Shortcuts: WT:MLB WT:BASEBALL

WikiProject Baseball	(Rated Project-Class)	BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Baseball portal v • d • e WikiProject Baseball is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.  Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (22) talk  → Featured lists (97) talk  → Good articles (63) talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Naming conventions talk
Project organization Participants talk Large Userbox talk Project Userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball 2009 MLB team articles talk 2008 MLB team articles talk 2007 MLB team articles talk Team specific Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Contents 1 MLB Awards FT (3) 1.1 Current topic box status 1.2 Current co-nominators for FTC 1.3 Final push 2 The first annual signing war 3 RFPP 4 Are there any left to write?! 5 Overlinking in infobox 6 Roster question 7 AfD on Punchball 8 Category:Japanese baseball video games 9 New project-related AfD 10 Categories and Infobox 11 The next edit war has begun 12 Sporting News access 13 Rfc concerning how your project handles naming

[edit] MLB Awards FT (3)

Ok folks, starting another new thread on this so the old and outdated discussions can age into the archive. (and to keep things clear) This project is really rolling nicely, we're nearly complete. Muboshgu, will you be nominating the general List of Major League Baseball awards article at your next chance (this backlog nomination choke is slowing us down a bit)? I think the text for the awards could use some fixes, but you can grab that from the full articles easily enough. Meanwhile I've finished up Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award and I'll nominate it once 30 Rock (season 3) is all done. Really the only thing left is the MVP, yes?Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on finding references for List of Major League Baseball awards; I've got it at peer review right now. I'll take care of it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do, once the DHL page passes. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Current topic box status

edit | Topic discussion | Book 18 articles  Major League Baseball awards

Commissioner's Trophy World Series champions Most Valuable Player (MVP)  Cy Young Award  Manager of the Year  Rookie of the Year  Gold Glove Award subtopic  Silver Slugger Award subtopic  Hank Aaron Award  Roberto Clemente Award  Rolaids Relief Man of the Year  DHL Delivery Man Award  Comeback Player of the Year  World Series MVP  League Championship Series MVP  All-Star Game MVP  Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award

[edit] Current co-nominators for FTC

• User:Killervogel5 for Commish Trophy, MotY, GG, SS, LCS MVP, Commish Historic Achievement, etc, etc
• User:IMatthew for Cy Young Award, Roberto Clemente Award, Hank Aaron Award
• User:SRE.K.A.L.24 for Rolaids Relief Man award and WS MVP
• User:Staxringold for All-Star Game MVP, Rookie of the Year, and Comeback Player of the Year
• User:Muboshgu for List of Major League Baseball awards, DHL award, etc
• User:Scorpion0422 for heavy work, if perhaps not the FLC, of List of WS champs

• I think you guys missed List of World Series champions.—Chris!_c/t 04:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the World Series champions list should be included, as the List of Stanley Cup champions and the List of NBA champions are both on their respective league awards FTs. Since User:Scorpion0422 did most of the work on that article, we should ask him to clean up the article, and to nominate it, though he may be busy with his real life. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If he doesn't mind, anyone can bring it to FLC.—Chris!_c/t 05:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone other than Scorpion nominates, he should at least get credit for his job well done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ooooh! Very good catch. That definitely would've come up at the FTC. So who wants to take that bull by the horns? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bumping discussion. We really need to work on these last couple articles (DHL just got FL status). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • List of Major League Baseball awards is at FLC now too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award just got promoted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Final push

• KV5 just got the main list article to FL status and I'm working on List of World Series champs along with others. Who will take up the final challenge of MVP? Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I only wish I had the time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for coming along so late, but I think I can handle to MVP list. I assume I can borrow the format of NBA Most Valuable Player Award to some extent (at least for the lead)? Mm40 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly can. There is a lot more prose in this one, though, because of the broken history of the MVP including the Chalmers Awards and so forth. Welcome aboard! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK; I've finished the lead and the section on the Chalmers Award. I'm wondering if you guys could comment on both the content (having never heard about Chalmers, it was tricky but interesting) and the format (the current Chalmers Award table format will be used for the other tables). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• It looks pretty good to me; just a couple of things:

I wouldn't link the years in the prose, but if you say "yyyy season", then link to the MLB season instead of the "year in baseball".

