Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Liga Mexicana de Beisbol

I want to move this page to it's English name. Which the article says is "Mexican Baseball League", but the website, on milb.com says it's Mexican League. I don't know much about this league, which is why I'm asking what it should be named. If someone else knows better, feel free to make the move. --Borgarde^talk 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I think that the page should be moved to Mexican League, and the Mexican League page is basically just a disambig page, that can be removed completely by adding relative links like 'see also'. Anyone disagree? ----Borgarde^talk 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Quickly looking at the history of Mexican League, there may be some WP:CUTPASTE issues as well. Maybe a WP:RM is in order just in case. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied From WP:RM: The page Mexican League is an article with a significant history. This needs discussion first. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, so the article's title should be in English. The Spanish title can always be a redirect. And there's no harm in pointing out that (1) the Spanish name is Liga Mexicana de Beisbol and that (2) the formal name is Mexican Baseball League - just as the formal names of the American and National Leagues end in "of Professional Baseball Clubs". On MLB.com or MiLB.com, there's no reason to add "Baseball" to any of those titles, as its understood. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick but technically Liga Mexicana de Béisbol is the league's "formal" name since its based in a Latin American country, "Mexican League" would be its "English name". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "Mexican League of Baseball". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A grammatical point: The proper spelling is Liga Mexicana de Béisbol. Without the accent mark, the stress would fall on the second syllable. Hence, the article's current title is not even its correct Spanish name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisit discussion

This move got knocked back at requested moves because there was not enough discussion on an article with significant history. I'm inviting anyone with any objection to this move to comment so we can find out if everyone is in agreement. I believe it should be Mexican League because this is the English encyclopedia and the name should be in English. --Borgarde^talk 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Propose move to Mexican League (baseball) - "Mexican League" on its own is too vague as a title, so I suggest adding the "baseball" disambiguator. – PeeJay 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Standings Template

Per WP:DASH and the Manual of Style, en-dashes are used "[as] a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions (Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Michelson–Morley experiment, diode–transistor logic." There used to be a short caveat in this paragraph about how the hyphen is most commonly misused in sports box scores. I've been trying to make sure that the standings templates (Template:2008 NL East Standings and the like) are using these en-dashes. I know that the standings templates weren't previously sized to handle en-dashes and were breaking lines, but this should all be fixed now. I would appreciate some support from the editors here at WP:BASEBALL in following the convention set down by MOS. In particular, there is one IP user who continues to replace all en-dashes with hyphens, very likely because it is simply easier to type. I did not know if that was another editor who just didn't log in or has been editing from their IP instead of a username. However, I've warned the IP address 3 times now to no avail. In fact, the user went back through the standings articles today and replaced the en-dashes for teams who didn't play games last night with hyphens.

Just wanted to make sure everyone had a heads-up on what was going on, and thanks in advance for your support. Questions can be left here or on my talk. Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Two questions:

1) Why do you use a "—" vs a "–" in the GB column? Seems the "–" is more appropriate, but that's just my opinion.

2) I've always wondered, what's Wikipedia's stance on using a "—" vs the unicode "–"? I could never find any MOS text related to the question. I prefer the unicode character as it is more WYSIWYG-ish in an article edit text box. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1) I personally like the em-dash for the first-place teams for two reasons; a) because the MOS describes it as "visually striking" (and I agree); and b) because I think it makes sense to use a different symbol to signify first place (or 0 games back, which I would prefer) than to separate records. Either way, it's better than the hyphen.

2) The only reason I use the HTML markup version is because that's the way I learned it. Certainly I could use the one from the symbol box at the bottom of the edit box, but strangely enough, I have run across times when that edit box just wouldn't work (it doesn't really like my Opera browser for some reason, when I am at home).

I'm open to suggestions; if we can come to an actual consensus, then it will make my life easier because I won't feel so unilateral about it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have run across another problem with the standings templates and the IP editor who updates them every night. Again, I don't know who this editor is, or if it is a WP:BASEBALL regular editing from an anonymous computer; honestly, it really doesn't matter who it is. The problem is that the standings tables were standardized to a slightly larger width, so as to fix a problem with formatting where the particularly long name of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim was not squished and split onto two lines. Originally, I was only fixing the width for one template, but it was continually reverted by the IP. Eventually, I went through yesterday and made the slightly larger width standard throughout all six templates; however, this particular editor may have a problem with WP:OWN, because he reverted all of the edits again. I am doing this to make the column width work on my browser, which is quite standard (I use Firefox on Windows XP with a 1024x768 resolution). It also splits to two lines on my laptop (which is Opera on Vista with, I believe, 1280x900 resolution or something like that). I'd like to generate consensus here, but I will need input from the community as always—apparently boldness and making the Internet not suck just isn't enough anymore. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to shorten it to "Los Angeles Angels" with an underlying link to the full team name? If you look at scoreboards, they usually show LAA and LAD for the Angels and Dodgers, not LAAA or LAAoA or some such nonsense. And there is no ambiguity in shortening it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to be that way, but every other team has their full name on there, and it seems wrong to me to exclude Anaheim because it is part of the name. Personally, I dislike the name change to begin with, but that's beside the point and doesn't have any bearing in the discussion. The reason they use LAA in abbreviations is because two and three letter abbreviations are standard. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just marketing hype on their part, and there is no ambiguity. Even their own uniforms don't have that name. There's no harm shortening it, and no reason to screw up the template just because of this goofy name. The official name of Rhode Island includes "Providence Plantations", but you don't normally see that on lists of states because it skews the table. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Los Angeles is the marketing hype of the name. The team is in Anaheim. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. But my point is, why screw up the template to accommodate one extra-long team name? Just go with Los Angeles Angels. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The table isn't screwed up. It's fine now. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just hope they don't rename themselves again, as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Azusa and Cuc.......amonga. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

