Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 37

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jimv1983 in topic World Series in infobox
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Talk organization

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Perhaps a subpage is appropriate for transfer of sections 10-12. Perhaps export all but a copy of their current Contents: 

10 WikiProject organization
11 IRC
12 Moving forward
   12.1 Observations of this WikiProject
   12.2 Observations of other WikiProjects
   12.3 Recommendations for this project
   12.4 Conclusion
   12.5 Pinged users
   12.6 Users endorsing the summary posted above
   12.7 IRC discussion
   12.8 A-Class discussion
   12.9 Baseball Manual of Style discussion
   12.10 Collaborative opportunities discussion
       12.10.1 Centralizing team interest info
   12.11 Project leadership discussion
   12.12 New editor welcome and support discussion
   12.13 General discussion
   12.14 Project cleanup

I suppose that much, with some link to the new location, should remain here until it is retired to the archive normally. --P64 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If we move it, it'll be that much harder for people to find. This is the most centralized place to keep it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, I agree it should be on a subpage, as it is a great discussion, however for now, should stay here. Go Phightins! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't see the need to create multiple copies. A link to the discussion is sufficient if traceability is the concern. See the footnotes with links to discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no need to move it. That is sort of the point of this talk page, for talk like this. If it grows too big I will do what I usually do when the page gets too large and split off subsections that haven't been commented on in awhile so they can archive on their own and then once the whole discussion eventually archives I rejoin them back together. Chances are due to size it will be its own archive page in the end anyways so no need to make it into its own subpage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I was just commenting that once it "dies down" or is archived, we should preserve it on a more visible subpage. Go Phightins! 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Djsasso: "split off subsections that haven't been commented on in awhile so they can archive on their own and then once the whole discussion eventually archives I rejoin them back together"
I didn't know that anyone does that anywhere. Do you mean rejoin in sequence so that what is now 12.9 follows what is now 12.8 ?
Perhaps it can be given a named link as well as the numerical one in the {{archive box}}.
--P64 (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
In past cases where the baseball page got to large what I did was for example. The A-class section above stopped being commented on and the page needed to be made smaller but there were no other sections left that could be archived on the page because this one large discussion with its sub-sections was taking it all up. So I would change the A-class section into a main section eg. change ===A-class=== into ==Moving Forward: A-class== so the bot would automatically archive it and I add the original name of the main section "Moving Forward" so that its obvious its part of that discussion. As the bot archives it I would reconstruct in the archive so that it was all in the proper order. So yes I would make it so that what is now 12.9 follows what is now 12.8. I haven't had to do it all that often because rarely do discussions get that big that it becomes a problem. Other times there are natural ways to just split one large discussion into two subsections so one whole chunk will archive at once. Giving it a named link is one way to eventually handle it as well although the archive search box probably handles finding it pretty well. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Expo 67

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

In this edit, Expo 67 was identified as being within the scope of this WikiProject. Other than being the inspiration of the name for the Montreal baseball team, I don't think this article has any specific relationship to baseball. I suggest removing the WikiProject Baseball banner from the Expo 67 talk page. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Spanneraol (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed....William 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  Agree. Useddenim (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems that was my edit. I was using AWB and I believe it was in the Montreal Expos category, which is why it was tagged. I agree its not in our scope. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I just removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

Latest comment: 10 years ago128 comments19 people in discussion

Just days ago, we lost a valuable project member/leader, former arbitrator, administrator, bureaucrat, article writer, and friend in Wizardman due to retirement. With the loss of Wizardman, many of us feel it is time to review, analyze, and plan to improve the internal structure and processes of our WikiProject. Sunday evening, an impromptu chat on IRC (and I should note that for years, I have resisted utilizing IRC because of its bad reputation on Wikipedia, and was ambivalent when Secret invited me to conduct a GA review there to discuss minor concerns, when used properly, is a valuable tool for article collaboration, improvement, and discussion - Go Phightins!) was convened, involving several project members. Today, we come to you with some of what we discussed, as well as to provide a forum to discuss what we can do to mitigate the negative impact of Wizardman's retirement, and how we can support one another in an endeavor to achieve the overarching goal of helping our readers. Below is a summary of what we discussed on IRC:

Observations of this WikiProject

  • We are a great group of article writers and reviewers, however work predominantly independently, and could benefit from collaborative writing to help not only take some workload off our most experienced writers allowing them to avoid burnout, but also help our less experienced writers who have a desire to write better articles learn from those who already do.
  • Our project talk page, while queries on it generally receive responses, does not independently facilitate sufficient collaboration opportunities.
  • Our project has many de facto leaders, one of whom was Wizardman, but with the loss of him, a gaping hole must be filled, and the best way to do so might be through a more formalized leadership structure analogous to the system of coordinators employed by the military history wiki-project, or a less formalized structure employed in other WikiProjects. The bottom line, however, is that our project needs to do better in outreach to new contributors, and a coordinator could help with that.
  • We are losing as many if not more editors than we are gaining (for a variety of reasons including but not limited to increased work commitments to burnout).
  • At our core, our project is comprised of a solid group of like-minded contributors, and thus, our project is fundamentally and inherently strong, however we can improve.

Observations of other WikiProjects

  • Some of the strongest WikiProjects on Wikipedia, and those from whom we can derive ideas include WP:MILHIST, WP:USRD, and WP:WPTC.
  • Other projects have their own manuals of style (e.g., WP:WPTC/S) that establish guidelines on how articles on that topic should be written/best practices thereof.
  • Some projects have specialized criteria for "A Class" articles, a "tweener step" to help bring GAs to FAs. One user specifically commented that 90% of the articles that succeed in his project's A-Class reviews go on to become featured articles on their first attempt through the process.
  • In order to promote content to GA and FA, sufficient reviewers with expertise in a subject area are needed.

Recommendations for this project

  • Creating, implementing, and using of a WP:BASEBALL-specific IRC channel.   Half done - channel located at #wiki-baseball connect
  • Discussing A-Class reviews/criteria would serve the best interests of the project, and whether we can secure sufficient reviewers for all featured content processes.
  • Writing, establishing, and implementing a "WP:BASEBALL MOS" (manual of style for how baseball articles should be written, particularly about teams and players).
  • Sponsoring competitions, facilitating collaborative opportunities, and pairing writers with reviewers to help facilitate generation of high-quality baseball content.
  • Discussing what leadership structure might work best for the project, whether that would be continuing with the "informal, civilized anarchy" that we have now, establishing a rotating, informal "Teahouse maitre d' style" coordinator (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Maitre d), establishing a more formal, rotating position of "project coordinator" who, while wielding no official power, can help mediate disputes, welcome new users, etc., establishing a formal team of "project lead coordinators, coordinators, and assistant coordinators" analogous to that which is employed at WP:MILHIST, or something different entirely.
  • Discussing how we can best attract, support, and retain new users in the baseball subject area.

Conclusion

Wizardman's departure hurts, however it provides a unique opportunity to discuss a plan of action for future improvement. All of the participants in this project have predominantly the same goal at heart – providing comprehensive and quality baseball coverage as part of the best encyclopedia in the world. At this stage, our project has the chance to become one of the best on Wikipedia; we just need to discuss how we get there. Thus, I hereby call this informal request for comment among baseball contributors, project members, and friends of the project. Thank you all for your invaluable contributions thus far, and the invaluable contributions undoubtedly yet to come. Sincerely, Go Phightins! 20:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinged users

  • Please note: the list of who will be "pinged" was generated both by combing through the project member registry, as well as by listing, in IRC, other users who should be notified based on their contributions and interest and baseball. Whether or not you were notified, you are welcome to participate.