I don't think we need the "selected statistics" in the tables for 1922 to 1929 if we aren't going to have them in the other tables. Those two tables, in fact, can probably be combined. Make sure the years are sortable in all the tables, though; I just noticed that they aren't in the first one. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Post again to keep this alive. Looks like things are progressing nicely. Hopefully can wrap up List of WS champs and ya'll are doing great with MVP. Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, MVP is going along fine. I've been busier than I've expected, but I'll definitely have it at FLC in 2 weeks max. Mm40 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The first annual signing war

Chris Coste is the first one. Of course it's the Mets fans... As much as I don't like the policy on waiting on the physicals, it's a bright-line rule, so we need another reverter. I know Coste isn't on many watchlists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can help, I'm usually online while North America isn't. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Shoppach needs more eyes; [1] (a highly malicious BLP issue) and [2] both stayed up for almost an hour and a half. Mm40 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF is up with the backup catchers!? Eyes on. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey ... watch your language, or as one of our fellow editors will tell you it could come up in your ongoing RfA.  :) --Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, watch it. ;) I'm now watching both to make sure there's no more vandalism/unsourced statements.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Placido Polanco is getting IP users adding unverifiable info too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Chone Figgins as well.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Feliz alert. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rodrigo Lopez (baseball). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFPP

I think given all the anonymous edits that come with something like the rumors surrounding Curtis Granderson, we should make more efforts to get 24-hr page protections. It wastes too much timre to revert every single edit. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's running rampant, an admin at WP:RFPP should be able to help out with at least a semi-protection for a short time, especially since they are BLPs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy have seen some jumping of the gun as well. Be sure to keep an eye on Edwin Jackson, Max Scherzer, Phil Coke and Daniel Schlereth.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I put in a WP:RFPP on Granderson. I'll watch the others as well, but it's usually the biggest name in the trade that gets it the most. I just think we should use WP:RFPP as S.O.P. whenever a big free agent signing or trade is announced, but not yet finalized. That Mark Teixeira thing went on forever last year. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Chone Figgins is getting the royal treatment this year too... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we should get it protected as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody other than me be reverting on Hideki Matsui, not enough for page protection...yet.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll watch it and PP after one or two more. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are there any left to write?!

