![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Check it out and leave criticisms if you have time. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
...I have nominated 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season for GA. Appropriate considering the championship. Reviews from any and all project members who have not contributed significantly to the article would be appreciated. If you'd rather not participate formally in the GA nom, you can leave suggestions for me or other contributors here or at the article talk. This would also be the first GA for WP:PHILLIES since it actually started (though we inherited one upon creation). Cheers! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been having a discussion with Djsasso regarding the purpose of categories such as this one. He was removing these categories from some players, with the edit summary " no longer in japan", which I thought was incorrect, not by definition, but by how these categories are being used. In current usage, they seem to be used to catch all such players who have played in Japan, ever, and that is how I have treated the category to date. However, is this the purpose for which these categories are, or were, intended? As Djsasso has pointed out, this is not the traditional definition of expatriate, so perhaps a renaming is in order. Anyone have any ideas? - Dewelar ( talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll propose another question pertaining to this subject. If a player (Ex. Aaron Guiel) is in the Category:Canadian expatriate baseball players in Japan, should they also be in the Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan? Jackal4 ( talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems apparent to me from the "Reggie Sanders" discussion above that every time this issue it either ends without a change or it turns into "jousting with man-parts" as KV so eloquently puts it. However, one thing that does happen is that it pops up again at some point. I see the situation as if we have three options: (1) Keep the current format, formulate a formula to determine when a player is "retired", and be done with it. (2) Create a new template based on a current one, likely from another sport. (3) Create an entirely new template of our own, while solving the problems that are apparent with the current design. So this discussion doesn't turn into another one similar to those in the past we're either going to set a timetable for discussion, unless there is a runaway candidate. I am going to create three subtopics, to go with my three said options. I encourage everyone to add pros and cons that they see about each proposal, along with a discussion. I would like to set a tentative timetable of one week (ending November 25, 2008) at which point we can move onto the next phase. Hopefully in that week one option will emererge as the favorite, if not we can extend phase one. Though it may help, I hesitate to say we're going to vote because it is discouraged, but after a thorough discussion it might have to be a last resort. If you have any comments about the discussion please add it below, but try to keep any discussion about a specific template in its own sub-section. Thanks! Black ngold29 04:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We dont need to go through the trouble of making new infoboxes just because of this issue.-- Yankees10 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Heres what I personally think we should do: change the name of the infobox to Infobox MLB inactive, and have guidelines so that after one year of a player being a free agent, then we change it to this infobox.-- Yankees10 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yankees10 obsession with retired userboxes is well-documented. One year is not a realistic threshold given that Tommy John surgery can easily wipe out 2 seasons (Rodrigo Lopez, Russ Ortiz, Vance Wilson). They are obviously still active.-- NWA.Rep ( talk) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Iamawesome is a sockpuppet of Yankees10.-- NWA.Rep ( talk) 03:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No actually he is not, look into things before accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet-- Yankees10 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
As evidenced by the Reggie Sanders discussion, an attempt to keep the status quo and set guidelines will be futile, because I don't see how any definitive guideline could be created considering the nature of the "retirement/inactive" topic. I do not favor this option. Monowi ( talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the exact difference between 2 and 3, but option 1, the status quo, certainly is not acceptable in any way.-- NWA.Rep ( talk) 11:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
With Option II, I meant it would be like "adopt this sport's template" with Option III we make are own original one. Now that you point it out they are pretty much the same option, perhaps we should eliminate II or III? Black ngold29 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
One template, using "inactive" in place of "retired", or just simply stating "current team = none". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My personal favorite other sport is Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player it is simple and doesn't have all the Achievements that make some people's infobox gigantic. It is the same for current and retired players. Black ngold29 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: Example shown of a merged template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Infobox test, with the merged template code located at Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox.
I propose a MERGER of the MLB retired and MLB player. It would be located at Template:Infobox MLB player, and the retired template would simply redirect to the player template. It would require a little updating to the code which I cannot since I am not an admin. But I had a go (this is far from finished) at Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox where i have added an MLB final game field - which is the only field different in the retired template! The only thing if someone could please take a look at the code is that I need a way for the current team field to go away when nothing is selected. Also, I need someone to take a look and make the option "awards" also allow for the option "highlights" instead, since this is what the retired template used for the same thing.