Wehwalt Northern Antarctica MusiCitizen Oriolesfan8 Orsoni PM800 Killervogel5 Jprg1966 Canuckian89 Resolute Delaywaves X96lee15 Y2kcrazyjoker4 Isaacl Cbl62 Djsasso Dewelar Brambleberry of RiverClan Neonblak Spanneraol Bagumba Astros4477 EricEnfermero Bloom6132 Sanfranciscogiants17 Muboshgu Go Phightins! Secret Wizardman Newyorkadam Trut-h-urts man Fredddie EaglesFanInTampa Jonathansuh Huskie444 Peetlesnumber1 JesseRafe Baseball Bugs WilliamJE Yankees10 Sportsguy17 TCN7JM RefereeOrganist GlassCobra Jorgath. Go Phightins! 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Users endorsing the summary posted above

  1. Secret account 21:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkadam (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  3. Bloom6132 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. TCN7JM 13:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  8. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

IRC discussion

  • I encourage all pinged participants to join IRC. It is a very relaxed environment and can be used as good off-wiki collaboration to rebuild a foundation of communication, concentration, and commitment. We have already had several editors (ex. EricEnfermero and Muboshgu) join IRC and have found it very useful in terms of communication amongst editors in the channel. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I admit my reluctance to join IRC. I've had bad experiences with IRC in the past (not Wikipedia-related IRC, admittedly) and I also think that joining IRC would risk me spending too much time on Wikipedia and not enough time on IRL. So while I'm totally cool with having a project-specific IRC channel, I'd want assurances that nothing major be decided there without being brought here for confirmation. This format - you put together an idea on IRC, bring it here as a summary, and ask us to endorse - seems quite workable. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Just for the channel to know. I'm on IRC right now until 5 EST we can you it as a quick introduction to each other. Get to know each other a bit better. Thanks Secret account 17:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to throw it out there that two weeks ago if you asked me if I would ever use IRC, I would have responded with an emphatic negatory for many of the reasons that people don't (not the least of which being its poor reputation), however I have had a complete 180 in the last week or so, and find it to be a good tool for conversing, building camaraderie among editors, and collaborating on articles. As such, I completely support its implementation, specifically a project-specific channel. Go Phightins! 20:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • *sigh*I'll give it a try, but I make no promises. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it a bit funny that people seem to be focusing on the IRC tool as good or bad. It's just a way of communicating, no more or less. The problem with moving significant discussion away from this page, regardless of the tool used, is that it fragments the community and can change the minimum requirements for an editor to be able to contribute meaningfully to the development of new ideas. I don't like the idea of proposals being formed off-wiki, and then just brought to this page for approval. isaacl (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned, using IRC to form proposals changes the minimum requirements for an editor to contribute to the development of new ideas: they must use IRC at the same time as the other participants. This fragments the community into those who are able to meet on IRC at the same time, and those who are unable to. isaacl (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Except the stuff that's discussed on IRC has no actual effects on what happens onwiki; it's mainly just informal babble and talking to other editors about whatever we happen to think about. Nothing discussed on IRC can effect policy/guidelines on Wikipedia, but if I suddenly think of something I might propose on Wikipedia, I'd throw it around on IRC to catch a few opinions on it before asking the rest of the project. The project still gets the proposal, but I've just asked a couple of editors about it outside of Wikipedia first. This is perfectly fine – not all discussion about Wikipedia has to take place on Wikipedia, but that which doesn't has no effect on it. I feel like I'm becoming redundant so I'll end my statement there. TCN7JM 04:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Clearly there is an effect, or you wouldn't bother with it. I stated in another section that I understood the value people found in real-time communications, and in discussing ideas in embryonic stages. However, one of the editors above expressed support for proposals being formed off-wiki and just brought to this page for approval. If I understand your statement correctly, this isn't something you would agree with, and it isn't something I support. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't. What effect did discussing something on IRC in real time before talking about it on Wikipedia have to the project? Did it actually effect it, for better or worse? Did it change policy or guidelines? Did it change the way we do things around here? TCN7JM 04:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that you would like to form a full proposal on an off-wiki forum, and present it on this page for a yes/no decision? This is what the previous editor stated. As far as I can tell, this isn't what you're talking about, but please let me know if it is.
  • I did not participate in the IRC conversation, but from the comments above, it sounds like a number of good ideas were conceived and discussed, and now have been brought forward on this page for further development, in order to (hopefully) improve the project. This has certainly had a good effect on the project, and I believe the participants do hope it will lead to change. If you have a different view point, I am happy to hear more about it. isaacl (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This is what I'm talking about, not bringing stuff up for a simple yes/no decision, but allowing other editors who weren't on IRC to add to the discussion and propose new stuff. We've been on different pages all along, my apologies. TCN7JM 04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • IRC is pretty much live chat, and great for stuff like GA reviews and article collaboration, as well as general chat between project members. That's why I created the channel. I been through the high and lows of IRC, and my opinion is that it is the most useful tool on Wikipedia if done right. See WP:WPTC for example, which can attribute most of its success through the use of IRC. I want us to get to their level. Secret account 16:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

  • A-Class could end up being very useful for certain articles within the scope of this project. There are likely some articles that are close to FA status, but not quite there, thus making A-Class the right assessment (usually). I'd be willing to help out with that, as I am already active on reviewing GA nominations. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not necessary, more unnecessary bureaucracy. Technically if something is a GA already it is pretty much a Featured article as it is. Usually they just need some minor changes to push it over the top. So adding an in between step is just adding unnecessary work. I am not a big FA writer so maybe I am off the mark, but in my work with the hockey project we generate a very large amount of FAs and most of them go straight from GA to FA without a failure. Heck a few even skip the GA part all together. What would be perhaps a better idea is just creating a baseball project peer review page if you think you need more help to push it from GA to FA. I wouldn't go to the trouble of creating an A class and the extra work that results from having to maintain that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I admittedly don't know how it works with baseball players, but the A-Class review system for my main project, WP:HWY, is almost perfect when it comes to getting articles ready for FAC. This may be because the standards are so much higher for road FAs than they are for road GAs, and it may not be this way for baseball articles, so I will not support or oppose this proposal as I am uninformed. TCN7JM 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the idea behind A-Class is that A-Class articles are supposed to be FA-quality but have only been judged as such by the WikiProject working on them, not by FA review. Is this correct? If so, our criteria for A-Class, whatever they are formally, should boil down to "we think this needs minimal effort to make FA." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds lightweight enough to tag FA-candidates. No need to make it anything more formal than current quality assessment is for B/C/Start/Stub.—Bagumba (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, we don't have enough reviewers for A-class, and should probably stick to the current GA/FA system; if you see something you would classify as "A", spend a few hours putting an "F" before that "A". Go Phightins! 20:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • We're all WP:VOLUNTEERs, not everyone is interested in taking things to FA. At any rate, probably is not strong support for A if we need to spend this much time talking about it.—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree. And I should have phrased my thoughts more clearly above ... I meant if you see something close to FA that you would otherwise want to bring to A, you might as well work towards FA instead. I should have clarified that no one should feel obligated to take things to FA. Go Phightins! 20:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Manual of Style discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice has existed since March 2011, initiated by me as a result of discussions that suggested its creation. I wrote Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice based on my survey of player articles that were at featured article status, and some feedback was received on this talk page. Guidelines on what to place within the infobox were discussed at length in 2012 and added to the player style advice page. (Note the pages are not labeled "style guides" to avoid the implication that they have gone through the Wikipedia proposal process to become a Wikipedia community guideline.) There's still lots of consensus to be gleaned from the various discussion threads that can be included, and more unsettled items that can be discussed. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Isaac, I don't think most people are aware of those pages you mentioned, but they all have some good stuff. I think it would be a good idea if we collectively and collaboratively, as a project, drafted a project-specific MOS. Go Phightins! 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of it. It could be helpful to suggest ways to write a lead (I use basically the same format, we can discuss the "best" way or multiple suggested ways), body, right down to the infobox and portal links. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Isaac's pages have lots of good information in them... I think it would be easier/less time consuming to expand those pages rather than creating something new. These pages are accessible from our project banner... though people don't seem to use that very much. Spanneraol (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If you are referring to the lead of a player's article, Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice contains some guidance. I requested feedback but the response was limited. On the awareness front: anyone who's participated in infobox discussions in the past three years would have likely seen me post the link to the player style advice page (I fully understand that it's easy to forget, though!). I've been waiting for some interested parties to collaborate, as I didn't want to just put my own personal preferences on the advice pages, so if there is sufficient broad-based interest now to form a genuine consensus, that would be great! isaacl (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
To address visibility, should we move it earlier at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Navigation, or should it be placed somewhere more prominent on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball?—Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
On the main project page, I suppose a link to the style advice page could go under the "Quick Links" section, but I'm not sure its frequency of use is enough to warrant this placing (as increasing the length of a quick links list decreases the value of each link). Regarding the navigation side bar, my guess is that moving it up from its current location wouldn't greatly affect awareness. The subitems already give it more prominence than other items in the navigation list. I'm not sure if the recent addition of a link to the season article format is warranted, based on usage (30 times at the end of the previous year's season). A link to the player article style advice might be used more frequently. isaacl (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Collaborative opportunities discussion