I'm starting to think that it may be a good idea to begin creating a newsletter for this wikiproject. It would get the word out for the article improvement drive, would ideally bring back some users who haven't done much with the project, and would make us more solid. Just an idea I'm throwing out there. Wizardman 11:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea and would be willing to help. I mentioned it a few months ago but never really got any responses :/   jj137 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also support the idea. Here's a few examples of what I was thinking: WP Films example - This one seems pretty big, I don't think we'll need to be this extravogant. I have helped with the WP Slipknot newsletter It's a little more simple, but basically still the same info. I was thinking: Articles that have reached GA, FA, or FL status, Big news within the Project, Major happenings around the MLB (or other notable baseball worldwide news), other suggestions? Blackngold29 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So are we doin' this? We could probably get the first one out by the All Star Break. Blackngold29 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK everyone, I've created a simple design here. But now I need your help: Any suggestions of what to include would be appreciated. I would like to add GAN, FAC, and FLN, but don't know if there's a centralized list of them somewhere. Also any FA, FL, or GA within the past month would be a good addition as well, these'll be easier to keep track of in the future. But for now, what does everyone want to see in it? Thank you! Blackngold29 05:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any GAs or FAs from the past month that I missed? I'll keep track better in the future, but we need a little help for this one. I have Art Houtteman, 1926 World Series, and St. Louis Cardinals seasons so far. Thanks everyone! Blackngold29 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have Philadelphia Phillies seasons? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was only planning on having stuff promoted in the past month, but as this is the first one I see no problem with the last two months. I'll add it. Blackngold29 16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To everyone who worked on the newsletter: It looks great, I love it, great job! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty impressed as well, great work guys! —Borgarde^talk 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Project talk banner

I've been looking at some things with the project banner. And if you look at projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa (banner here), all of their subprojects use the same banner for convenience. Right now we have the new MLB subprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals (template), and other subprojects like College baseball (template), etc that have popped up that have formed their own banners, essentially double-tagging the talk page, where the main WikiProject Baseball banner has been removed sometimes because of "double tagging". This is an easy problem to fix, we can simply format the banner to include the various subprojects. This will essentially include all the pages under the main projects scope, and any subproject can tag pages as they like. It may also help with keeping the centralised discussion on this page. --Borgarde^talk 09:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea, something similar was done with all the pages under the Canada WP, and the individual provinces were included under that. It makes the talk page look much cleaner. leafschik1967 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Biography WP does the same thing. I'd support the movement. Blackngold29 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, as long as it doesn't get used as an excuse to roll all the projects into one megaproject again. If this doesn't happen, we should really start thinking about shelling the banners, as has been done on some of the Phillies pages. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, team projects are good in a way because you can just work on that team, the banner in one will also help this project when a team project creates a new page, because it'll automatically get put into our scope, and then into the team's as well. Example {{WikiProject Baseball|class=Stub|importance=Low|phillies=yes|phillies-importance=High}}, and if the other projects get just want to assess there's, that's fine as well, they can assess like {{WikiProject Baseball|phillies=yes|phillies-importance=High}}, and eventually someone working through the unassessed backlog will assess the main projects ranking. --Borgarde^talk 08:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pitchers who have defeated all 30 teams

I've been researching and compiling data to create a list of pitchers who have defeated all 30 major league teams. I knew who they were, but nothing else about their victories until I went through all the career game logs at Baseball Reference. I've compiled a table in my sandbox, but it doesn't meet the length requirements for an article. Where would be the most appropriate article to insert a table like this? I was thinking maybe here, but I don't know. Anywhere is fine, but I would rather work with consensus than unilaterally (unless no one responds, then I will be bold). Input, please! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "Since the advent of interleague play in 1997, the opportunity has existed for a pitcher to face, and defeat, all 30 teams in Major League Baseball." seems incorrect since interleague play is not required to face and defeat all the major league teams. Interleague trading/selling/jumping has existed for over 100 years. Of course, the real reason why it was impossible for earlier pitchers, like Nolan Ryan and others, to defeat all 30 teams was that there were less than 30 teams when they played. Are there any articles about this subject? Without them, this may be considered WP:OR. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