Now I think the priority should be merging, and if required a cosmetic change can come later! So please no arguments that is looks too ugly or something, that can all be fixed once the merger is complete. An example of the two shown next to each other is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Infobox test. — Borgarde talk 01:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope I am not being a pain, but can we also make the jersey number an optional thing for just active players-- Yankees10 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I support this idea. One unified template would hopefully make things easier for the editors of this project, and stem the tide of debate that is seen in places like the Reggie Sanders dicsussion. My suggestion for this proposal is that since the team colors were removed from the Retired Template, we could also remove any coloring from the new unified template, even if the player is active & playing for a particular team; my logic is that is would increase the consistency across player articles, and stem off any coloring debate if the player is a free agent. Another suggestion is that instead of a "Final Game" category, it could be called something like "Last MLB appearance" as a first step towards addressing the "retired/inactive" debate. Monowi ( talk) 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
From the standpoint of the infobox, is there any practical difference between "free agent", "inactive" and "retired"? I contend that there is not. You're either under contract with a team, or you're not. Saying you're a free agent amounts to self-promotion in hopes of getting a contract. Failing to announce retirement nurtures the same hope. And even retirement does not rule out a comeback. I am inactive and retired, and I could argue that I am a free agent. It's just that no one will sign me up or call my own agent. (Maybe it would help if my agent wasn't primarily an insurance agent. And maybe it would help if I had ever actually played major league ball. Whatever.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to try and gain a bit of consensus here, is anyone AGAINST the proposal I have put forward? — Borgarde talk 08:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I support this merger. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I support this merger as well, at least in concept. I reserve the right to withdraw my support if I don't like how it turns out :) . - Dewelar ( talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I am Agaisnt the merger. I dont get why they should be merged just because of this little issue. Both the NFL and NBA have there retired infoboxes based on this one and now we are just merging it and this is the only major sport that wouldnt have seperate infoboxes. I think this is a total mistake.-- Yankees10 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the concept of a merger: as there is no functional difference between the merged infobox and the two separate ones, I prefer one template over two, which requires less maintenance (no need to swap out one infobox for another when a player's career ends). As the colour distinction is being preserved with the current proposal, I don't see any other issues in this thread regarding a merger. (I understand there may still be disagreement on terminology for a player's status, but since the merged template can cope with whatever consensus is arrived at, this does not need to hold up a merger of the infoboxes.) Isaac Lin ( talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the merger. In fact, I support the NHL template (see above) which merges active, inactive, retired, and whatever else all into one. Black ngold29 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the merger of the templates. Monowi ( talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
So the only difference is that there is only one infobox now? Active players still have their team's colors and inactive/retired players have no colors? If that's the case, then I support this merger. Jackal4 ( talk) 05:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there is enough support to go ahead and make this change now. I'll request the templates be updated. — Borgarde talk 08:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There would need to be things taken care of still. I didn't realize the discussion was going on but i dunno if i like the idea. Mlb player looks nicer, but it's missing some things found in mlb retired. The two should've been streamlined before any merge. Wizardman 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
After the above discussion on infoboxes and the result of them being merged I have looked at a further option of one infobox for every player. The template essentially looks identical, the colouring will still be auto, retired/inactive blank. The template is located at Template:Infobox baseball biography and I've been testing it on NPB player articles and it seems to be fitting in fine.
Examples of a joint MLB/NPB usage are on Ichiro Suzuki and Daisuke Matsuzaka. I mainly created this because I've noticed for a while the pure MLB bias in the infoboxes of Japanese players, even if they are icons in Japan. (Suzuki being part of the Meikyukai - One of the Japanese Hall of Fames, and if like me you've ever been over there, everyone loves him no matter what team they support).
A combined infobox will allow all of this information to be present and will no longer make them purely MLB biased.
This will also work for any professional league, not necessary just NPB, can be extended to all top level leagues. — Borgarde talk 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a member of this project, BUT, I am a member of WikiProject Arena Football League, and we have a player named Aaron Boone, as do you guys. I recently created a page for Aaron Boone the Arena Football League player at Aaron Boone (American football). I would propose that we move Aaron Boone to Aaron Boone (baseball) and create a disambiguation page at currenty page, Aaron Boone. Cra sh Underride 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please assist in dealing with this user? His only purpose at this point is to revert a set of my edits and try to sound like what he is doing is valid. See Template:CurrentMLBclosers, Carlos Delgado, Template:MLBStartingCatchers, among others (he'll pick up another page each day lately to just constantly revert). All he's doing is being major ass. JustSomeRandomGuy32 ( talk) 06:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
JustSomeRandomGuy32 just doesn't get it. He has been edit warring in many baseball related articles to keep his preferred version without any reliable cites. Despite plea for calm and reason, he continue to edit war. He definatly violated 3RR on Template: CurrentMLBclosers. Can someone please stop his vandalistic pursuit? It is getting ridiculous.-- IceFrappe ( talk) 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Look at my contributions throughout the years. Carlos Delgado is a world champion. He was on the roster but did not play. I remember that explicitly. Tell JustSomeRandomGuy to find a source before randomly and unilaterally removing information. PERIOD. Djasasso is a biased admin by involving himself in reverting. How am I disruptive? He is the one who unilaterally remove information from articles. Most of the people he listed will never be starting catchers or closers. This just discredits the entire section of baseball in Wikipedia. Do any of you know anything about baseball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Please look at this History.