  • I'd like to see Major League Baseball a FA not far from now and I'd like to see other editors wanting to help. This is a core article of this project and showing the collaboration this project did during it's promotion to GA status should be seen once more. With that, it'll give positive attention toward the morals of this project. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We really need to get the main team pages cleaned up at some point.. they are almost all a mess with two much detailed information about each season, which should be on the "history of..." articles or the season pages not the main page. I've tried to tackle them from time to time but thats a big project that would need experts on each team to really do it right. Spanneraol (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree; the team pages are sorely lacking, and almost all could use some work. Perhaps that would be a good starting point for collaboration. I do wonder, however, which teams are "unrepresented" by project members. Any Marlins fans out there? Go Phightins! 20:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well we could find whomever we can to represent specific teams and then split up the remaining teams... or pull straws out of a virtual hat to see who gets stuck with the Astros. Spanneraol (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey now - you have an editor who proudly sticks by his Astros and will gladly help with the page. :) (I know that there's a lot of trimming and style/tone work that could be done at that entry though.) EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • List of teams for whom I no fans immediately come to mind: Braves, Mets, Nationals, Pirates, Brewers, Reds, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Rockies; Blue Jays, Rays, White Sox, Tigers (there's got to be one though), Athletics, Mariners (well, there's Floquenbeam, but he doesn't participate in this project), and maybe a few others. Those popped in my head. Go Phightins! 11:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm Phillies along with Phightins. And no, before you ask, I never have liked any NY teams :P -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
  • TomCat4680 is a Tigers fan, Redmen44 usually does the White Sox season page.. I think the Blue Jays, Mariners, Reds and Pirates have supporters as well. We should probably do something along the lines of this old project and have people sign up to take care of each team. For teams with multiple editors, like the Yankees or Phillies, you can split up the responsibilities. Spanneraol (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yea we should start with that.. but it should not only be maintaining the season articles, but also the main team page and the "History of..." articles. They are all related.Spanneraol (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe it was supposed to be who will work on the team pages.. but we probably dont need five people on the Yankees considering how baren the other teams are. Spanneraol (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I envisioned it as both, actually. A determination of who is predisposed to which team(s), and using that to figure out how to do the team articles. We don't need five people to fix up the Yankees page indeed. I totally forgot about that participant list. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes I fixed up the Padres... as well as the Diamondbacks back in 2012 but could't get anyone to help with the other teams so i dropped it at the time.. I've found that eliminating detailed team histories from the main pages discourages editors from adding info on each season there.. though they don't seem to be adding as much to the team history pages (which is where the info belongs) and most of the season pages are just gamelogs and stats unfortunately. Perhaps a notice would help direct them to the proper locations. Spanneraol (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we just adding anybody thats a fan of the team to the table above? Because I know User:Trut-h-urts man is a Blue Jays fan and I didn't want to take it upon myself to add his name.--Yankees10 19:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries - I'm on board. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also follow two National League teams – the Rockies and the Reds – but not to the extent I do the Twins. TCN7JM 21:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we go through this list and see what people wrote down as their specialities, and contact them about joining this project? -Newyorkadam (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Centralizing team interest info

There was a table being formed above, there is already Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Participant list, and there are existing team subprojects at Category:WikiProject_Baseball_subprojects_and_task_forces with their own member list. Let's decide what can be reused, what needs to be recreated, and what should be eliminated going forward.—Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the overall participant list is too unwieldy for this task and i think a number of those people are either inactive or otherwise not really involved. Some of those team projects seem to be inactive... the chart above is useful but perhaps should be moved to another location? Or combined with the team season assignment page that Newyorkadam created. Spanneraol (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like we need 1) a list for the specific team page task. 2) a general resource going forward for editors' team interest. For #2, should the participant list and team projects have a re-registration to see who is still in? —Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of names on that list I don't know. I looked at a couple at random and in both cases there have been no new edits in years. We should probably systematically look through the list, see who is active, and reach out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
To centralize may be worthwhile if the scope is editors with professed interest in wikipedia coverage of the team/club/franchise. I think the central place should be a project subpage, either Participant list --perhaps section 3 following Active and Inactive-- or a subpage of that one. Either way, its maintenance should be included in the request at the end of that one's lead section. Something like (quoting the current version):
"Add yourself to the tables below (in the correct place), using the following code:"
[code suppressed]
If you are interested in helping to cover some of the 30 MLB organizations in particular, please add yourself to the blah blah.
--P64 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
In response to Muboshgu's comment about inactive editors. What I do over in the hockey project is maintain 3 sections on our participants list. Those are who are "Active" in that the majority of their edits are hockey or they make alot of hockey edits. "Semi-Active" Those who have made edits to hockey in the last 6 months but it hasn't been that many. And then "Inactive" those that haven't made a hockey edit in the last 6 months. Anyone over 1 year without a hockey edit gets removed completely. And I do a semi-annual cleanup of the list every 6 months and move people as appropriate or remove them if they have passed a year. It can be a bit of work but once you setup the frame work the first time its pretty quick every 6 months because you usually only have to look back 6 months to see if anything changed. You can see the basic setup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Participant. Obviously your tables will be different so that you can list who is working on what etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Heh in saying that I totally realized I missed the fall cleanup. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@Djsasso: How do you easily and accurately identify if an editor with a lot of edits over 6 months made no edits that were hockey-related?—Bagumba (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not having seen this part of the discussion, I decided to attempt a little cleanup of the participant list. I was pretty conservative and moved users to inactive only if I could easily determine that they had no baseball-related edits for a year. That moved a number of users off the active list. I didn't take anyone out completely unless they were indefinitely blocked or retired. I'm not sure how much more useful the list is now, but there were a number of users who would have been removed/inactive if we used criteria similar to the hockey list above. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 08:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I basically do it the hard way and scroll through edits looking for hockey articles. I know the topic well enough that I can spot articles that are hockey articles so I am fairly accurate. Is it possible that I miss an edit in editors with very large amounts of edits? It probably is. But if its that hard to spot someones edits then its probably not a big deal if they are marked as inactive. You could probably also do it with AWB by pulling in their edits and comparing them to a list of edits that fall under the hockey article tree but its faster for me to just scroll in most cases. We don't have many editors who edit a lot that don't mainly focus on hockey so its not been a huge deal. Probably only 3 or 4 editors at most where I have a bit of a lengthy search through their edits. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well are we going to go through with fixing up the team articles? If so we should discuss how they should look and proceed to make changes. if the people listed above are still interested in tackling those team articles.. The history on the main page really should just be one or two paragraphs of the main points, like I did with the Dodgers, Diamondbacks and Padres pages with all the detailed season information moved to the history pages. That way people wont be constantly adding information to the main page.Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think interest has "waned", however it is a rather busy time for updates to player articles. I will try to get to Philadelphia Phillies by opening day. Go Phightins! 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Project leadership discussion