One more note. I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Jamie Moyer defeated 31 teams including the Montreal Expos. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Expos = Washington Nationals, in the MLB books. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not here on wikipedia. Unlike the Washington Senators, the Expos have their own separate page and are treated as a separate team. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I personally disagree with... 1 franchise... 1 main article (this actually happens often with NHL teams for some reason...) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The record applies only to franchises according to MLB. As you can see, 5 of the 6 pitchers completed their defeats before the Nationals existed. Whether we at Wikipedia say the Expos and Nationals should stay separate is irrelevant. As to the early statement, I will alter it. Regardless, I'm not looking to create a new article; I am looking for where this table should go. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Separate articles is just a wikipedia editorial decision (which I also don't agree with). They are still the same club. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An even more interesting article attempt would be to figure out who defeated every team of his era (since we've had 30 teams only since 1998...). How about a list of pitchers who retired before 1960 who beat all 16 teams... go through each era of team additions... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that it would take forever to find all the pitchers who defeated all 16 teams. What about pitchers who played across eras? Played through expansions? It could be an impossible task. In addition, as to the comment about this being original research, the event itself was covered by MLB's official website when Moyer became the sixth pitcher to do it. I just compiled the facts from sources that were already available. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been studies of players that hit home runs in all possible ballparks, and I think also homers against all major league teams, and such stuff as that, so someone should have done citable research on this subject. Here's the flip side question - What about pitchers who have lost to every team at least once? Kind of the Bubby Bristers of baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about that, but I haven't seen any independent coverage of that subject. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying it's worth looking into. There is no end of topics for figger filberts to explore, and this would seem like an obvious one. Maybe I should ask User:Ron liebman? On second thought, maybe NOT. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the Elias book actually lists all the franchises and locations separately. The no-longer-published Sporting News record book also took to listing clubs' locations separately in recent years. That was probably to accommodate those who were interested in, for example, New York Giants vs. San Francisco Giants achievements. The two lists can still be combined to get the overall franchise record. But I don't think that franchise shifts would affect the "record" the editor has proposed. However, that does raise a point - unless it's a semi-"official" record of some kind, even deciding whether to treat Montreal and Washington separately amounts to OR on our parts. However, if you have two separate lists, i.e. vs. a franchise vs. the franchise in a specific city, then you've got that base covered. That also makes things complicated and interesting - such as maybe a pitcher who was around long enough to have defeated the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... right....... haha. Going to reset this discussion to the left before it gets much longer. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of websites mentioning Moyer's accomplishment, but most are blogs or message boards. I did find this one though from a reliable source: [1]. I'm not sure you caught my meaning earlier about interleague play. The fact is that interleague play has absolutely nothing to do with the accomplishment. In order to complete the task, one would have to defeat the teams you were on, so you would have to be traded, sold, or picked up as a free agent by another team at some point. That has been taking place long before interleague play. The only reason that all the players accomplished the feat after interleague play started, is that interleague play started about the same time that the 29th and 30th teams were added. Had the 29th and 30th team been added back in 1965, I'm quite certain that there would have been pitchers who would have defeated all thirty teams without the benefit of interleague play. I'm sure that pitchers who played in both leagues such as Gaylord Perry and Nolan Ryan eventually defeated all the teams that were active during their tenures. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of Moyer's 30 wins: [2]. Note that not one of them took place in an interleague game. The fact that all these men did this after interleague play is just a coincidence that interleague play started the same time that numbers 29 and 30 were added. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I did understand your comment about interleague, which is why I changed it. I'm aware that I make a mistake. The source that I placed with the table is also reliable and mentions the event, as well as the other five pitchers who accomplished it. Even doing a quick overview, I can see that you are right about Nolan Ryan; I just did it as a check. Addendum: I was incorrect; Ryan played in 1993 and did not defeat the Marlins or the Rockies. This could change things. Does look like Perry did it, though. Obviously this means that either we have to do one of three things:

1. Leave well enough alone and ignore it.
2. Do pitchers by era, which will take a lot more people than just me, because I certainly don't have time to do this myself not knowing which pitchers to look at.
3. Amend the mini-lead of this list to say that it's current franchises only and doesn't include pitchers from an era where there were less than thirty teams.

Comments certainly welcome. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interleague play wouldn't necessarily help a pitcher achieve that goal, because it can be years before a particular matchup occurs. The best chance, I would say, is still the same situation that would have to have happened prior to interleague play: The pitcher would have to have appeared on at least 4 teams, at least 2 in each league, in order to be able to beat every other team at least once. The "record" for this kind of feat, if there is such a record tallied, would probably be something like "most clubs defeated, career". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, statistically, in terms of pure numbers, interleague play gives any pitcher, even if he spends his entire career in the same league, a larger chance (i.e., a larger sample size from which to draw) to defeat any given team, because he has more opportunity to play them. That's why I picked that wording. Obviously your scenario gives a pitcher the greatest chance to accomplish the feat; however, it increases the possibility for every pitcher. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that interleague play doesn't help all that much, because so few combinations occur each year. Recently the Pirates and Yankees had interleague play for the first time since interleague play began, or so I heard. In interleague play the schedulers tend to gravitate towards "natural" rivalries, hence the Cubs and Sox play each other every year - twice yet - but it has been several years since the Cubs played the Twins, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that there is nothing about this topic at all in the Elias record book, so other sources would have to be found. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think the 30-team question is the most interesting, because it's obviously more difficult to have faced and defeated 30 than 16, or 20, or whatever. I was thinking that someone like Jim Bunning might have achieved it, having 100 wins in each league, but he only played for one team in the AL, so no dice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line, though, is that if no valid source can be found that broaches this topic, then it might put wikipedia in the business of "originating information", which is obviously against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This item [3] indicates that Al Leiter was the first to defeat all 30 teams. Maybe, rather than an exhaustive list (which might prove exhausting) it would be a good starting point to find out who was the first to defeat all the teams that were possible to defeat in one's era. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Which was probably taken from the wikipedia article on Leiter. "Duh." I get the feeling I'm talking to myself here. Oh yeh? Yeh! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of defeating 16 teams, the most obvious candidate is Cy Young who had quite a few wins and pitched several years for different teams in both leagues. I would suspect he would also have lost to pretty much every team also. And as a bonus, probably would have beaten all 4 teams that were dropped by the NL in 1900. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what's being alluded to is that this "record" is actually more of a coincidence - so much so that even Elias doesn't track it. I'd personally leave it out entirely. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is here [4], as I've been saying all along. One from ESPN was also provided. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"By beating the Rockies in his fifth attempt -- he had been 0-4 with a 5.54 ERA before Monday -- the lefty has now defeated every Major League team. He joined Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, Terry Mulholland, Curt Schilling and Woody Williams as the only six pitchers to accomplish that feat." Well, there's your list. The question I have is, what's their source? How are they keeping track of it? Maybe someone could write to them and find out. If Elias is keeping track of that kind of thing, despite it not being in the book, maybe they have lists from the "classic" years also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate random lists like this but I'll bow out of this discussion since I seem to be in the minority. This and who homered in the most stadiums. Who cares? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily support it, I just find it interesting. However, the home-runs-all-parks record was actually in the TSN book, at least it was at one time. I don't recall ever seeing anything about defeated-all-teams. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will table the discussion for now and see what I can find out. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

bold-facing leaders

I have edited a lot of the statistics pages like List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 runs. The introduction states that active players are bold-faced. I also noticed that the leader's total is often bold-faced. Is this vandalism? Fbdave (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Riggans