Hi there. I'm an active participant of the cricket WikiProject, and baseball has always struck me as an interesting sport. I've been looking to write a nice article on a baseball player for a while now, but you seem to have done them all already! In cricket, there are bits and pieces one or two game wonders from 1850 onwards that always need making. The project compiles them together in a to-do list, but I can't find such a similar list here! Is there a nice redlink'd player I can create somewhere? :( SGGH ^ping! 15:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful that there are any redlinks, but we have oodles and oodles of stubs that aren't much more than redlinks that could use a good expansion - over 15,000 right now! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you felt like doing a bit of research (the books are out there) the Negro Leagues are rife with material waiting for creation/expansion. A lot of the notable player articles have been made, but plenty are there for expansion. Look at Walter Johnson, arguably the greatest pitcher of all time, doesn't even have a B-Class article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I shall try Dick Padden for no apparent reason. Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Heh, go for it. Be warned though, non-HoFers/super-notable guys will be harder to find non-statistical info on. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco Giants all-time roster, among a few others, has loads of redlinks for you to take a stab at. We are getting near the end of the tunnel though, I think, not too many to make. Wizardman 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dick Padden, I could use someone putting those last two stats in the infobox! I don't know which ones they are from baseball-refernece.com. There also appears to be a period between 1899 till 1901 where he either didn't play or did something that wasn't recorded. And yes, it is mostly statistics. SGGH ^ping! 17:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, you should be proud, that's a solid little stub expansion right there. I honestly would suggest trying your hand at a bigger name, given your success there. Maybe one of the odder early HoFers. I'm working on King Kelly for example (or at least I was for a while). As for those 2 stats, they are for pitchers, that's why B-Ref doesn't have them. I'll fix the infobox. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just found this. Are they one and the same? Because if so, Padden seems to have had some White Socks involvement. If that's true, then another source which suggests he was arrested for a punch up with a Detroit played might also be true... SGGH ^ping! 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's weird... His B-ref page lists no managerial work, yet 1900 is missing (suggesting he was doing something else or in the minors) from his record. And additional weirdness, the White Sox were founded in 1901, so how could he manage them/play 2B in 1900? For reference, their manager in 1901 was Clark Griffith and their 2B Sam Mertes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Chicago White Sox reads: "In 1900, the Western League changed its name to the American League. It was still officially a minor league, subject to the governing National Agreement and an underling of the National League. The NL actually gave permission to the AL to put a team in Chicago, provided he not use the city name in the team's branding. Comiskey moved his St. Paul club to the Near South Side and renamed it the White Stockings, grabbing a nickname that had once been used by the Chicago Cubs. The White Stockings won the 1900 American League pennant, the final WL/AL championship season as a minor league.[1] After the season, the AL declined to renew its membership in the National Agreement and declared itself a major league." So I guess he was in the minors, as a player-manager, for the 1900 season. In fact, look at his minor league B-Ref page. Under teams played for, 1900: Chicago White Stockings. So there you go, he was a minor league player-manager that season. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Lol, got edit conflicted and you beat me to it :) Wizardman 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Heh. I'm really digging SGGH's random editing decision, unearthed an interesting little mystery of a player. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I think I've mis-read it. I swear it said "1909" on my screen, my eyesight must be going! I'll change it to make more sense. SGGH ^ping! 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on the article as well, lots of edit conflicts :). But I did some reference work, added some categories, persondata, infobox, and some lead work. I am bored here at work, yet not wanting to do any huge daunting task, so building up this player seems like a nice relaxing things to do !Neonblak ^talk - 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added quite a bit of content, cleaned it up a bit, but I'm not done with my work though. It will most likely be a C level article, but I will compare with the B critera. Interesting day, working with this completely random baseball player.Neonblak ^talk - 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to see if the expansion becomes enough to qualify for DYKs... we could rack up a lot for the project this way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will tonight when I am finished with the article, should be something interesting to post for the DYK.Neonblak ^talk - 01:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Like it was said above, although there are a few redlinks in all-time rosters, not much can be found on them (although the articles should be created). One area that does need some attention is Hall of Famers. I looked at a random one earlier today, Dave Bancroft. Three short paragraphs on him doesn't do the subject justice, especially with all the easily-accessible material about him. Expansion forthcoming. Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, how come there isn't an infobox slot for number of games? Would have thought it was a fairly critical statistic (though the number of matches a baseball player plays is rediculous, in cricket you've had a pretty exceptional career if you've played 100 Test matches, and England's most capped ODI player has 171!) SGGH ^ping! 09:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have expanded this article as much as I reasonable could, copyedited it, and believe it meets the B-critera, and have upgraded it to that. I really don't think there is too terribly much to do to shoot for a GA assessment, but I have two projects that I am trying to get promoted to FL.Neonblak ^talk - 22:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm working on an FLC and FPC as well, but I've stuck this at DYK at least to start. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking in infobox