Vandalism happens frequently. Therefore, I think that the semi protection is necessary. -- KANE SUE 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) My English may be inappropriate, because I am Japanese. If you discover a mistake, I want you to correct it
Reported trade - not official yet - people are updating pages - please help protect some of them. J. J. Putz, Aaron Heilman, etc. Thanks... JustSomeRandomGuy32 ( talk) 04:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind.... It's official now... 12 players... 3 teams... This is going to be a mess. JustSomeRandomGuy32 ( talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Well... we need to try and settle this. User:Brewcrewer has attempted to move J. J. Putz to J.J. Putz, citing the original move 18+ months ago was by a now-banned user. It seemed to be settled at some point a bit later that using a space fit with WP:NCP, but now it's hard to find something for sure. The only thing there is the use of H. G. Wells, using a space. The discussion page is a mess of many arguments for and against the space, and seemed to go nowhere. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has a throwaway example also stating to use "H. G.", and not "H.G.". The same situation exists for players like A. J. Burnett (I'm pretty sure every current MLB player has a space in their names right now). Where do we go with this? JustSomeRandomGuy32 ( talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
As JSRG showed with the provided link, the issue has been hashed out earlier on a general basis. A perusal of the discussion shows a slight preference to non-spacing. See this discussion, for example. I guess that's why WP:NCP doesn't even provide a MOS for initials. I really don't get the whole issue. The initials are written without a space by all RS and when people are commonly writing. Indeed, throughout the very articles of initialized people they are despaced. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is the banned user referenced in the opening here? — Wknight94 ( talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It does look like most initialized people are spaced, but it's really strange. The fundamental rule in naming conventions is that we are supposed to use the name that is most frequently used. In general writing the initials are not spaced so why should we make an exception here. The blocked editor that I was referring to was User:Koavf ( block log). He apparently was the major pusher of the spaced initials. Apparently, there's no rule in MOS regarding initials so there's nothing stopping editors from reaching a consensus regarding specific articles. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Jeez! Please calm the heck down. I have no idea what you are getting all insulted about. I don't even understand what you think I meant. In any case, I'm trying to have a civilized conversation and your paranoid/browbeating/condescending numbered comments aren't really helping. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of argument, I am researching this. I haven't found a justification for why initials should have spaces, but I have found one for why this rule often gets ignored here:
No word space should be used between the initials of an abbreviation or a person’s name. U.S., J.B. White
Note: Grammatical rules regarding punctuation are often bent for the sake of visual appeal, especially in headings or display type.
So the answer appears to be "ignore the rule because it looks better if you do." If Wikipedia considers appearance above correctness, I can't really do anything about that, I suppose :) . - Dewelar ( talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This is exciting and all, but can you two either tone it down or take this somewhere else? How about WT:NCP? — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering trying to create a Wikiproject for the Washington Nationals. Likely myself, and some other folks from WNFF.net will be helping to keep the Nationals Articles accurate and current.
just figured I'd run this past you guys, since you are are doing a decent enough job as is, we just want to help out.
plus I can't seem to figure out exactly how to make/propose the Wikiproject anyway. JMWhiteIV ( talk) 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The Nats in DC only have a few years of history. How about a project that discusses Washington baseball in general, which has a fairly rich history. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
We're having some contract-related issues at this page, as there were at Raul Ibanez before it was protected. User:NoseNuggets has been adding information to the page that violates WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, in particular adding non-finalized contracts and speculation about the return of free agents or injured players. Diff provided for reference. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In my recent work on List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners, it was recomended that I move the GMs and owners to another list to keep all teams the same. I'm kind of split on the decision, because I think it looks fine with all three, but I agree all teams lists should look similar. I am going to nominate the list of managers for FLC regardless of the GMs or owners being listed, but if I move them to a new list I doubt that List of Pirates owners has enough to become an FL. So—as I see it—it's one FL (with everything) or one FL (managers) and one regular list (Owners and GMs). Between those two options I'm leaning toward the first, but does anyone else have any thoughts on it? Thanks. black ngold29 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I made this a while ago in hopes that a general effort might be started to work more efficiently on the game logs in the season articles. Does anyone have any interest in "revamping" it (even though it was never really started)? jj137 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this proposal affects your project, I think its only fair your project be notified since the proposer has not. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) - Djsasso ( talk) 20:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
names. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed two different categories for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 27. The Taiwan category is fairly straightforward, but, the other one has me waffling a bit. I'm hoping that members of the baseball project can come over there and comment. Thanks! Neier ( talk) 11:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm posting this at the old-time task force talk page as well, but I'm not certain how active it is, so am posting it here as well.
I notice there is no separate category for the players from this team, and they seem to be lumped in with the team that was founded in 1882. On various pages, I see conflicting information regarding whether or not the two teams were the same organization, but most of what I've seen indicates they were not. Can we establish once and for all whether or not they are the same team?
In any case, I'm going to go ahead and create the new category, and will go through and move players into it, but beyond that there are probably a number of pages that will need to be reviewed to address this issue. - Dewelar ( talk) 18:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Everyone who knows anything about baseball knows that this guy is in a tentative deal with Yankees. There are endless citable sources on the matter. Yet certain editors want to pretend it ain't so, and keep reverting it. This makes no sense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Look at all the comments in the ESPN article. [4] Other clubs are talking about it as a done deal. Oh, but what do they know? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The way around crystal in this situation is simply to add a note somewhere in the article that its currently being reported that he signed a tentative deal and put the source in. But I would leave him listed as a free agent and make it clear that its not an officially done deal. - Djsasso ( talk) 14:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As above, we propose to the project that for all players signing deals that are not yet official (i.e., still pending physicals, etc.) should be denoted with a mention in the lead (as well as the article space, and only with refs of course) and by changing "Free agent" to "Contract pending ( NYY)", where "NYY" is a link to the appropriate team. Please indicate your feelings toward the proposal with the appropriate !vote below.