  • In the event Wizardman does not return, I think either Secret may be best suited as a leader. This user has been around the longest and knows the ropes best (not to say that others can't be good leaders too   ). Anyway, those are my thoughts. Comments from others are encouraged. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think anyone should be considered a "leader". Wikiprojects that are free flowing seem to do better than ones that have some kind of hierarchy. Creating leadership etc only in the end breeds contempt or desire to be the one in the leadership position. People can act as leaders without the need to be officially named leaders. Those are usually the best kind of leaders. Lead by example not by title. To be honest I am quite surprised that people are all concerned that Wizardman left, I certainly never thought he was a leader and he rarely commented in the project over the last few years so I don't really see his loss as much of a big deal. Don't get me wrong though his article work was great. I am just surprised at the reaction to him leaving. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that we don't need a "leader" per se. After all, the example provided above for a leadership structure in a WikiProject is the military history project. I don't mean any offense, I'm just saying "chain of command" is a very military thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that I don't see a need for an overall leader. I think everyone should be encouraged to continue taking the reins of whatever initiative they are interested in (as is currently the case), using this page to help recruit others who share similar interests. For the most part, there isn't much that needs real-time co-ordination, and so using the project page and this talk page to support interactions and collaboration should be sufficient. isaacl (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The main problem with losing Wizardman is that he was really the only one that regularly went around assessing articles for the project... I know he did the season articles every year and losing him may lead to that sort of task not being tackled as much. Spanneraol (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think project leadership should be similar to how it is in WP:USRD. There's no real leader of the project, but there are certain editors who specialize in a variety of different areas (for USRD: writing/reviewing recognized content, making maps/KMLs, other minor stuff, etc.) as well as those who are experienced within the project and can help out in all areas if needed. Similarly, I don't think we need a "leader" of the project, but we need experienced project members to take hold of it and help people like myself who are just beginning to get involved. TCN7JM 13:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't want to be a defacto leader as its too bureaucratic, and while a leadership structure might work, the military wikiproject is way longer. I think the project leadership should be done similar to WP:WPTC and WP:USRD, both of which I studied extensively (and eventually joined WPTC), in which the experienced users help out the newer, most enthusiastic users like TCN7JM said. We all have our special areas in the project (historical baseball is mine for example), so we can help others specialize in it. Secret account 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably a good way to start would be for everyone to declare their specialties (ie., a particular team, old time baseball, college baseball, Negro leagues, steroids, etc.), and then go from there. Maybe something like this can help make better use of our task forces, many of which seem to be stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate the concerns about having a formal leader, what I'd like is something more along the lines of a formal discussion moderator or group of moderators - instead of a leader running the project, someone (or a rotation of someones) who is responsible for "chairing" the "meetings" and collecting proposals for consideration by the project membership. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The only reason I would see need for a formal coordinator/moderator/leader of any kind would be to put in a box at the top of the page, "If you have any questions, please talk to our current coordinator ____________" particularly for new users, who might prefer one-to-one contact rather than 10 responses on the talk page (or zero) ... Go Phightins! 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think we would be better off creating a list of volunteers interested in a given task. Over time, it will be obvious who the de facto leaders are. Let's avoid the problems that come with too much hierarchy, if possible.—Bagumba (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The "10 response" problem, if an issue, could be resolved by having volunteers saying they will take on a specific request, and marking it so others don't need to (or know not to) overlap.—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • To be honest, for most cases it would be a happy problem if ten responses were received. For example, in my latest query above, other than the two main disputants only one person responded, and at the tail end of the discussion. (In this case, since a consensus agreement was being sought, a single coordinator would not have helped.) isaacl (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

New editor welcome and support discussion

  • Sort of related to this, but I was just thinking of how articles for Japanese/Korean/etc. players languish, in part because we can't read those languages. Could we try to coordinate with those projects to see if any of them are interested in working on their baseball players? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)One idea I had on this front is that if we see a new editor making (or good-faith attempting) constructive edits to baseball-related articles, including IPs, we should leave them a message pointing them to this project in addition to whatever other welcome messages you send. It's a simple tool that we've all thought of but we probably don't do enough. Heck, we should do this with not-so-new editors if they a) aren't members of the project and b) start editing baseball articles a lot. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll support an outreach program also. Secret account 16:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

General discussion

  1. I think a project newsletter would be perfect as it will keep people up to date with what is going on with here. I could volunteer in writing one. Any thoughts? Secret account 14:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. What would it include? An obvious would be to list newly promoted content (FA, FL, GA, DYK) and newly created articles. What else do other projects put out? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a list of articles that need updating? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  Agreed. We could include current collaborations, recently promoted content (like Muboshgu said), news, and other things. -Newyorkadam (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
We used to have a newsletter a few years ago but I think whomever was doing it wound up retiring or something. That version didn't have much content though and it wound up just cluttering talk pages. If it has actual useful information it might be worth re-examining. Spanneraol (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It could be useful to direct Wikipedians to our most popular pages (based on page views, I have that page watchlisted) and other pages being impacted by current events that could use attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
How often would this newsletter be sent out? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly? Whenever-enough-has-happened-since-the-last-newsletter? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Project newsletters are great in theory. Putting them into practice is challenging, as you would require a couple editors willing to take the time to put one together and maintain it. Resolute 17:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to volunteer with book reviews and other information, similar to the military wikiproject newsletter. It should be released monthly, or bi-monthly if there lack of volunteers. Secret account 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is a copy of the old newsletter which seemed to be part of our apparently neglected Outreach department. We should go through all the departments on our banner and either fix them up or remove them. Spanneraol (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a good time for me to plug USRD's newsletter, The Center Line. It's done quarterly, which I think is the best way to do newsletters. We can have members volunteer to contribute with different pieces for the newsletter, too. TCN7JM 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I would be willing to help with a newsletter, perhaps on a monthly basis. It might also be a good idea to include some ways we can help each other on projects (i.e. someone maintaining season articles requests that people go to their favorite team's article and add players who made the all-star game, or I could use help copyediting _____ before an FA run - things of that nature). Go Phightins! 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd volunteer as well, writing skills are key for article development and any additional practice would be great. I would like to see a newsletter on a monthly basis. Contact me when this newsletter is formed and I can contribute a piece. Seattle (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Project cleanup

In regards to Spanneraol's comment, I agree that we should cleanup all of the pages we have that might not be used. I'll start going through and making a list of pages that are abandoned/need cleanup. Newyorkadam (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) has been discussed quite a bit over the years on this talk page, so in terms of cost/benefit ratio, I'm not sure how much more it ought to be expanded. Is there a specific area that you think should be clarified? isaacl (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I was going through quickly and didn't notice that that's a page about article names, not the articles themselves. -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Collaboration target

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

So I was looking over the Baseball Mountain and I came across one article that I thought didn't need much to make GA status: Alex Rodriguez. That said, I've never actually brought an article to GA before. So I'd like a) other opinions on the feasibility of bringing it to GA and b) help doing so if it's possible. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the A-Rod article mostly needs a lot of sourcing as most of his career section is currently unsourced. Spanneraol (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, it'll require delicate care when covering the "negative" aspects of his BLP, making sure to be thorough yet balanced. I'd recommend peer review, which one of us could probably take on, before any nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'll work on sourcing it better and making sure the "negative" side gets proper weight - neither undue nor underdue - and then I'll bring it to peer review for further insight. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Be careful with using Jockbio.com... not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source.Spanneraol (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I asked about jockbio re: LeBron James at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#Jockbio.com and it got a positive response.—Bagumba (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm treating it as reliable-but-not-ideal. Essentially, I think it's a reliable enough source to verify facts, but if a more reliable source is available I'm going to use that instead. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with peer review. As the A-Rod article is too "current" for me, I won't work on it, but I can give a detailed peer review. Secret account 14:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Annual awards updates

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This hour I added 11 pages to Category:Manager of the Year Award winners including eight biographies that sort alphabetically. Eric Wedge (AL 2007) had been put in this category --21 January 2008, under its previous name "Manager of the Year Award", two months after its general update for that award-- but Bob Melvin (NL 2007) had not. No biography had been added during the six cycles then, 2008 to 2013, while there were seven more first-time MOY winners.

My three other adds were the one main article and two navigation boxes that sort to the top of the category. It occurs to me that a WP:COMMENT such as this 

<!--
 add each linked biography to [[Category:Manager of the Year Award winners]]
 -->

might be inserted at the bottom of each list --at the ends of wikitables 2.1 and 2.2 in the main article and at the end of |list1 = in each navbox template.

Annual updates during the "awards season" may benefit from such comments in all annual awards Tables & Lists and Navboxes.