See Shawn Riggans and [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

I think this article is Copyright problems. so help at Shawn Riggans. My English may be inappropriate, because I am User en-1. --Kanesue (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

All the copyrighted text has now been removed. Thanks for catching that. Wizardman 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually most sports-related profile sites list biographical information about players in similar formats. If you see similar bodies of the text written in the same format,chances are it has been directly lifted from another website. Just a heads up. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Records vs. opponents

Can someone please explain why all the American League teams have individual tables for records v. opponents for the 2008 seasons, but the National League teams have the large, unwieldy, and difficult-to-read grid template? It seems that all 30 teams should have a standard format. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On top of that the NL grid hasn't been updated in almost a month. Blackngold29 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was updated, but no one did the whole grid, just their teams, and no one updated the date. I would like to see it go back to the old way, template convenience be damned. I'd rather update it myself. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I updated the Phillies season page, anyone is welcome to steal my code, color-coded table and all. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Troy Tulowitzki

I'm currently in a dispute with Pesposito7 (talk), as he claims that since Troy Tulowitzki is on the DL, that somehow warrants a change in Tulowitzki's infobox to "retired" status. I've tried to tell him that just because Tulowitzki is on the DL, that doesn't mean he's also retired. Since I don't want to be blocked for 3RR, I haven't made any more reversions to Tulowitzki's page. If he shouldn't be listed as "retired," then please change the status on the article and please join me in discussing this matter with Pesposito7 (talk) on his talk page. Thank you. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy's either an ignoranimous or a troll, or both. Being on the DL in no way equates to being retired. Favre announced his retirement. He's retired. He could still come back, but for now he's retired. Unless Tulo has announced his retirement, he's still active, just on the DL. I reverted it. We'll see what happens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've turned him in to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He might not be a troll, just a newbie screwup. Issue marked resolved. Anyway, he'll be watched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD on Steve Bartman

Steve Bartman has been proposed for deletion. You may participate in the discussion here. Johntex\^talk 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Steve Bartman has been proposed for deletion." Hmmm... sounds like a request for a professional hit. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Something straight out of Terminator I may add. I recall one April's Fools Day, the AFD template featured a mugshot of Arnold from Terminator :p. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Daleks would seem to be more fitting icons of the AFD process: "Ex-ter-mi-nate! Ex-ter-mi-nate!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also an Afd on Jake Eisenhart. Is there a list somewhere for Afd's within the project? WP:HOCKEY has one on the main page, and I think it helps get the word out (without adding a new section to this page every for article); Thoughts? Blackngold29 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is. You'll find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies

Community, I come to you asking for consensus once again. This article, which recently passed to B-class, has gotten several extensive rewrites and reformattings. In the lead, the fact that the Phillies are the first franchise with 10,000 losses was mentioned. This is a notable and unique fact, used as a hook to draw the reader into the article. As a Phillies fan, I see nothing wrong with this wording, seen here. User:Thprfssnl seems to disagree, deleting the statement several times and claiming that it is derisive to the team. Now, after two warnings to cease deleting information, he deleted the warnings from his talk page (allowable, certainly), and replaced the referenced fact with a non-neutral statement, as seen here. He claims that this hook is "better" in his edit summary, where in reality, it may very well be a violation of NPOV. I come seeking opinions, and support if you wish, as I cannot revert his edits for fear of diving into an edit war. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The main article for any and every major league sports team is edited so much that it is very difficult to get it up to atleast a GA, let alone keeping it there for any period of time. In this case, I would side with you in that the fact is interesting and should be included. But obviously, you're gonna offend people who don't understand that WP is supposed to be NPOV and want to put forth everything positive about their team and dis-include (I just made that term up, (c) 2008 me) anything negative. So you kind have your hands tied. Blackngold29 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right; the part that agitates me is that it's my team too. I wouldn't run the Phillies WikiProject if I weren't serious about the team. When I cut down the lead from its old form, it was one of the few things I kept because I felt it was important. Did you think it was disparaging? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is stating a notable fact about a team that has obviously struggled at times. If were ever to write the Pirates article I would no doubt include something about this [insert negative adjective here] slump that they're in now, which is on track to tie them (with the Phillies coincidentally) for the longest streak of losing seasons in pro sports. Now, I would probably include more about the good teams of the 70's, but it has to be kept even for the most part, that's textbook WP NPOV policy. Blackngold29 04:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, BnG. Your cool head helps. I took out some aggression by killing a spider that happened to be running around in my apartment, so that helped too. Comments from all others still welcome, please! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's why I'm here. I wish more people like you (and a lot of the people in this project) "got it", but I guess one of the biggest problems with WP that I've learned about in my time here is that there will always be people who push their POV in some way or another. That is one of the reasons why I advocate good sources for everything, but in this case it's kind of difficult to do anything about. I usually try to the majority of my time on less visited articles, but I understand your anger. Blackngold29 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The sad fact is that the Phillies, for most of their century-and-a-quarter of existence, have been known as losers. Prior to the arrival of the Mets in 1962, who set a new standard for lowliness, the Phillies were considered the dregs of baseball. Seems to me that not mentioning anything about that in the introduction is a POV-push of its own. But you don't need a paragraph; a single line would cover it, something like "Although the Phillies have a history of being largely unsuccessful, and were the first major league team to lose 10,000 games, they have also had some winning stretches, including a World Series victory in 1980, and several post-season appearances at various times." That line could be broken into two if it's too long. But it tempers their losing with a degree of optimism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good thought, Bugs. The World Series victory was also mentioned right before the "disputed" comment. I could maybe copy some of the wording from the lead of FL Philadelphia Phillies seasons. I worked hard on that, and it's been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves

There's yet another POV-pusher trying to claim 11 instead of 14, and causing an edit war over it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Outreach department

As part of starting up the new newsletter for WP Baseball (See above), I think we should also start an Outreach department. The department would organize the newsletter (hopefully monthly) to keep current members informed, recruit new members, and make sure all members are staying active in some way or another. If anyone would like to help or has thoughts about the department please don't be shy! Blackngold29 04:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review

A request for Peer review has been placed for Nashville Sounds. My goal is to have it promoted to Featured Article status. If you please, you may comment on the article here. I would have listed it for review within the project, but didn't realize we had one until after I listed it with the "official" PR area. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

BaseballAlmanac reliability?

(I just wrote this on someone's talk but figured I'd cross-post here)

I haven't found BaseballAlmanac to be the most reliable source. It's all hand-done and prone to mistakes. I just found an example yesterday on their 1963 All-Star Game page. Their notes at the bottom include "Did you know that Harmon Killebrew tied the record for singles hit during an All-Star Game with three?" Only Killebrew didn't hit three singles in the 1963 All-Star Game. He hit three singles in the 1964 All-Star Game! See Retrosheet's page here. In the 1963 All-Star Game, Killebrew only had one pinch-hit AB where he struck out. In general, I try to stick to Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference.com (the latter's box score info comes from the former's data).

Thoughts? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No source is perfect. Baseball Reference, while a very thorough source, has some mistakes, and when contacted about them, the editor that I spoke with insisted that they were correct, although official team histories say otherwise. That's why I always cross-check Almanac with B-Ref and vice versa. If they don't agree, I usually use Baseball Cube or Retrosheet as a tiebreaker. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that it is not reliable. If you check out the biography section you can see that anyone can submit one, and sources are not required. I'm not sure if the rest of the site is the same way, but that's pretty comprable to IMDB which is also not a relible source. Blackngold29 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Biographies aside, their statistics tend to be generally fine, as far as I've seen. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe BBRef is pretty tied-in with SABR and other hard-core data-gathering organizations, so there may be cases where they are technically more accurate than the official team sites! They - meaning BBRef/SABR/etc. - even present their findings to the official sites and have, at times, convinced the official sites to change their data. That's slightly different than what I'm referring to where BaseballAlmanac has simple easy-to-disprove hand-coded typos - like the one I referred to above. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor Leaguer Info Box

Any standard on how these are to be used? Do I just use the MLB one, or the generic baseball one? leafschik1967 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I always use the MLB one for players who haven't had a major league debut yet. Just leave the debut date/team, stats, and teams fields blank. That way, when they do make their debut, the other fields can be filled in. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just use the MLB one. It's not common for minor leaguers to be notable, so no need to make a new one. Wizardman 22:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking support for Ozzie Smith's Featured-Article nom

I thought that other WP:Baseball members would be interested to know I have just nominated Ozzie Smith as a Featured article candidate. I would appreciate suggestions for improvement and comments about the article, in addition to support for its promotion to Featured-Article status, at this page here. Thanks, Monowi (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Baseball Hall of Fame restructure proposal

I have suggested the restructuring of Category:Baseball Hall of Fame, discussion can be found here. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Baseball

See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

Template:WikiProject Baseball need C class. but this template is protected. --Kanesue (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (My English may be inappropriate, because I am a Japanese. )

Right. I've added C-class on a couple other project templates, but for the life of me I can't figure this one out. It's made very oddly. Wizardman 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

40-man rosters

Are players on the inactive roster but still in the roster boxes supposed to be listed as playing for a team that they do not actually play for? Example: Today, Jason Jaramillo was marked as playing for the Phillies, yet he has not played an inning in the majors. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a documented standard, but typically players on the 40-man roster use {{Infobox MLB player}} and are labeled as being part of their Major League team. The discussion above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Minor Leaguer Info Box talks about using the MLB infobox, but leaving the "debut date/team, stats and teams fields" blank, which I agree with. I can see where players that have never played in the majors but on on a roster might not have the infobox, but I think players that have been sent down and are still on a 40-man roster should still be listed with the major league team they play for. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I just think that it is disingenuous to say that a player is a member of the major league team when they are a minor leaguer, and especially if they haven't played in the majors yet. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's meant to indicate organization. All players that are in the minors are still a part of the team organization. If they currently played for the team - it would be indicated in the team list below. Unless you want to suggest another way of indicating when players are in the majors/minors in the infobox. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd love to see a table cell in the infobox indicating level. That way, we can put in AAA, AA, A, etc. I don't know how to code it into the infobox, but someone else might. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely doable as an optional extra 2 lines under the current team/position portion... However, the template is currently locked and only admins can edit it - so there isn't much I can do... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I know an admin or two, let me see what I can do. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The template is actually not locked, as far as I can see. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FLC nomination

I've nominated Managers of the Philadelphia Phillies for WP:FL. I'd appreciate any and all support from WP:BASEBALL members. Thanks! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball card pages