“ | It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced | ” |
TROUT slap everyone who is making a big deal about this issue. An extra mighty trout slap for anyone who is threatening to quit the project over this! How about every time you feel the urge to war with a group of IPs during free agency season - or feel the urge to even respond to this stupid note of mine - go write an entire new article instead? Our cup runneth over with people turning every corner of Wikipedia into a battleground. WP:ANI is thataway for anyone addicted to that nonsense. Resist the urge and write an encyclopedia instead. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me (or my browser) or is Template:MLB seasons seriously screwed up? I'm just noticing it; a user did a bunch of editing back in November and either I'm not getting something or he made some mistakes along the way. faithless (speak) 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and revert to my version then? Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Do any of you folks have thoughts about Template:MLBAceStartingPitchers and the tables at Ace (baseball)? People seem to be confusing the concepts of ace and number one starter. If they're the same, then every team must have an ace, and no team can have more than one. That sure doesn't sound right to me. - Eureka Lott 04:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have modified the Ace (baseball) article to more correctly reflect how the term is generally used, as well as to add the fact that in early baseball, an "ace" was a run. - Dewelar ( talk) 05:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently discovered that there is both a List of managers and owners of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals and a List of Washington Nationals managers. The latter list is a FL and well done, the former is pretty redundant. When hockey teams move from one city to another they are treated as two seperate teams (hence List of Quebec Nordiques head coaches and List of Colorado Avalanche head coaches). So I'm basically asking what should be done with List of managers and owners of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals? I understand that finding sources for GMs and owners can be difficult, so if we can find those and clean it up some I have no problem with keeping it, but if it's just going to remain in its current state of repeating info then we might as well delete or merge it. Thoughts? black ngold29 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Eventually, once the open wounds of Expos fans heal, the Expos will be treated as they should be, as part of the history of the Nationals franchise, because that's how MLB treats them, whether we like it or not. MLB doesn't treat them uniquely, and nor should we, because otherwise it's inserting bias into how it's handled. However, I've long since resigned myself to the fact that we're willing to go ahead and do it anyway. Nevertheless, on principle, I'll throw my vote behind merging the Nationals article into the full franchise article. - Dewelar ( talk) 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
MLB is not correctly linked. Therefore, the following corrections are necessary. -- KANE SUE 08:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
http://mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id → http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id
It's now filled with a bunch of garbage, and apparently has to be fixed by an admin. - Dewelar ( talk) 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Soliciting general help from any one around to work on the Carl Pohlad article. The MN Twins owner died recently, his article is seriously lacking solid info. Should be a new abundance of bio-like sources in the next week or so to get the article improved. Any help appreciated! Keeper ǀ 76 05:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion on why only MLB players are sorted by position? For example, why doesn't a category Category:Designated hitters exist, while Category:Major League Baseball designated hitters does? Why are players sorted by position and league in the first place? That seems rather arbitrary, as players play across the world and even in non-MLB leagues in the United States.-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 05:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thought i'd give people here a heads-up. I dropped into the AfD page and saw that the Braves-Mets rivalry page is up for deletion. It was apparantly deleted in May and someone recreated it today. Anyway, I thought y'all might be interested. SMSpivey ( talk) 08:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this [5] is a Liebman sock, or just an unwitting imitator. But a claim that so-and-so holds such-and-such record absolutely requires a citation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
A recent discussion (located here) about the inclusion of all-time MLB rankings of several of Ozzie Smith's stats has lead me to question if the info should be included on the page at all. First, the inclusion of this info has already sparked confusion, as Baseball Reference [6] and MLB.com [7] have different rankings of the all-time stolen bases leaders, mostly because Baseball Reference included pre-1900 era stats. Second, keeping the rankings up to date amounts to more article maintenance. Also, I noticed the featured articles Sandy Kofax and Lee Smith (baseball) only list career stats, no career rankings included. My question is, does the info provided by the stat rankings warrant inclusion on Ozzie's article? I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Cheers, Monowi ( talk) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, the article Ty Cobb which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. Anderson's birth and death dates were originally put on in August 2007 as (born November 23, 1947; died June 13, 2006). I looked now and I cannot find anything on his death whatsoever. I changed it to living, but I was wondering if anyone had further info on this. I mean, maybe it was just an 18-month old factual error, but maybe not. Wizardman 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
User Kinston eagle has been busy reverting attempts to add the Hall of Fame template to the Henderson, Rice, and Gordon pages. He's already violated WP:3RR on Henderson and Rice, and is probably about to do so on Gordon as well. Does he need to be blocked, or is he right to be doing this? - Dewelar ( talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend among articles on professional baseball players that is inconsistent with articles on other professional athletes of other sports. It seems that active baseball players do not have their positions Wikilinked in the infobox, whereas retired baseball players do have their positions Wikilinked. However, this would contadict the standard that seems to exist for articles on professional athletes for other sports, where their positions are Wikilinked in the infobox, regardless of playing status. Would there be any diagreement to having all articles on active baseball players Wikilink their position in the infobox? Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone who knows how to do such things create a bot to convert all the deprecated infoboxes from player articles? I've been doing them by hand, but there are still over 4,000 such articles, and I've noticed that there are still people (and without naming names, some are people who know better) either creating articles using the old infobox or adding the old infobox to existing pages. It's really frustrating. Really, we need to delete the old template entirely at some point, preferably ASAP. - Dewelar ( talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I know about this template, but where is the ACTUAL CONTENT? -DANO- ( talk) 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently nominated Ozzie Smith as a featured article candidate, and subsequently tried to add the article under the "potential featured content" section on the right side column of the WP:Baseball homepage. Is there some simple wiki-text element I'm missing that is preventing it from appearing, or is it something else? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Monowi ( talk) 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is the only one that's still incomplete out of the main rosters. Anyone willing to tackle it? I would but arbcom takes up a lot of time.. Wizardman 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Uh guys... have we forgotten about this? caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Are we done?!? caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:43, 28 January 2009 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Check it out and leave criticisms if you have time. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
...I have nominated 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season for GA. Appropriate considering the championship. Reviews from any and all project members who have not contributed significantly to the article would be appreciated. If you'd rather not participate formally in the GA nom, you can leave suggestions for me or other contributors here or at the article talk. This would also be the first GA for WP:PHILLIES since it actually started (though we inherited one upon creation). Cheers! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been having a discussion with Djsasso regarding the purpose of categories such as this one. He was removing these categories from some players, with the edit summary " no longer in japan", which I thought was incorrect, not by definition, but by how these categories are being used. In current usage, they seem to be used to catch all such players who have played in Japan, ever, and that is how I have treated the category to date. However, is this the purpose for which these categories are, or were, intended? As Djsasso has pointed out, this is not the traditional definition of expatriate, so perhaps a renaming is in order. Anyone have any ideas? - Dewelar ( talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll propose another question pertaining to this subject. If a player (Ex. Aaron Guiel) is in the Category:Canadian expatriate baseball players in Japan, should they also be in the Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan? Jackal4 ( talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems apparent to me from the "Reggie Sanders" discussion above that every time this issue it either ends without a change or it turns into "jousting with man-parts" as KV so eloquently puts it. However, one thing that does happen is that it pops up again at some point. I see the situation as if we have three options: (1) Keep the current format, formulate a formula to determine when a player is "retired", and be done with it. (2) Create a new template based on a current one, likely from another sport. (3) Create an entirely new template of our own, while solving the problems that are apparent with the current design. So this discussion doesn't turn into another one similar to those in the past we're either going to set a timetable for discussion, unless there is a runaway candidate. I am going to create three subtopics, to go with my three said options. I encourage everyone to add pros and cons that they see about each proposal, along with a discussion. I would like to set a tentative timetable of one week (ending November 25, 2008) at which point we can move onto the next phase. Hopefully in that week one option will emererge as the favorite, if not we can extend phase one. Though it may help, I hesitate to say we're going to vote because it is discouraged, but after a thorough discussion it might have to be a last resort. If you have any comments about the discussion please add it below, but try to keep any discussion about a specific template in its own sub-section. Thanks! Black ngold29 04:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We dont need to go through the trouble of making new infoboxes just because of this issue.-- Yankees10 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Heres what I personally think we should do: change the name of the infobox to Infobox MLB inactive, and have guidelines so that after one year of a player being a free agent, then we change it to this infobox.-- Yankees10 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yankees10 obsession with retired userboxes is well-documented. One year is not a realistic threshold given that Tommy John surgery can easily wipe out 2 seasons (Rodrigo Lopez, Russ Ortiz, Vance Wilson). They are obviously still active.-- NWA.Rep ( talk) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Iamawesome is a sockpuppet of Yankees10.-- NWA.Rep ( talk) 03:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No actually he is not, look into things before accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet-- Yankees10 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
As evidenced by the Reggie Sanders discussion, an attempt to keep the status quo and set guidelines will be futile, because I don't see how any definitive guideline could be created considering the nature of the "retirement/inactive" topic. I do not favor this option. Monowi ( talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the exact difference between 2 and 3, but option 1, the status quo, certainly is not acceptable in any way.-- NWA.Rep ( talk) 11:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
With Option II, I meant it would be like "adopt this sport's template" with Option III we make are own original one. Now that you point it out they are pretty much the same option, perhaps we should eliminate II or III? Black ngold29 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
One template, using "inactive" in place of "retired", or just simply stating "current team = none". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
My personal favorite other sport is Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player it is simple and doesn't have all the Achievements that make some people's infobox gigantic. It is the same for current and retired players. Black ngold29 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: Example shown of a merged template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Infobox test, with the merged template code located at Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox.
I propose a MERGER of the MLB retired and MLB player. It would be located at Template:Infobox MLB player, and the retired template would simply redirect to the player template. It would require a little updating to the code which I cannot since I am not an admin. But I had a go (this is far from finished) at Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox where i have added an MLB final game field - which is the only field different in the retired template! The only thing if someone could please take a look at the code is that I need a way for the current team field to go away when nothing is selected. Also, I need someone to take a look and make the option "awards" also allow for the option "highlights" instead, since this is what the retired template used for the same thing.