--P64 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. But then articles like 2007 Major League Baseball season, Cleveland Indians award winners and league leaders, and 2007 Cleveland Indians season should also be mentioned for needing updates. The flip side is sometimes people just have time/interest to edit one page. Not discouraging the comment, just trying to temper expectations.—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The appropriate award navboxes were added to all 8 biographies that were not in the categories. Both tasks require editing the same page: the biography of the award winner; indeed, its External links section.
So let me amend the suggestion. Consider code such as this at the bottom of the main article table of AL award winners and similarly in the other three locations.
<!--
 Add these two lines at appropriate locations in the linked biography: 
 {{AL Managers of the Year}} 
 [[Category:Manager of the Year Award winners]]
 -->
The suggestion pertains to all annual awards that have both category and navbox.
--P64 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't hurt.—Bagumba (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
For this pair of annual awards I have now done so: inserted the following code four times --two with 'AL', two 'NL'--
<!--
 At annual update, please add these two lines at two appropriate locations in the linked biography: 
 {{AL Managers of the Year}} 
 [[Category:Manager of the Year Award winners]]
 -->
in three edits with summaries "insert at foot of [each wikitable / list1] Comment that instructs annual update of navigation tools (per WT:MLB#Annual awards updates" --'each wikitable' for the one main article, 'list1' for the two navbox templates.
--P64 (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I created an initial mockup of a newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter template. (Note from the name, the page is intended to hold a skeleton newsletter that can be copied to start each new issue. For simplicity I just created the mockup on the same page.) It's a simple two column (main column, sidebar) format. I suggest that any interested editors sign up on the Outreach page and we can start co-ordinating work. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we targeting April for the first issue? I think that we ought to make the newsletter its own subsection, get rid of the outreach dept. or at least split the newsletter off of it. Go Phightins! 01:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a great start. I wasn't initially a fan of the newsletter idea, preferring for us to focus on encyclopedic content, but I like this. One idea: SABR's biography committee publishes a newsletter and includes a list of certain missing biographical information that they are seeking for specific players - like a missing place of death or burial for a recently deceased player. Members then research and try to fill in those gaps. If there are any open project-related PRs or GANs or other things needing reviews, I'd love to see that included too. I can't format anything other than a basic table on WP, so I won't be the best to help produce the newsletter, but those are some ideas. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 01:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sold on the idea either, but I'm willing to help co-ordinate it if there are enough editors willing to contribute. (I'd like it to be low overhead so as little time as possible can be taken away from writing articles.) It may end up being akin to a high school newspaper, where the camaraderie in producing the paper is the most valuable outcome. isaacl (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding requesting help, I'm thinking even if the newsletter was released monthly (and I suspect that will be difficult to achieve), it won't be timely enough for one-off requests. However, if there is an appropriate subpage under the WikiProject Baseball page (or section on the page) with a list of pending tasks, then drawing attention to it on occasion may be helpful. isaacl (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk so contributors can sign up to create/update specific sections of the newsletter. Please go ahead and sign up! I'm thinking we can either continue to have discussions about the newsletter on this talk page, or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk. What do you prefer? isaacl (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Note for the moment I think discussion should continue on this page, to help draw interest; my question on moving discussion is for the future. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On a different note, from a purely practical standpoint, the newsletter is going to need an editor or someone who facilitates copyediting, fills in what's missing, and handles delivery. I think this should rotate on an issue-by-issue basis (i.e. someone does April, someone else does May, etc.) to alleviate burnout and give the newsletter a different "feel" each time. I suggest we have a calendar on the newsletter page where one can "signup" to edit a month's issue. If no one else wants to, I can do April. And are we trying to make this a first of the month or end of the month newsletter? Go Phightins! 19:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    I would like to handle editing duties, at least for the first few issues—I'd like the chance to try to work on modifications and improvements, rather than just handing off to someone else immediately. To use the mass mailing feature, an admin or someone in the Wikipedia:Mass message senders group will have to do the actual delivery. Before we set a recurring schedule, I'd like to see more signups and, where applicable, article proposals. I created a holding area on the newsletter desk page where content can be queued up as it is being developed. For example, we can bank a lot of blurbs for articles to showcase.
    I do think we can probably set a target for an initial release. How about the North American opening night of March 30? This gives the project a bit more time to organize, and can allow for some coverage of the Australian games, if someone wants to write something. isaacl (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    Well, i'll be writing about the games in Australia for the Dodgers season article but not sure how to adapt that for use in this format.Spanneraol (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter name

(comments copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter template)

  • Secret and I were bouncing around some names for the newsletter in IRC, and came up with The Inside Corner and The Outside Corner - I think we both prefer The Inside Corner. What other thoughts do we have?
  • Also, I like the layout of the template, as well as the sections. A general "this month in MLB" might also be good, although that might be what "Around the Horn" is for. Go Phightins! 01:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I like "The Inside Corner"; it has a nice double meaning for "inside" that I was trying to think of when coming up with a name. "Around the horn" is intended for general baseball news; because the newsletter isn't likely to be timely enough to cover past events, I imagine it will contain mostly upcoming events. So I think it should cover what's scheduled to happen in MLB. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Inside is better. Much like ESPN Insider wouldn't work if it was "ESPN Outsider". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Anyone else have suggestions? Right now, The Inside Corner seems to be the favorite. Go Phightins! 19:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I was leaning towards Between the Lines but I think that's an existing blog. The Dugout Stairs, maybe? Inside Corner works for me but I wanted to throw a couple of options out there. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, absent any major objection, The Inside Corner it is! I urge anyone with some good ideas for contributions to sign up at the newsletter desk and start filling in draft material. isaacl (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Project news

Regarding this update, and specifically the note on a manual of style: the project does have one, so it seems a bit redundant to ask if one is needed... As discussed, it can use more fleshing out. isaacl (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Isaac, I was just summarizing the news on what we discussed. We discussed a Baseball MOS, and thus, I included it. Do you think I should summarize the results of each topic in the newsletter article? Go Phightins! 02:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for writing the update. I'll probably edit out the parenthetical remark asking if a manual of style is needed. For this particular news item, it's probably too much to include a summary of each topic, so I think a list of areas touched upon should suffice. I won't be able to do too much with it for a few days, but I will do some copy editing later on. isaacl (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
All right. I guess another way we could format the newsletter would be Signpost-esque, in that each column could have its own subpage to help readability ... I think thoroughness is key. Go Phightins! 02:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You can try writing up a draft with more details and then we can see how well it works. I think conciseness is important to keep readers engaged. isaacl (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

New type of article at WP:FAC

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You may recall Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_36#Orel_Hershiser.27s_scoreless_inning_streak_is_a_new_type_of_article_at_WP:FAC when I first alerted you to this topic. Please revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak/archive1. I again note that Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak is a new type of article at WP:FAC so I hope a lot of sports fans will take the time to shape it correctly as a model for future articles on records.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why this is a "new type of article" for FAC? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Look at the content. It is about a streak. It details particular at bats in tables and has lots of box score information. It is not just a bunch of prose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Policy question

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

As I recall, our standard operating procedure is to wait for a player to have appeared in a regular season game with a team before we list the team in the infobox of that player's article. Has that changed or are we still doing it that way? I ask because of this edit by TomCat4680. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Policy has not changed.. at the very least you should wait till he is on the active roster once the season starts. Spanneraol (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this policy either, but Andrew Romine should get plenty of playing time on the Tigers since José Iglesias is out for the season with shin splints. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to forget about that. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This seems to me to be a WP:NOTCRYSTAL or a WP:NOR case. As soon as a source confirms that he's going to be on the 25-man roster on Opening Day, add him, but until then it's predicting the future without a source. It's pretty good predicting, mind you - his addition is highly probable - but source it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Rinku Singh

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know people are busy with updates as we approach Opening Day, but I'm thinking about trying to get Singh's entry to GA soon. The movie (Million Dollar Arm) comes out in less than two months, which might bring a little traffic to the entry. I just think it's an interesting story. There is a good bit of coverage for a non-MLB player. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 08:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

FAC notice

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi fellow project members, Jim Thome is presently at WP:FAC, and I would appreciate any reviews anyone can offer. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jim Thome/archive2. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Trial newsletter delivery

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

To any admin or other member of the mass message senders group: Can you test delivering {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter/User notification}} to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter/Subscriber list? I'm not familiar with how the contents to be included are specified: are the contents of a specified page automatically substituted on the designated delivery page, or do you have to specify the literal wiki markup (and so do any necessary substitution yourself)? isaacl (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a request at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders, so if anyone performs the mass mailing, could you drop a note on that talk page indicating the delivery has been completed? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To everyone: if you'd like to participate in the test, please feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter/Subscribe. There are also instructions for other ways to keep up with the newsletter. isaacl (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've sent the newsletter out on Issac's request. Probably should have edited the date to match today, but meh. Cheers! Resolute 00:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It's just the trial; the actual issue is planned to go out on Sunday. Thanks very much! isaacl (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Danny Mahoney

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The linked article previously claimed that Mahoney had pinch-ran for a player named Jake McLean. The problem is that Mahoney played for the 1911 Reds, who did not have a player named Jake McLean, but did have one named Larry McLean. Despite the similarity in names, I'm not sure if it's wise to assume that Mahoney did indeed pinch-run for Larry McLean. Given that record-keeping from 1911 was not quite on today's level, it might be hard to confirm exactly what did happen or if Mahoney pinch-ran for anyone. I realize that this specific case is not an extremely big deal, but it could make an interesting case study for what to do with discrepancies that are hard to clear up due to a time gap. Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, link confirms the pinch running appearance (though not the name of the player he ran for.) Spanneraol (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. We might not find out much more than that. Northern Antarctica (₵) 02:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter update

Latest comment: 10 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

The trial delivery let me figure out some kinks in generating the user notification message; I've updated the procedure for publishing a new issue accordingly. Thanks very much to Resolute for helping!

Can any potential contributions be submitted to the draft newsletter page or to the newsletter desk by the end of this Friday?