I've been having a mini edit war with a user over the linking in infobox in the Hideo Nomo article. The other user claims that EVERY instance of a team name, stat or year needs to be linked in the infobox because "that's how its done". This leaves us at 46 TOTAL links in the box, with a few things being linked 3 different times, and many things being linked twice, including all of the stats. If that is true, then that needs to be changed. If he is just making things up, then I need help because I'm pretty sure I've reached my reverting limit. Comments? --Torsodog^Talk 20:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It was agreed to in the past that every team link in the infobox should be linked. I am not "making things up".--Yankees10 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While some of the stuff can be linked and some delinked, I can't remember back as far as the issue may have come up, so maybe it's time to actually figure out consensus on the issue (i've seen boxes with everything linked, most things delinked, etc.) Wizardman 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned birth/death location, team, position, and statistics should be linked because those provide actually useful information (birth/death location least so). As for dates, particularly the upper dates that just link to years and not "XXXX in baseball", there's absolutely no need for those links. As per WP:DATE, "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though linking was previously recommended).[1] Dates should only be linked when they are germane and topical to the subject, as discussed at Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items." Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too crazy about dates either. Linking to "xxxx in baseball" almost never furthers a reader's knowledge of the player in question. As for linking to teams, I'm all for it. However, I think the team should only be linked in the infobox once, and that should be in the lists of teams section. I also think stats should only be linked in the first instance they appear, and delinked in every subsequent appearance. --Torsodog^Talk 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed on the "only link once" rule, but links in the infobox should not cancel out linking at least once in the article's main text. Derek Jeter, for example, should link to New York Yankees both in his infobox (once) and then in the lead in (I'm not looking at the article so I'm just guessing) a sentence reading "Derek Jeter is the shortstop for the New York Yankees." Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. What happens in the infobox, stays in the infobox... so to speak. --Torsodog^Talk 00:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Teams in the list of teams in the info box should be linked each time... If someone played for the Cubs twice during their career, the team should be linked both times... It just looks better.Spanneraol (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats my main reason for wanting them both linked, it looks better.--Yankees10 01:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think things should be linked for aesthetic concerns. Plus a delinked second instance of a team name could help readers note that it isn't a completely new team quicker. Another option is that the team is only listed once but and two different year spans are included in the parentheses. Either way, I don't mind too much if all the teams are linked in the teams section, but I would prefer if they were only linked once. What do you guys think about the years? --Torsodog^Talk 01:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no on listing the team with different year spans... I like the way it's been done in the past... listing the teams chronologically and linking every time. I don't care much about the years... if you want to delink those I'm fine with that.. Spanneraol (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Torsodog about listing teams only once in the team list, and utilizing multiple year spans. That section of the infobox is labled "Teams" not "Chronological Career History". Ken Griffey, Jr. has played for the Mariners during two, non-consecutive periods, but the Seattle Mariners still constitute only one of the teams he's played for. This woud also eliminate the duplicate linking issue that Torsodog referred to (and eliminate the necessity of arguing aesthetics). - Masonpatriot (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Torsodog, why does it bother you so much that they are linked more then once?--Yankees10 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't "bother me so much". It is simply redundant and unnecessary, therefore why not remove them? Anyways, what do you think about the year issue? --Torsodog^Talk 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the years should be linked, if not what would be the point of the Template:Baseball Year.--Yankees10 02:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• For individual years where it applies. Read WP:OVERLINKING. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that both teams and years should be linked, but only linked once in the infobox.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In an infobox, years are not being given within the context of a specific season or year in baseball, and so I do not believe it is appropriate to link them. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The template {{mlby}}, for the most part, provides a lot more context than the baseball years, which are mostly lists of champions in worldwide baseball. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/the sentiment that teams, dates (and other info in infobox that is linked) should only be linked once. That's the rule as well in the article, and I believe the same arguments hold in the infobox. There is no greater aesthetic argument in the infobox -- in fact, it is less strong in the infobox, as the prior link is closer generally. Also agree that infobox and article can each have a one-time-only link to the same article.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Epeefleche. I can take or leave the year linking. Wknight94 ^talk 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Just to move this along a bit, here is a proposal based on what has been discussed here so far:

• Teams will only be linked once, always in the teams section
• Stats will only be linked once, their first occurrence
• Years will only be linked once (or not at all?) --Torsodog^Talk 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Roster question

I'm looking to spruce up the Federal League all-time rosters and make them all FLs. However, I noticed that three of them had separate names in 1914 and 1915. As a result, I'm not sure what to name the lists. Chicago Whales all-time roster is the only one in existence, while the Buffalo Buffeds/Blues and Indy Hoosiers/Newark Pepper are still redlinked, so I thought I'd ask before creation. Should they be created under their 1915 name, or the name most familiar, which may be subjective? Wizardman 18:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think if there's a clearly more familiar name (like New York Yankees as opposed to New York Highlanders, to use a current example) that's ok, but barring that I'd just use their most "recent" name (the Montreal Expos are at Washington Nationals, the original Senators are at Minnesota Twins, etc). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weird, the Expos have their own article but the Senators don't? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's because the Expos fans demanded that their team's articles be kept separate from the Nats. That is all a very sore subject. Regarding the Federals, the safest is "[city] Federal League" or "[city] FL" or some such. The Chicago club had no official nickname in 1914, being dubbed the Federals or Feds or "ChiFeds". They adopted "Whales" for 1915. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't realize the Expos had fans. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't either, until they filibustered on this topic, in 2005 and also recently. If the Expos had known they had so many fans, maybe they would have stayed in Montreal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Washington/Montreal approach actually makes more sense to me, in that we have separate categories for players who played with a franchise in different cities. Which is itself pretty necessary, since otherwise you'd have nonsensical outcomes like Babe Ruth listed under Category:Atlanta Braves players when in reality he had been dead for 20 years before Atlanta had a team, and probably never even set foot in the city. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let's not do this again. Please. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, for Buffalo I'll pick the last name, the Blues, per above. Only reason I'm not sold on Newark Pepper all-time rosterjust yet is because they won the federal league championship as the hoosiers that only season. For consistency though I'll likely just choose the latter to make it easier. Wizardman 17:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "All-time" roster for a 2-year league. Yep. :) Create the Indy/Newark roster as one article under whichever city name, and create the other name as a redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Punchball

FYI, there is an deletion discussion (AfD) now on the sport of punchball here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Japanese baseball video games

Category:Japanese baseball video games was nominated for renaming to Category:Video games about Japanese baseball, at CfD November 29.

However, the discussion fizzled out, so I have relisted it at CfD December 18, where your input would be appreciated.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New project-related AfD

Travis D'Arnaud is up for deletion; he's one of the names involved in the Halladay/Lee trade and doesn't pass WP:N. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis D'Arnaud. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and Infobox