I want to direct more people to the Baseball card pages. I am hoping this would be the best place to do it. There needs to be a great deal more people discussing content and structure there. I invite anyone to take a look at the current state of the pages as well as past versions so as to get a feel of their development if you have not done so already. Recently progress has slowed as a result of difference of opinions. I want to overcome these issues and continue adding to the content of those pages. At this point only Topps is listed as far as I know along with O-Pee-Chee from the 1950s to 1995. I had hoped to add other companies as well. I designed the pages as best I could according to established Wikipedia standards. I do not expect everyone to agree with my design/format, etc. This is the nature of the encyclopedia. I know this from experience in other areas. What I do hope for is respect and consideration for the time spent contributing the content in the same way the I do for those whose work I choose to alter or add to. Anyway, the current state of the pages present several issues. I will explain my point of view. With regard to images it is my understanding that the use of the non-free should be used in an extremely limited fashion with all the necessary documentation. I would certainly like to have a photo of a card from every set but I believe this is not appropriate. Currently several of the pages have a large number of images with insufficient documentation. Another issue is inclusion of O-Pee-Chee on Topps pages. This matter has been discussed at Talk:1960s Topps. Another issue is notability. Some time ago the 1993 Topps page was deleted on grounds it was not notable. I have since expanded the page. My concern remains however in the 1970-1979 pages given that they have limited content and would benefit from a merger. The 1970s Topps page existed previously but has been reduced to a paragraph and it is my feeling that it should be restored to house the full decade's content. I hope to get some feedback from the baseball project editors. Maybe what can be decided upon here will be suitable for anyone that desires to contribute to the Baseball card pages. I have opened this discussion here as a gesture of good faith to demonstrate to the editors of said pages that I do not desire to impose my will over the project rather I have the interests of the community as my focus. Libro0 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the status quo formating. Things just need to have some more information. The images seem to be properly documented, an image from every set makes sense and is appropriate. Having the individual years for the 1970s makes sense, as there were many issues throughout the decade. Things were really not discussed Talk:1960s Topps. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing active infoboxes to retired

I was just wondering whether people agree with me that some infoboxes should be changed to retired ones, some players I think should have retired ones are Reggie Sanders who is currently a broadcaster for the D-backs, Roger Clemens has a bunch of legal troubles, and Steve Finley hasn't played since early 07--Yankees10 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#Retired_or_not for full length discussion. 'nuff said--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, this is the type of crap that starts holy wars over at WP:NFL. Can we just not bring that stuff here? Don't mark anyone retired until they've been inactive for five years or something. Rickey Henderson probably never officially retired. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in making a rule about when to change it from free agent to retired, perhaps if a guy goes a year without being signed or something.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah like Steve Finley, which Certified.Gangsta insists we dont, I mean come on its been a year almost, hes done, and Rogers Clemens has to many troubles for anyone to take a risk on--Yankees10 02:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the thing is, if any of them came back, it's take what, a minute to change it back to active?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, more like a second--Yankees10 03:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as we don't have another Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson in the making... Wizardman 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think Certified.Gangsta's already shot that idea down. Tommy John surgery can knock someone out for a better part of two years and, if he wasn't so great to begin with, he can languish in the minors for a couple more years. Or how about someone like Robinson Cancel who went nearly 9 years between base hits? Or Fernando Tatis (I wonder who took that high-quality pic?!) who has missed two seasons, returned, missed another, and returned again. Unless someone can find an ultra-official record - like I think you guys have for NFL - I say wait until after the second or third occurence of crying during a press conference. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's silly to wait years and years down the line for a nonexistent deadline. For every Tatis, there are a hundred guys that disappeared and STAYED disappeared.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, waiting years and years would be ridiculous--Yankees10 03:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to discuss the players on an individual basis. Steve Finley (according to his article) has asked his agent to look for possible contracts, so I wouldn't count him out. While Clemens is in his legal mess, it seems too soon to count him done. If there is resistance to removing the active infobox, I don't see who it is hurting to leave it; but taking it to the extreme (somebody's whose been retired for at least five years and is in his mid-40's) has to be discouraged somehow. Blackngold29 03:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Chris too - but I feel even more strongly that we need to wait whatever length of time is necessary to prevent any WP:LAME edit wars from breaking out. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To Blackngold29: But what about Rickey Henderson? He's a guaranteed first-ballot HOF'er except that he refused to stop playing in little independent minor leagues. Is he even eligible now? He spent years and years playing professional baseball, basically trying to hook back on with a major league team. Is that retired? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Henderson finally conceded his "official retirement" on July 13, 2007: "I haven't submitted retirement papers to MLB, but I think MLB already had their papers that I was retired." Characteristically, he added, "If it was a situation where we were going to win the World Series and I was the only player that they had left, I would put on the shoes."[48] Nearly five years retired and age 49. To my knowledge his return would be the first of its kind. I personally think it's safe to leave the retired box. Blackngold29 03:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It wouldn't very far-fetched to see all of these guys calling a press conference/issue a statement or get signed to minor league deals down the road. Look at Mike Piazza, Hideo Nomo, and Rod Smith earlier today. (I couldn't help but think of Terrell Brandon a few years back). On the other hand there are guys such as Eric Milton, Kent Mercker, and Javy Lopez who have attempted to comeback after long lay-offs. According to the article, I would count out Damian Miller and Jeff Cirillo who are likely done. All the other guys have a fighting chance. I would say if they are not invited to spring training or playing ball in independent league next year, we could count them out but not before that. It should be treated in a case by case basis using common sense. Look at Latrell Sprewell, he hasn't played since '05 but is not retired and there are speculation about a potential comeback.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As for Rickey Henderson: copied from Talk:Roger Clemens "A good example is Rickey Henderson's refusal to officially retire. Rickey_Henderson#Retirement see Contrary to speculation,[44][45][46] Henderson's refusal to officially retire was not delaying his eligibility for Hall of Fame induction; the five-year waiting period is based on major league service only. Henderson will become eligible for the 2009 induction vote, provided he does not return to major league play--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Chris Nelson: Compare to other pro. sports, it's easier to baseball players to mount comebacks. Heck even Todd Ritchie signed a minor league contract a few weeks ago (inactive since '04). Look at Kent Mercker, Mike Lincoln. Tatis is not an anomaly, it's a trend.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still a minority.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not. Look at Hideo Nomo earlier this season. Chan Ho Park spent almost all of last year unemployed. Jeff Weaver didn't get signed until fairly recently. Frank Castillo recently resurfaced in the Atlantic League. So is Shea Hillenbrand who was signed earlier this month. Jay Gibbons was signed to minor league contract just this week. Last year feel-good story Troy Percival also took almost 2 seasons off. Salomon Torres was inactive from 1998-2002 yet resurfaced in the big league in 2003 and has been there ever since. Heck even Juan Gone got a contract this year with the Cardinals, so did Javy Lopez, Edgardo Alfonzo, Brian Anderson, and Kent Mercker who made the roster out of spring training. Yankees just took a flier on Eric Milton and I just mentioned Todd Ritchie, inactive since 2004, signing with the Rockies. Former superstars like Carl Everett, Richard Hidalgo, and Alfonzo shouldn't be considered done just because they play in Japan or independent league. Jolbert Cabrera, Robinson Cancel, D.J. Carrasco, and Vladimir Nunez recently resurfaced in the big league as well. (Nunez was designated for assignment yesterday after only 2 appearances) Nelson Figueroa with the Mets earlier this year. And don't count on guys who play overseas like Lou Pote and Mickey Callaway. (the only reason I even know their names they are my two co-aces for MLB baseball 2003 lol) I can easily go on all day about successful comeback attempts. It's not rare at all.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was rare, but more end up disappearing than don't. But players playing in independent leagues, foreign leagues or the minors don't count anyway. They obviously should not have retired infoboxes since they are still active somewhere. The problem with your strategy is WHEN do you give them a retired infobox? Not every player is worthy of big press conferences and huge sendoffs. Most players just fade into oblivion. Because of that, there should be a certain time - one year, two yeas, whatever - where we make the switch to the retired infobox regardless of an "official" announcement.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, my proposal how to handle the situation:

• There should be a certain amount of time, as determined here, where continued unemployment in baseball results in a changed infobox. I think 1-2 years is a good amount.
• Players currently employed in some other form (broadcaster, analyst, etc.) should have retired infoboxes. They cannot do both jobs at once, therefore if they are currently doing one they are not an active player. hey are retired, and if they unretire we simply change the infobox back.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a retired box for a guy that eventually returns. His return does not mean we were wrong about his retirement infobox, it means he has UNretired.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chrisj, I like where your proposal is heading, two questions. 1 or 2 years? We should pick one, less inturpretation the better. Second, you stated above players in independent or foreign leagues shouldn't be counted as retired, however are the infoboxes for baseball in general or only the MLB. If a player plays in the Japanese league, we don't list his teams over there do we? So he would be "retired from the MLB". Blackngold29 04:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

you’re sadly mistaken. 4 months ago, a bunch of free agents were unsigned, causing suspicion of collusion and many fans were pissed ‘cause they’re favorite players are not signed. 4 months later...

Officially retired: ryan klesko, jeff cirillo, shawn green, Orlando palmeiro, damian miller, sandy alomar, mike piazza, bob wickman (had said last year it was his last season)

Big league roster: corey patterson, jerry hairston, paul bako, kyle lohse, ron villone, armando benitez (subsequently released)

Minor league contract: tony graffanino, chris woodward, jeff weaver, tony armas (briefly returned to the big league then sent back down), eric milton, ray king (briefly in big league this year), Recovering from surgery: freddy Garcia (recently auditioning), Rodrigo lopez, russ ortiz

Still unsigned but looking to play: Royce clayton, Kenny lofton, reggie sanders (according to the article I cited), preston Wilson (young enough)

Still unsigned and named in Mitchell Report (career death sentence?): neifi perez, barry bonds (he’s looking to play), rondell white, sammy sosa, roger clemens

Likely to disappear: Kelly stinnet (who came out of a 2-week retirement last year after a big league spot opened up), aaron sele, john Thomson (he’s still young enough though), jose mesa, jay witasick, Antonio alfonseca

My point is out of all the players listed only 6 are likely to disappear.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying they are retired from MLB simply replace it with the Japanese info box such as Ramon Ortiz and Aaron Guiel this year. There are people such as Jolbert Cabrera, Nelson Figueroa, Melvin Mora, and Tony Batista who made it back to MLB after playing in Japan or Taiwan.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, I didn't know they existed. Blackngold29 05:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can sit there listing guys that haven't disappeared all you want. Yes, I know all of them and what they're doing. So....I'm not talking about them. The ones that have disappeared are unlikely to be on the top of your head, for that very reason.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to interfere, but it seems we've got two discussions going on here. I think it would be the most productive if we came up with a good overall way to deal with these players. Are there anymore thoughts on Chrisj's proposal? Blackngold29 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I sense you are getting emotional due to your obsession with the retire player box. If you haven’t noticed, all the players I listed above are the ones who aren’t signed in mid-march which means all the other players are already signed and on a roster. My point is that less than five players will disappear without some sort of formal acknowledgement in a year.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I say wait a year to change it, unless they announce there retirement, I also agree with Chris in that if a player is doing broadcasting or something, then they should have it changed, and my main point is that you can always change it back if they comes out of retirement or signs with a team--Yankees10 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You listed a bunch of players who haven't disappeared, and then said "Hey, see, players don't disappear." That's like be saying, "Look at Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre. All quarterbacks are good because the ones I just listed are!" You're simply listing players that HAVEN'T disappeared to prove your point. I'm sure I could go and find other players that have, but that's a more difficult task. They're inherently harder to remember because they've disappeared. Also, I just do not care enough to put that amount of research in it. Point is, your argument is one-sided because you're only bringing up examples that fit your point. Anyone can do that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath and calm down. My point remains. I listed every single free agent without a team as of March 15, 2008. None of them actually disappeared. They found a team, remained free agent, or officially retired. No one “disappears”. All of them are listed on my list above. I didn’t omit anyone.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If we're getting hung up on the word "retired", just rename the template to Template:Infobox MLB Inactive. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Wknight94. Inactive makes it much easier. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you rename it "Inactive" and keep the same format, we'll just have to replace it if they comeback anyway. I don't see how it changes anything. Blackngold29 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