Everyone is welcome to signup for the newsletter to keep abreast of the latest news for WikiProject Baseball! isaacl (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that it might be nice to do a feature in which some of us make preseason predictions (World Series Champs, MVP winners, etc.) Would it be too late for something like that? Northern Antarctica (₵) 02:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Concur, but maybe that would be better as an addendum ... I would love to participate, but probably can't get to anything by tomorrow. Go Phightins! 03:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If you mean a feature article where you write up an analysis of your predictions, sounds great! If you can't do it for this issue, then perhaps the next one. isaacl (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I actually didn't mean I wanted to write a big, long analysis. I was more thinking along the lines of something where the baseball editors could collectively compile their predictions, perhaps with a little bit of commentary as well. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't have to be a long analysis; even just a couple of sentences or three for each prediction would make for more lively reading than just a bare list. Go for it! isaacl (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
What are we doing? Division winners, wild card, playoffs, MVP, Cy Young? If my Amtrak train has WiFi, I will try to get to it this afternoon; otherwise, you can probably publish without me, as I won't have my own WiFi again until Sunday. Go Phightins! 10:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever predictions anyone has time to do is fine. My suggestion would be to start with whichever one you think for which you can write the most engaging prose :-). Could be "Why the Phillies will win it all" if you prefer :-P. isaacl (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Where should we put these predictions? Is there a space on the newsletter for it or should we wait for the next issue (or even make it a special issue)? Northern Antarctica (₵) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You can put your prose on the the draft newsletter page in a new section under the "Opinion" section, or on the newsletter desk page in a new section under the "Works in progress" section. You can even just link to it from the Works in progress section—at this point, the "where" is less important than the content: try to make it as interesting as you can, and I'll deal with moving it around. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Do we have a deadline for this? Northern Antarctica (₵) 17:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I'd like to have contributions for this issue submitted by end of today. I need some time for copy editing and then to find a friendly admin (hint, hint!) or someone with mass mailing privileges to deliver the newsletter on Sunday. Don't let that deter you from writing something for the newsletter, though; the "Works in progress" section on the newsletter desk page is there to queue up content for future issues. With predictions being a bit more time-sensitive, if there are enough contributions ready, perhaps the next issue can come out a little bit sooner than might have occurred otherwise. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I won't be able to have anything ready by the end of today. Maybe we could consider doing a special preseason predictions issue? Northern Antarctica (₵) 17:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Woo hoo. Amtrak has WiFi. I can write something up en route. Go Phightins! 17:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! isaacl (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, once there are enough contributions ready to go, the next issue can be released. May everyone's creativity be set loose! isaacl (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Northern Antarctica: (and anyone else interested in writing up some commentary on your predictions) do you have a date and time in mind when you'll be able to have your text ready? Just trying to have an idea of what content is coming, so I can figure out when to schedule it. isaacl (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have a date in mind, but I'll try to get on it in the next few days. Northern Antarctica (₵) 02:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Season starts

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm up way too early to watch opening day from Australia.Spanneraol (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's still spring training for the rest of us in the Cactus and Grapefruit Leagues... :/ – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
In response to the season opening, I did some work on the Diamondbacks season page. I noticed one significant issue on the Dodgers page - their game log only goes through May - but I don't have time to fix that. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Yea, i added the rest of that... I hate typing in all that gamelog crap... it's tediously boring... someone used to do all of them but he seems to have vanished. Spanneraol (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Such an unnecessary task... We're not B Ref over here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
At one point, Theopolisme was working or going to work on a bot to help with statistics, but I don't know if it went anywhere. Go Phightins! 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Slight change to Template:Infobox MLB yearly

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The coding of Template:Infobox MLB yearly should be modified so that not only the MLB season year is wikilinked, but also the name of the team itself. This would be at the top heading of the info box. For example, rather than the heading of an info box reading 2014 Philadelphia Phillies, it would read 2014 Philadelphia Phillies. That way if a reader wants to go to the name page of a club, such as Philadelphia Phillies, or Tampa Bay Rays, they can easily do so from the top of the page rather than having to go throughout the article searching for a wikilink or type it into the search bar. A very minor change to the coding of the template. Thoughts?? BenYes? 20:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary. In most cases, the team name should be linked from the first line of the article text. Linking the infobox header i don't think is ever really done and i think it causes problems for the next and last season boxes.Spanneraol (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Actually, after further thought... I don't think the date should be linked in the infobox either.. not sure what the benefit of having it linked is.. Spanneraol (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Problems could only be caused with the next and last season links if one inserted the wikilink brackets ([[XYZ]]) in the parameter where the team name (e.g. Philadelphia Phillies) is to be placed, as I realized in an attempt to wikilink the parameter directly. The next/last season links are formatted so that they wikilink their yearly values with the name in the parameter where the team name is to be placed, causing a double-bracket, which would cause the problem. If the parameter itself were formatted to wikilink anything placed into it, then the problem shouldn't arise. Of course, I'm no expert, so I'm merely relying on my own logic, which could be wrong. I know that other info box templates, such as the ones used on college sports team pages (such as 2013 Florida Gators football team, 2013–14 Florida Gators men's basketball team, 2013–14 Florida Gators women's basketball team) wikilink the name of the team at the header of the info box, and there aren't problems on those templates with the next/last part of the info box at the footer. BenYes? 02:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I am ambivalent. If the rationale is to make sure someone who wants to get to the team page can do so, Spanneraol is right that that should be atop the body of the article (which it now is on the Phillies' page - thanks for pointing that out, Spanner). Then again, if someone sees need to change the template, I do not really care, I guess ... whatever y'all think. Go Phightins! 02:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I like having easy access to season and team articles, but I'd propose a change be done in the lead (independent of the infobox discussion). Per WP:BOLDTITLE. it seems like "2014 Philadelphia Phillies" is a descriptive title and should not be bolded. Perhaps leads for team season article could be something like: "The Philadelphia Phillies' season in 2014 is the 132nd season ..."—Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion for Korean given names

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:An Ji-man which affects this project. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was "move" per unanimous consensus. It doesn't appear this is even part of any trend specific to this topic but just identification of outliers that were not named in the normal and agreed lower case scheme for Korean names. --Fuhghettaboutit - Copied by Sawol (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor League: GCL Blue Jays and Pulaski Blue Jays

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

Can you help me sort something out? I'm not familiar with minor leagues but am hoping to clarify information about Toronto Blue Jays affiliated minor league teams. This question started out with sources that stated that Chris Stynes was an amateur draft for the GCL Blue Jays, but the WP article said that the GCL Blue Jays began in 2007. (See Talk:Chris Stynes#GCL Blue Jays)

From the List of Toronto Blue Jays minor league affiliates, it appears, the Rookie category shows transitions in the following years:

which is supported by a few queries of the Baseball reference page

The GCL Blue Jays appears to need to be updated, but there are 2 challenges:

  • how to explain why there are these changes
  • it seems it would be better to have something written in prose rather than using statistics info to show the years in which the teams operated.

Sorry this got a bit long, but any help would be much appreciated.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: I found a link to show the team history at The Baseball Cube, but nothing about why.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The Blue Jays just decided not to field a team in the Gulf Coast League for those years. And Stynes was drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays, not the Gulf Coast version.. and they assigned him to the GCL to start his career. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, cool. thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

MiLB roster templates are out of date

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Many of them are, anyway. With MiLB Opening Day tomorrow, I could use some help in updating them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the rosters? I usually go through those once the season starts. The rosters before opening day tend to be in flux.. so i wait till the season starts to try to update them. If you want to split up the teams, I can help with them for sure. You take the AL and I take the NL? Spanneraol (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, roster templates. I think by now teams should have finalized rosters (above short season). I can work on the AL minor league affiliates, but I have to be off the computer for the next several hours, possibly rest of the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yea they have finalized them but the website doesnt list them all yet.. and sometimes the uniform numbers arent listed yet.. some have them but some dont which is why i wait till opening day so i don't need to go back through it again a few days later.Spanneraol (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I did the Reading Fightin Phils and Lehigh Valley IronPigs. Don't worry about the Phillies unless you did all the rest - I will get to them soon. Thanks! Go Phightins! 19:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've finished the Braves and am on the Marlins... the interesting thing is that, while the AAA teams seem to be updated at least occasionally, I noticed that the AA and below teams were last updated by me almost one year ago, and the time before that was by me again a year before that... Guess some of these teams dont have anyone interested in updating their farm teams. Spanneraol (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too surprised the lower levels have lower interest. I did the Gwinnett Braves yesterday. I can work on the AL now. Please someone else do Boston though. I don't want to yell obscenities while doing this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Also a similar issue, a handful of teams have navboxes to go along with the roster.. most of which are simply not updated regularly and I see no reason for minor league teams to have navboxes since the rosters change so quickly.. I've thus nominated a few of them for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Stats lists maintaining commented out lists

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is minor in the grand scheme of things, but I figure we'd get a consensus as I've seen subtle edit wars on this before with a sock. Some (not sure how widespread) stats lists maintain a commented out list of players that have not reached a stats threshold. For example, List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases currently maintains a commented out list of "active players within 100 stolen bases of 300". These have been attempted to be removed in the past e.g. [1], but were eventually re-added. Here's a similar attempted removal from List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters.—Bagumba (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've also left a notification of this at the articles I mentioned, Talk:List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases and Talk:List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters.—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
For lists with an absolute cutoff, since entrants to the list never leave, I don't personally believe there is a need for a commented out list of pending members. So I think the commented out entries can be dispensed with in these cases. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Clyde Sukeforth and Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Please note this talk page discussion[2] between me and another editor.