Now I think the priority should be merging, and if required a cosmetic change can come later! So please no arguments that is looks too ugly or something, that can all be fixed once the merger is complete. An example of the two shown next to each other is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Infobox test. — Borgarde talk 01:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope I am not being a pain, but can we also make the jersey number an optional thing for just active players-- Yankees10 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I support this idea. One unified template would hopefully make things easier for the editors of this project, and stem the tide of debate that is seen in places like the Reggie Sanders dicsussion. My suggestion for this proposal is that since the team colors were removed from the Retired Template, we could also remove any coloring from the new unified template, even if the player is active & playing for a particular team; my logic is that is would increase the consistency across player articles, and stem off any coloring debate if the player is a free agent. Another suggestion is that instead of a "Final Game" category, it could be called something like "Last MLB appearance" as a first step towards addressing the "retired/inactive" debate. Monowi ( talk) 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
From the standpoint of the infobox, is there any practical difference between "free agent", "inactive" and "retired"? I contend that there is not. You're either under contract with a team, or you're not. Saying you're a free agent amounts to self-promotion in hopes of getting a contract. Failing to announce retirement nurtures the same hope. And even retirement does not rule out a comeback. I am inactive and retired, and I could argue that I am a free agent. It's just that no one will sign me up or call my own agent. (Maybe it would help if my agent wasn't primarily an insurance agent. And maybe it would help if I had ever actually played major league ball. Whatever.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to try and gain a bit of consensus here, is anyone AGAINST the proposal I have put forward? — Borgarde talk 08:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I support this merger. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I support this merger as well, at least in concept. I reserve the right to withdraw my support if I don't like how it turns out :) . - Dewelar ( talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I am Agaisnt the merger. I dont get why they should be merged just because of this little issue. Both the NFL and NBA have there retired infoboxes based on this one and now we are just merging it and this is the only major sport that wouldnt have seperate infoboxes. I think this is a total mistake.-- Yankees10 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the concept of a merger: as there is no functional difference between the merged infobox and the two separate ones, I prefer one template over two, which requires less maintenance (no need to swap out one infobox for another when a player's career ends). As the colour distinction is being preserved with the current proposal, I don't see any other issues in this thread regarding a merger. (I understand there may still be disagreement on terminology for a player's status, but since the merged template can cope with whatever consensus is arrived at, this does not need to hold up a merger of the infoboxes.) Isaac Lin ( talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the merger. In fact, I support the NHL template (see above) which merges active, inactive, retired, and whatever else all into one. Black ngold29 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the merger of the templates. Monowi ( talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
So the only difference is that there is only one infobox now? Active players still have their team's colors and inactive/retired players have no colors? If that's the case, then I support this merger. Jackal4 ( talk) 05:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there is enough support to go ahead and make this change now. I'll request the templates be updated. — Borgarde talk 08:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There would need to be things taken care of still. I didn't realize the discussion was going on but i dunno if i like the idea. Mlb player looks nicer, but it's missing some things found in mlb retired. The two should've been streamlined before any merge. Wizardman 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
After the above discussion on infoboxes and the result of them being merged I have looked at a further option of one infobox for every player. The template essentially looks identical, the colouring will still be auto, retired/inactive blank. The template is located at Template:Infobox baseball biography and I've been testing it on NPB player articles and it seems to be fitting in fine.
Examples of a joint MLB/NPB usage are on Ichiro Suzuki and Daisuke Matsuzaka. I mainly created this because I've noticed for a while the pure MLB bias in the infoboxes of Japanese players, even if they are icons in Japan. (Suzuki being part of the Meikyukai - One of the Japanese Hall of Fames, and if like me you've ever been over there, everyone loves him no matter what team they support).
A combined infobox will allow all of this information to be present and will no longer make them purely MLB biased.
This will also work for any professional league, not necessary just NPB, can be extended to all top level leagues. — Borgarde talk 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a member of this project, BUT, I am a member of WikiProject Arena Football League, and we have a player named Aaron Boone, as do you guys. I recently created a page for Aaron Boone the Arena Football League player at Aaron Boone (American football). I would propose that we move Aaron Boone to Aaron Boone (baseball) and create a disambiguation page at currenty page, Aaron Boone. Cra sh Underride 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please assist in dealing with this user? His only purpose at this point is to revert a set of my edits and try to sound like what he is doing is valid. See Template:CurrentMLBclosers, Carlos Delgado, Template:MLBStartingCatchers, among others (he'll pick up another page each day lately to just constantly revert). All he's doing is being major ass. JustSomeRandomGuy32 ( talk) 06:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
JustSomeRandomGuy32 just doesn't get it. He has been edit warring in many baseball related articles to keep his preferred version without any reliable cites. Despite plea for calm and reason, he continue to edit war. He definatly violated 3RR on Template: CurrentMLBclosers. Can someone please stop his vandalistic pursuit? It is getting ridiculous.-- IceFrappe ( talk) 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Look at my contributions throughout the years. Carlos Delgado is a world champion. He was on the roster but did not play. I remember that explicitly. Tell JustSomeRandomGuy to find a source before randomly and unilaterally removing information. PERIOD. Djasasso is a biased admin by involving himself in reverting. How am I disruptive? He is the one who unilaterally remove information from articles. Most of the people he listed will never be starting catchers or closers. This just discredits the entire section of baseball in Wikipedia. Do any of you know anything about baseball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Please look at this History.
