is how the numbers have been counted. Some sources count the National Association, like Baseball Reference and Retrosheet, but MLB does not and their statistics at MLB.com reflect that. Vidor ( talk) 00:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I think one could make a pretty solid case that the National Association should be included in career totals, and many websites do that, like Baseball Reference, which vaults Cap Anson all the way to sixth in career hit totals. But to date MLB does not. I guess it would be worth noting in pages with players like Anson who straddled the NA and later leagues. Vidor ( talk) 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of a list, IMO, is for readers to be able to compare "X player" with their peers (the others in the list). However, it is not an uncommon thing to see article lists receiving only partial updating, thus causing the articles to not be accurately organized. The two most common partial update examples are one player's stats (while the other active players get ignored) and players with a current team (typically the editor's favorite) consistently updated. Meanwhile, the other active players in the list languish and receive no updates until an editor comes along to update the full article, such as with this article.
Additionally, the overall "updated through" date becomes null in void, since the article contains stats that have not in fact been updated (or the date is left unchanged and readers are left to think some players have advanced further in the list than might actually be factual). Failing to do so appears to violate NPOV as it appears to make a player look better amongst their peers than he may in fact be and might raise verifiability issues from readers. Some of the articles could be argued to be drifting towards opinion pieces with the targeted updating. (Some users have pointed to lengthy lists perhaps being one reason why editors choose to only update some of the listings within the article. While I might agree it could be one reason, most of what I've seen comes from favortism displayed towards players and/or teams, not editors updating half of the list and then coming back later to finish the other half. There is no doubt an issue with length with some article lists, however.) Zepppep ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
These are the two baseball articles currently up for debate in WP:FAC, if anyone is interested in commenting. Thanks Secret account 17:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This FLC was nominated 10 days ago and there still aren't a considerable amount of reviews. I think it would be great for WP's baseball community to have an active say in this. Cheers! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 19:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)