There's a couple of myths going around that is causing problems for good faith editors. Legend says that Sukeforth lost his job to his part in the decision to bring Ralph Branca into the game. The shot article used to read-

'Nevertheless, it was the second questionable decision by Dressen that inning, after the positioning of Hodges, and it cost Sukeforth his job shortly thereafter.'

An editor cited sources here[3] and here[4]. I'll take Sabr on first it reads-

'Although Sukeforth stayed on with Brooklyn for the 1952 season as a coach, the Dodgers fired him when the season ended."

Here is not one[5] but two[6] newspaper articles dated in January 1952 saying that first Sukeforth resigned and that he was then hired by the Pirates. All taking place before the 1952 season was played.

Now for that old baseball card[7] supporting Sukeforth being fired-

- "Returned to Brooklyn as manager in 1951, just in time to lose the pennant in heartbreaking fashion. When the Dodgers completed a sweep of the Giants on August 10 to increase their lead to a seemingly insurmountable 12 and one-half games, Dressen celebrated in the clubhouse, singing "The Giants is dead!" to the tune of "Roll Out the Barrel". He sang loud enough for the New York team to hear him in the adjoining clubhouse. Of course, the Gothams came back to tie the Dodgers in the standings and force a playoff. Chuck bore a great deal of blame for choosing Ralph Branca to pitch to Bobby Thomson, who hit "The Shot Heard 'Round the World", a pennant-winning home run for New York. But the manager was relying on the testimony of bullpen coach Clyde Sukeforth, who reported that Carl Erskine was bouncing his curveball in warmups. Sukeforth was the scapegoat, losing his job at the end of the year."

The problem with this source is it blows another fact badly. Namely 'The Giants is dead' quote comes not from 1951 but 1953 per this newspaper article[8] from 1953.

What I'm trying to say is that through time the facts have gotten skewered about this player and event. I don't think Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) should say Sukeforth lost his job because of it because articles written at the time he left Brooklyn don't support it and the only sources that do are written much more recently and either proven wrong above or stand a strong a likelihood of being wrong because this story has been distorted over time. I brought it here for opinions....William 18:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I cited not only those two sources, but also Bud Greenspan's book (which is cited in the article), which states unequivocally that Sukeforth lost his job as a direct result of the Branca decision. I'm pretty sure that Joshua Prager's book (Prager, J: The Echoing Green: The Untold Story of Bobby Thomson, Ralph Branca and The Shot Heard Round the World. New York: Vintage Books, 2008. ISBN 0375713077) says essentially the same thing, although i will have to verify that (the book is at home). The only source we have to the contrary is Sukeforth's own denial -- essentially a primary source; and in that same article, he also dismisses that he was going to the Pirates as "pure speculation" -- when in fact he became a Pirates coach only a week or two later. I personally believe that we have to go with the majority of source material -- but I will keep looking for more evidence, on either side. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Prager's book also cites the 'The Giants is dead' tale as taking place in 1951 when it didn't. Check page 85. And on page 269 it says Sukeforth was fired on the day after the game. Also untrue. This book is NOT a good source....William 21:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you guys can definitively say he was fired because of that event as the authors of those books are making their own assumptions. It seems from a common sense perspective that blaming the pitching coach for a reliever allowing a homer seems far fetched... who knows how Labine would have done if he came in.. perhaps Clyde had other problems with the manager or perhaps he just wanted to go to Pittsburgh to reunite with Rickey, like one of those sources says. Spanneraol (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not for us to draw conclusions, or decide who's telling the truth and who is not -- that's WP:OR. Our opinions don't matter. What matters is sources. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not for us to present the opinion of a book writer as though it is fact. If you have conflicting sources, you can't list it as being truth. Spanneraol (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
And as I said, the only source that says otherwise is essentially a primary one. William said I needed a source, and I cited four. You can't discredit sources because they got some other, irrelevant fact wrong. Why is there so much objection to following the basic WP rules? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion, I propose the following: I will restore the fact (which is not in dispute) that Sukeforth left the Dodgers at the end of the '51 season, and add something to the effect that Sukeforth denied that his departure was related to the Branca incident, although others have concluded/speculated that it was -- with sources reflecting both sides. Is that acceptable to everyone? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Prager's book is still garbage. It is clear he makes things up as he goes and his book is therefore worthless as a WP:RS....William 14:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that, for a book as painstaking researched as this one appears to have been, given the large volume of footnoting and source citing, it contains a surprising number of factual errors. Nevertheless, it qualifies as WP:RS. I'll leave it out if that will keep the peace -- but repeating my question, is the above compromise acceptable? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of an answer to my question, or any further discussion, I will follow through with the compromise outlined above. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently I have protected the article due to an edit war between User:DoctorJoeE and User:WilliamJE, is it possible for project members to give an opinion on the related talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with William but DoctorJoe doesn't want to hear any other arguments. Spanneraol (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, in fact -- I BEGGED for other arguments, and no one offered any, other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and the totally irrelevant Dressler "Giants is dead" quote. If you have a valid argument, stronger than "I tend to agree..." whatever that means ... I would love to hear it. And if you consider yourself receptive to other arguments, please see the article's talk page. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
No answer, a month later. I thought not. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor league players (again and again)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As some of you may (but probably don't, it was about five years ago) remember, I was maintaining a list of minor league players that were mass created. It was originally by a single user, but ended up expanding to about 200 articles total. There were a whole mess of AfD, PRODs, and CSDs generated, it ended up with about a 2:1 delete to keep ratio in the end. I kept the list to keep record so I could check back in the future, well I have finally done what I think will be my last review and sort of it, and there were about a dozen AfDs generated. The list of AfDs is at User:Kelapstick/Sandbox#AfD should anyone care to participate. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think its going to boil down to what people consider WP:ROUTINE coverage for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG, while some will get subjective support along the lines of "this player sounds important." The next interesting exercise would be to take the results of all these AfDs and see if we can summarize what the going consensus is on what is routine and what isn't.—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there, I would like to invite all members of this WikiProject to head over and help build and improve the baseball related articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. Many articles do not exist, and those that do are either in extreme disarray or extremely outdated (the Boston Red Sox article is a good example.) Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 22:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference between regular english wikipedia and the simple english version? Just shorter articles with less detail? Not sure what the point of the duplication is.Spanneraol (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The difference is the Simple version uses simpler terms, explains terms that can't be simplified in more detailed. it targets young kids just learning to talk and read, and people learning English. It's a frequent spot for schools to use Wikipedia as a class project to build an article. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 23:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
We should probably do the same with some baseball terms even on regular WP. I know when I tried to read a cricket bio I get overwhelmed with terms in the lead like century, test, and a bunch of awards I know nothing about.—Bagumba (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April edition of The Inside Corner

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Like to share an update of your latest task with the community? Need some help with a project? Have an opinion on something going on in the newly-begun MLB season? Sign up at the newsletter desk with your plans to contribute! Your assistance is needed in order to get the next issue ready, tentatively scheduled for April 27—please help make it a success!