Vandalism happens frequently. Therefore, I think that the semi protection is necessary. -- KANE SUE 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) My English may be inappropriate, because I am Japanese. If you discover a mistake, I want you to correct it
Reported trade - not official yet - people are updating pages - please help protect some of them. J. J. Putz, Aaron Heilman, etc. Thanks... JustSomeRandomGuy32 ( talk) 04:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind.... It's official now... 12 players... 3 teams... This is going to be a mess. JustSomeRandomGuy32 ( talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Well... we need to try and settle this. User:Brewcrewer has attempted to move J. J. Putz to J.J. Putz, citing the original move 18+ months ago was by a now-banned user. It seemed to be settled at some point a bit later that using a space fit with WP:NCP, but now it's hard to find something for sure. The only thing there is the use of H. G. Wells, using a space. The discussion page is a mess of many arguments for and against the space, and seemed to go nowhere. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has a throwaway example also stating to use "H. G.", and not "H.G.". The same situation exists for players like A. J. Burnett (I'm pretty sure every current MLB player has a space in their names right now). Where do we go with this? JustSomeRandomGuy32 ( talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
As JSRG showed with the provided link, the issue has been hashed out earlier on a general basis. A perusal of the discussion shows a slight preference to non-spacing. See this discussion, for example. I guess that's why WP:NCP doesn't even provide a MOS for initials. I really don't get the whole issue. The initials are written without a space by all RS and when people are commonly writing. Indeed, throughout the very articles of initialized people they are despaced. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is the banned user referenced in the opening here? — Wknight94 ( talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It does look like most initialized people are spaced, but it's really strange. The fundamental rule in naming conventions is that we are supposed to use the name that is most frequently used. In general writing the initials are not spaced so why should we make an exception here. The blocked editor that I was referring to was User:Koavf ( block log). He apparently was the major pusher of the spaced initials. Apparently, there's no rule in MOS regarding initials so there's nothing stopping editors from reaching a consensus regarding specific articles. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Jeez! Please calm the heck down. I have no idea what you are getting all insulted about. I don't even understand what you think I meant. In any case, I'm trying to have a civilized conversation and your paranoid/browbeating/condescending numbered comments aren't really helping. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of argument, I am researching this. I haven't found a justification for why initials should have spaces, but I have found one for why this rule often gets ignored here:
No word space should be used between the initials of an abbreviation or a person’s name. U.S., J.B. White
Note: Grammatical rules regarding punctuation are often bent for the sake of visual appeal, especially in headings or display type.
So the answer appears to be "ignore the rule because it looks better if you do." If Wikipedia considers appearance above correctness, I can't really do anything about that, I suppose :) . - Dewelar ( talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This is exciting and all, but can you two either tone it down or take this somewhere else? How about WT:NCP? — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering trying to create a Wikiproject for the Washington Nationals. Likely myself, and some other folks from WNFF.net will be helping to keep the Nationals Articles accurate and current.
just figured I'd run this past you guys, since you are are doing a decent enough job as is, we just want to help out.
plus I can't seem to figure out exactly how to make/propose the Wikiproject anyway. JMWhiteIV ( talk) 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The Nats in DC only have a few years of history. How about a project that discusses Washington baseball in general, which has a fairly rich history. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
We're having some contract-related issues at this page, as there were at Raul Ibanez before it was protected. User:NoseNuggets has been adding information to the page that violates WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, in particular adding non-finalized contracts and speculation about the return of free agents or injured players. Diff provided for reference. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In my recent work on List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners, it was recomended that I move the GMs and owners to another list to keep all teams the same. I'm kind of split on the decision, because I think it looks fine with all three, but I agree all teams lists should look similar. I am going to nominate the list of managers for FLC regardless of the GMs or owners being listed, but if I move them to a new list I doubt that List of Pirates owners has enough to become an FL. So—as I see it—it's one FL (with everything) or one FL (managers) and one regular list (Owners and GMs). Between those two options I'm leaning toward the first, but does anyone else have any thoughts on it? Thanks. black ngold29 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I made this a while ago in hopes that a general effort might be started to work more efficiently on the game logs in the season articles. Does anyone have any interest in "revamping" it (even though it was never really started)? jj137 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this proposal affects your project, I think its only fair your project be notified since the proposer has not. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) - Djsasso ( talk) 20:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
names. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed two different categories for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 27. The Taiwan category is fairly straightforward, but, the other one has me waffling a bit. I'm hoping that members of the baseball project can come over there and comment. Thanks! Neier ( talk) 11:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm posting this at the old-time task force talk page as well, but I'm not certain how active it is, so am posting it here as well.
I notice there is no separate category for the players from this team, and they seem to be lumped in with the team that was founded in 1882. On various pages, I see conflicting information regarding whether or not the two teams were the same organization, but most of what I've seen indicates they were not. Can we establish once and for all whether or not they are the same team?
In any case, I'm going to go ahead and create the new category, and will go through and move players into it, but beyond that there are probably a number of pages that will need to be reviewed to address this issue. - Dewelar ( talk) 18:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Everyone who knows anything about baseball knows that this guy is in a tentative deal with Yankees. There are endless citable sources on the matter. Yet certain editors want to pretend it ain't so, and keep reverting it. This makes no sense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Look at all the comments in the ESPN article. [4] Other clubs are talking about it as a done deal. Oh, but what do they know? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The way around crystal in this situation is simply to add a note somewhere in the article that its currently being reported that he signed a tentative deal and put the source in. But I would leave him listed as a free agent and make it clear that its not an officially done deal. - Djsasso ( talk) 14:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
As above, we propose to the project that for all players signing deals that are not yet official (i.e., still pending physicals, etc.) should be denoted with a mention in the lead (as well as the article space, and only with refs of course) and by changing "Free agent" to "Contract pending ( NYY)", where "NYY" is a link to the appropriate team. Please indicate your feelings toward the proposal with the appropriate !vote below.