But Certified.Gangsta seems to be bothered mostly by the word "retired" - maybe the permanence of the word? To simply say someone is inactive does not imply that the status is permanent. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he hasn't, but I hear about people "coming out of retirement" all the time. I don't think it's permanent at all. Blackngold29 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then I go back to my original argument - why are we even bothering to discuss this ultra-trivial issue? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue. From this discussion I think that if a debate develops over anyone in the future then it should be posted here and everybody can weigh in on it. I don't really think it happens often enough to have a lengthy discussion over criteria. Blackngold29 03:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Too late - it's already been had!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the real question. Why do we need 2 separate infoboxes? We can just have one that takes care of all situations... They're already very similar anyways... and until a player files his retirement papers with the league - he's a free agent... and can be indicated as such... very simple... (or you can change free agent to inactive after some time.. if you so chose to do.)JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's also a good question. I don't know. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'd be opposed to making one infobox, but if we do we're gonna have to replace every single player's article. If somebody could come up with a good design, I think we could explore the option further. Blackngold29 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to check but, with some luck, we might be able to make a template that would handle both, and either make one redirect to the other or make one transclude the other. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Having one infobox for players, be they retired or not, is a great idea. I especially like the idea of having a "status" element included in the box, where you list "active", "retired," "free agent," or whatever. I'd love to see this become a reality. Monowi (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it will work out for the better. It's a lot easier than changing boxes when people retire, and it will keep every player's box looking the same, rather than the two different designs we use now. —Borgarde^talk 11:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I fear that if we have a "status" we'll end up having the same conversation in the future. The new "ultra player infobox" should eliminate this discussion, not leave it open. If we list a player's teams and years people should be able to infer that information on their own. Blackngold29 16:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's even better yet. I suppose there could be a free-text notes area where someone could say that the person "announced their retirement" or something. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think if somebody officially annouces their retirement it should be added to the article's prose. Blackngold29 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

CPOY source?

I've been trying to build up New York Yankees seasons for a future FLC run, but have come across a problem. Dock Ellis won the Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award in 1976, back when The Sporting News gave it out. However, I can't find a good source for this. The only place I've seen this online beside here is Baseball LibraryAlmanac, but there have been reliability concerns regarding that site. None of my baseball books have a list of winners either. If anyone here can find a reliable web site or printed source that could be used to cite this fact, I would really appreciate it. Thanks for any help. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have access to the Sporting News archives, so I can dig up the appropriate issues and slap in a cite news tag no problem. Wizardman 02:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008, If you go to Paper of Record you can search the Sporting news archives. BTW the opening line of the article states: "This is a list of seasons completed by the New York Yankees baseball club" and yet 2008 is included. Obviously 2008 has not been completed. Either it needs to be removed or the opening line needs to be reworded. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I made a correction above after getting Baseball Almanac and Baseball Library confused. The lead is getting a full rewrite after I finish citing the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

After seeing that registration is required for Paper of Record, I took one more look around the Internet and found a Baseball Library page to use. In case there are any problems with that, the award is also mentioned on his Retrosheet page. Thanks again for the help though. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories for minor league players

Does a player in the minor leagues belong in the category of his major league club if he is not or has not been a part of the 40-nan roster? See Brandon Roberts, for example. Should he be in the Twins' category? Also, could a few people in the project look at the articles of Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster? Another user has created articles on basically all the players on this Advanced A club and a lot of the players have yet to reach notability guidelines and the articles have a bunch of other issues (like the see alsos, the categories, the roster in the articles, and the references). Thanks, Metros (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To your first question, I would say no, they shouldn't be in the major league team's category. Esp. since these minor league categories are popping up all over. To your second question, I can take a look eventually. Is it the same user every time? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's User:Johnny Spasm who is creating these articles. I've left a few notes on his talk page explaining a few of these issues. Metros (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's so blatant that I'm going to put my bad guy hat on and AFD the whole lot of them. I'm up to 26 and may have 30 by the time I'm done. I'll give relevant here when I'm ready. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree they shouldn't be in the MLB team category. At the very least, they should have been on the 40-man roster to be in the category; I'd really prefer that they had played in at least one game for the team to be in the category.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there are 33 articles now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players. Another couple related to the same minor league team are also listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the AfD debate. It would be impossible for someone to give a blanket Keep or Delete vote on all these players as some meet criteria and some don't. If you want all these players deleted, the fairest thing to do would be to put them each up individually so that they can each stand on their own merits. Kinston eagle (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion there please. If a consensus develops to split the AFD up, I'm fine with doing so but I'd really prefer not to go the 33 separate AFDs route without a damn good reason. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jarrod Washburn

What happened to the Jarrod Washburn article? It used to be a lot longer, and now it's 2 little paragraphs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.31.51 (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)