I have noticed that lately when a player is signed or traded the team they are with is added to the infobox of categories (example: Milton Bradley (baseball) infobox). Since they haven't played with the team but most likely will play with them do we add it? Does it violate WP:CRYSTAL or is it almost certain to happen? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL because that's their team, if they're released or traded then we remove it (unless they played for them).--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But isn't what constitutes a player, playing for the team? Playing for a team is not "scheduled or expected" as crystal says so it becomes speculation. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually as far as categories for sports players go, they aren't added to the team player category until they play a game. Infoboxes however they are usually listed with which ever team they are actually playing for or signed to in the case of free agent signings. -DJSasso (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My argument becomes "player" means two different things. They are a "player" now but playing in a game officially makes them a "player" for that team. They may have played on other teams but the team they are with now doesn't count as one of their teams they have played for because they haven't recorded a game with their current team. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, that sort of what I was trying to explain. Players aren't added to the player category because those categories are meant for people who have actually played games with the team. However infoboxes don't have that restriction and list whomever holds their rights. So to use the example you provided above you would list he belongs to the Mariners in the infobox. But you would not add him to Category:Seattle Mariners players. -DJSasso (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding the team to the team name part of the infobox is fine.. but adding them to the list of teams with the (2010-present) designation is inappropriate because that implies they played for that team, which they have not yet. I have never understood why we jump ahead of ourselves on that matter. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brian, DJSasso and Spanneraol on this. Whatever we do, we should avoid the NFL Project's practice, where pretty much anyone who plays on a practice squad gets included as a "player". - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the category but what I do disagree with is the infobox. It's insane to not list it when they're on the 40-man if they never play then fine remove it. But add it even if it says 2010.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Mason. The NFL way is very screwed up and the NBA way of separating the current team with the former team doesn't make any sense to me. Whenever I add a 2010 when it's 2009 seems very wrong, but it's definitely the best of the three. There's definitely something wrong with having to remove something if it never happens. That seems to me exactly what WP:CRYSTAL is trying to avoid. What does hockey do? — X96lee15 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the categories, no reason to put them in until they've played a game; agree with others. Wizardman 16:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hockey adds the team as soon as they sign. However, we don't list dates next to teams like you do in baseball so it doesn't look as out of place as it does for yours. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What I dont understand is why all of the sudden do people not want to add the categories. It has been done this way since I have been here without any problems. In the past users such as JustSomeRandomGuy32, Jackal4 and I used to update pages with adding categories and there was no problem. Now there is a bunch of people who dont even update pages changing everyting.--Yankees10 16:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never wanted to add the info till they've played a game.. It's just silly to have to remove something if it doesn't happen. We should wait till it does happen to add the info. Lots could happen before the season starts, the guy could get injured, he could be traded, he could suck and be sent to the minors.. assuming he will make the team isn't our job.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there's something to adding it now as they are on the 40 man roster, and that does mean something, but since they could be traded/released or worse, I can see the other side of it. I don't think it's such a big deal either way. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Using the 40-man isn't a good metric, though, as plenty of players appear on the 40-man and never actually play for the team (especially during the off-season, when so many moves occur). - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Then I'd say no to putting them in categories, but yes to listing them as members of the team in the infobox, as that is transient. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanneraol, you made my point perfectly. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yankees10, the reason you don't add them to the categories until they play is because most categories have (and those that don't should) a line at the top of them stating the criteria of the category which says something like "This is a list of players who, at one point, played for Major League Baseball's Seattle Mariners." So just being signed does not fit the criteria of the category in that they have not played. The infobox on the other hand just states "teams" which can be interpreted as any team they belonged to. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And on a similar note, they don't get added to the all-time roster lists until they play in a regular season game for the new team. At one time all the lists had that notation at the top, but I haven't checked them all lately to make sure they still have it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The next edit war has begun

We've gotta keep an eye on Javier Vázquez, Melky Cabrera, Michael Dunn (baseball), and Boone Logan, but I have a meeting in twenty minutes. I've put in WP:RFPP requests for all but Logan as that one is untouched so far. (Oh and on a side note, great trade for my Yankees if it's true!) --Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh...wouldn't call it an edit war just yet. What's standard procedure on trades that have been announced but aren't "official" yet? I figured it being reported in the news made it official enough, but if we generally wait until the teams announce it, then I'll back off until they do. Ferrantino (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Until the deal is official, it's not verifiable. That means that the team has to announce it. It can go in prose that a deal has been "reported" (and only with reliable sources), but not in the infobox, the lead, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I said it's begun, not that it's in full force yet. But Vazquez is getting it now. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll keep watch on the articles then until the teams themselves announce it. Sorry for the confusion. Ferrantino (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sporting News access

Hey. Not trying to spam, but letting you all know the WorldVitalRecords has free access for a couple days to everything (i don't know how much can be accessed on a trial membership). So if you've been holding off on an article waiting to find sources, now's your chance. Might as well get what you can now. Wizardman 04:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc concerning how your project handles naming

There is a request for comments active at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Should naming conventions for people apply regardless of topic/project?, which is likely to be of interest to regular participants here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)