“ | It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced | ” |
TROUT slap everyone who is making a big deal about this issue. An extra mighty trout slap for anyone who is threatening to quit the project over this! How about every time you feel the urge to war with a group of IPs during free agency season - or feel the urge to even respond to this stupid note of mine - go write an entire new article instead? Our cup runneth over with people turning every corner of Wikipedia into a battleground. WP:ANI is thataway for anyone addicted to that nonsense. Resist the urge and write an encyclopedia instead. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me (or my browser) or is Template:MLB seasons seriously screwed up? I'm just noticing it; a user did a bunch of editing back in November and either I'm not getting something or he made some mistakes along the way. faithless (speak) 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and revert to my version then? Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Do any of you folks have thoughts about Template:MLBAceStartingPitchers and the tables at Ace (baseball)? People seem to be confusing the concepts of ace and number one starter. If they're the same, then every team must have an ace, and no team can have more than one. That sure doesn't sound right to me. - Eureka Lott 04:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have modified the Ace (baseball) article to more correctly reflect how the term is generally used, as well as to add the fact that in early baseball, an "ace" was a run. - Dewelar ( talk) 05:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I recently discovered that there is both a List of managers and owners of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals and a List of Washington Nationals managers. The latter list is a FL and well done, the former is pretty redundant. When hockey teams move from one city to another they are treated as two seperate teams (hence List of Quebec Nordiques head coaches and List of Colorado Avalanche head coaches). So I'm basically asking what should be done with List of managers and owners of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals? I understand that finding sources for GMs and owners can be difficult, so if we can find those and clean it up some I have no problem with keeping it, but if it's just going to remain in its current state of repeating info then we might as well delete or merge it. Thoughts? black ngold29 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Eventually, once the open wounds of Expos fans heal, the Expos will be treated as they should be, as part of the history of the Nationals franchise, because that's how MLB treats them, whether we like it or not. MLB doesn't treat them uniquely, and nor should we, because otherwise it's inserting bias into how it's handled. However, I've long since resigned myself to the fact that we're willing to go ahead and do it anyway. Nevertheless, on principle, I'll throw my vote behind merging the Nationals article into the full franchise article. - Dewelar ( talk) 05:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
MLB is not correctly linked. Therefore, the following corrections are necessary. -- KANE SUE 08:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
http://mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id → http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id
It's now filled with a bunch of garbage, and apparently has to be fixed by an admin. - Dewelar ( talk) 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Soliciting general help from any one around to work on the Carl Pohlad article. The MN Twins owner died recently, his article is seriously lacking solid info. Should be a new abundance of bio-like sources in the next week or so to get the article improved. Any help appreciated! Keeper ǀ 76 05:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion on why only MLB players are sorted by position? For example, why doesn't a category Category:Designated hitters exist, while Category:Major League Baseball designated hitters does? Why are players sorted by position and league in the first place? That seems rather arbitrary, as players play across the world and even in non-MLB leagues in the United States.-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 05:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thought i'd give people here a heads-up. I dropped into the AfD page and saw that the Braves-Mets rivalry page is up for deletion. It was apparantly deleted in May and someone recreated it today. Anyway, I thought y'all might be interested. SMSpivey ( talk) 08:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this [5] is a Liebman sock, or just an unwitting imitator. But a claim that so-and-so holds such-and-such record absolutely requires a citation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
A recent discussion (located here) about the inclusion of all-time MLB rankings of several of Ozzie Smith's stats has lead me to question if the info should be included on the page at all. First, the inclusion of this info has already sparked confusion, as Baseball Reference [6] and MLB.com [7] have different rankings of the all-time stolen bases leaders, mostly because Baseball Reference included pre-1900 era stats. Second, keeping the rankings up to date amounts to more article maintenance. Also, I noticed the featured articles Sandy Kofax and Lee Smith (baseball) only list career stats, no career rankings included. My question is, does the info provided by the stat rankings warrant inclusion on Ozzie's article? I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Cheers, Monowi ( talk) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, the article Ty Cobb which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. Anderson's birth and death dates were originally put on in August 2007 as (born November 23, 1947; died June 13, 2006). I looked now and I cannot find anything on his death whatsoever. I changed it to living, but I was wondering if anyone had further info on this. I mean, maybe it was just an 18-month old factual error, but maybe not. Wizardman 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
User Kinston eagle has been busy reverting attempts to add the Hall of Fame template to the Henderson, Rice, and Gordon pages. He's already violated WP:3RR on Henderson and Rice, and is probably about to do so on Gordon as well. Does he need to be blocked, or is he right to be doing this? - Dewelar ( talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend among articles on professional baseball players that is inconsistent with articles on other professional athletes of other sports. It seems that active baseball players do not have their positions Wikilinked in the infobox, whereas retired baseball players do have their positions Wikilinked. However, this would contadict the standard that seems to exist for articles on professional athletes for other sports, where their positions are Wikilinked in the infobox, regardless of playing status. Would there be any diagreement to having all articles on active baseball players Wikilink their position in the infobox? Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone who knows how to do such things create a bot to convert all the deprecated infoboxes from player articles? I've been doing them by hand, but there are still over 4,000 such articles, and I've noticed that there are still people (and without naming names, some are people who know better) either creating articles using the old infobox or adding the old infobox to existing pages. It's really frustrating. Really, we need to delete the old template entirely at some point, preferably ASAP. - Dewelar ( talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I know about this template, but where is the ACTUAL CONTENT? -DANO- ( talk) 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently nominated Ozzie Smith as a featured article candidate, and subsequently tried to add the article under the "potential featured content" section on the right side column of the WP:Baseball homepage. Is there some simple wiki-text element I'm missing that is preventing it from appearing, or is it something else? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Monowi ( talk) 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is the only one that's still incomplete out of the main rosters. Anyone willing to tackle it? I would but arbcom takes up a lot of time.. Wizardman 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Uh guys... have we forgotten about this? caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Are we done?!? caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)