If you want to receive new releases of the newsletter, follow the instructions on subscribing. isaacl (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Relief pitcher awards

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

For anyone looking for work, Rolaids Relief Man Award and Major League Baseball Delivery Man Award have been discontinued, and new AL/NL awards named after Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman, respectively, will be created by MLB.[9] This is the first time I've seen anything reliable and explicit about 1) MLB phasing out Rolaids in favor of Delivery Man and 2) that Rolaids award was being publicized less until its apparent demise. The only problem is the source says Rolaids stopped being tracked in 2012, but this archive or rolaidsreliefman.com shows the website still being updated in 2012. Perhaps it was an error, and Rob Neyer meant 2013? I assume that all these updates with creation of the new award articles will need to be done to maintain feature topic status of List of Major League Baseball awards. Maybe someone wants to followup with Neyer also.—Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Almanac say Rolaids discontinued in 2013.[10] Hopefully more sources will make it clearer when we should say it was discontinued—2012 or 2013.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
CBSSports.com says last Rolaids in 2012 also.[11]—Bagumba (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Technically they are just re-naming the Delivery Man Award and splitting it into two.. not actually discontinuing the old one and creating a new one, at least thats how I read the reports. Spanneraol (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
My bad for skimming. I guess we'll wait for the press release to see how to handle Delivery Man: "MLB is expected to make an announcement soon ..."—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This from Selig: ""I believe it is appropriate to redefine an existing award in honor of their contributions to baseball ..."[12]—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I updated the page before seeing this discussion, apologies. Per this official article from MLB.com, "The new honors, beginning this season, will replace MLB's Delivery Man of the Year Award." For now, I've just written a paragraph on the Delivery Man page. I think it'd be silly to create a page before the award has even been given once. If it is actually awarded as a new and fresh award, we should make a new page. But if it is given as more of just a rebranded Delivery Man award, perhaps we should just move the page and create a separate table. And yes, we probably should remove Rolaids from the Award topic as it's no longer an MLB award, although there's an argument that it belongs as a past award. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on what Selig said, I think we'll probably be sticking with the Delivery Man Award page. We can handle it similar to the Cy Young Award, which used to be combined for MLB, until they broke it out by league. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Babe Ruth peer review

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Babe Ruth has been nominated for peer review here in advance of a run at FAC. Comments welcome, in fact appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • At a quick glance, it's clear you've done great work in improving our most important biographical article! I'll be sure to chime in on the peer review, though I'm too busy right now to put too much focus/attention into any of my editing, sadly. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Teams of WikiProject

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to submit a idea for or WikiProject. My idea is to have certain teams/divisions devoted to one particular subject. I am aware that most people stick with certain subjects when they are editing, for example I focus on the Boston Red Sox. With my "teams" idea we could, subject by subject, make baseball Wikipedia a much better place. Some team ideas could be: Boston Red Sox, 1960s baseball, [baseball cards]] and maybe subjects like "Cactus and Grapefruit leagues". Please let me know what you think! AtomicXYC (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

People will edit what they want to edit, adding more overhead by creating more "teams" won't help anything. Most discussion occurs on this page anyways so most baseball editors see it and comment on it getting a wider perspective. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You can see a list of a few subprojects (Hall of Fame, Umpires, College, etc) on the main WP:BASEBALL page. Like DJSasso says though, many of us are already very committed. I have some specific interests within baseball, but also several non-baseball Wikipedia interests (some of which need a LOT of help), but each person does as much as they can. Baseball Mountain is a pretty cool list of some of baseball's most important entries, if you are interested. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 05:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor league roster navboxes

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

For some reason, these seem to be showing up more frequently these days.. I just don't see the point of them. For one thing, minor league rosters (especially the AAA ones) tend to change almost daily, requiring constant maintenance with updates and adding and removing these from pages. Unlike the MLB rosters, where the 40 man roster doesnt really change that often, the AAA rosters are always in flux. But even more of an issue, is being on a minor league team with a group of players really a notable thing worthy of adding to the clutter of navboxes on pages? I don't think so and these really should go away. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not a fan of them either. I support getting rid of them.--Yankees10 21:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I despise the ones for major league rosters. I'd certainly support at TfD if minor league rosters were nominated. Resolute 21:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I did nominate some of these for deletion here here and here. probably should have done them as a group but i didn't realize there were so many of them.. I held off on the others to have a discussion here first. Spanneraol (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ernie Banks to FA?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thinking about taking Ernie Banks to FA if anyone is interested in taking a look or pitching in. I have a non-baseball peer review open already, but that would probably be my next step. Another editor and I are currently driving each other crazy on the article (just different editing styles), but that will work itself out. I really want to make sure that the article is comprehensive without including irrelevant material. I am trying to build up the portion about his back-to-back MVP seasons and trying to better detail and source the part about his marriages and kids. I'd welcome any feedback. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm about to violate 300RR; reverting the terrible syntax changes is becoming a full-time job. Have a couple of non-baseball GAs that could get to FA without this much stress. That makes more sense until the other Banks editor finds a new hobby in a few months. :) EricEnfermero HOWDY! 00:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter Comments and Ideas

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

As a new editor to the baseball newsletter, I would like to ask my fellow members for any comment/suggestions of the first issue since 2008. I would like to bear some of these comments in mind when we work on the upcoming newsletter for April 27. Please leave new article suggestions, topic suggestions and more below:

  1. -Baseball card article
  2. -1970s All-Stars
  3. -

Thank you for your suggestions! Also please leave comments below and your favorite article coverage! AtomicXYC (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering. Please note that the "Showcase" section of the newsletter is intended to show off articles that have been rated as some of the best within the scope of WikiProject Baseball. Unfortunately, in the content you've written so far, the articles you've linked to are all start class. I suggest looking at the list of articles that are at "Good Article" status or higher for candidates to include in the Showcase (see the project page or the sidebar on this page for links to find articles of a given class). Also, please try to put more emphasis on each article being highlighted, rather than trying to craft an overall narrative. Thanks again! isaacl (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll remove the Herb Score and Ray Chapman items now. I'll go scroll through some articles in the good article section. By the way, I was wandering if me and Seattle could work on the showcase together. If he doesn't want to what shall I work on? I quite liked the Baseball card article suggestion, can I see if that could be a new section on the newsletter. Can you guys evaluate that idea and leave some comments on it or other suggestion down below. AtomicXYC (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Content can be queued up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk/Showcase queue for use in future issues, so feel free to work on blurbs for articles, either on your own or with Seattle.
Can you give an outline of what you might plan to write in a article on baseball cards? Is it something that would fit into the Opinion section? How engaging can you make it for readers? isaacl (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Some examples of article titles for a baseball card article could be: 1952 Topps, 1960s errors or more specific titles such as "Murder's row rarity" or "The last days of the great chewing gum war." I have just listed some ideas for vintage card articles, would you like it to be mostly on vintage cards, modern cards or both? A small overview may be: (Intro) From the first Topps baseball set in 1952 to 1973 each set has contained a high number series... (Facts) ...the high number cards were located in the final series of the set. For example, the 1952 high numbers were in the 2nd series, however... (value and info) ...high number cards were significantly less printed than cards in the normal series. Some high number cards were also short-printed, and are worth over twice a regular high number card. These include the 1953 Willie Mays SP (Short-Print) card... (examples) ...the 1952 Mickey Mantle card #331 was the first 1952 Topps Card in series 2... (developed ideas/detail) ...the 1952 High number set was very unpopular due to the baseball season ending and the football season starting. Most of the second series were loaded into boats and thrown into the sea... (conclusion) ...in 1974 Topps, the first Topps series to have no high number cards. To make it more engaging I'll try not to use subjects such as "Boston Red Sox Cards" as they attract only a small audience (Sox fans), however I may do subject such as: T206 Honus Wagner, 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle and 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth. If the Opinion article will be sized similarly to the recent issue's one, I could fit the article in with a good sized opinion section as well. Please reply and let me know your thoughts, thanks. AtomicXYC (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you summarize your article idea in a single thesis sentence? Personally, I'm not really looking for an article that consists of a loosely-connected set of facts. Maybe you can personalize it by discussing your own experiences in collecting baseball cards? Bringing up your own perspective is part of an opinion piece, and if done well it will engage the readers. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I would be willing delegate the "Image" portion of the showcase to you, Atomic, but I would like to contribute the article to the showcase (of course, feel free to choose a featured article for the display). I would like to note, in these discussions, that the newsletter is meant to summarize our work from the month and reflect our contributions overall. The Inside Corner should not overwhelm our contributors. Editing articles is a significantly better use of time than spending hours on our paper. Seattle (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
After your suggestions I have come up with a overview. In this article I will combine a good Wikipedia source with deeper information from personal knowledge (of course, I will double-check from other sources). Thank you, Seattle on your offer on images and if you are still interested I would gladly accept. Isaac and Seattle each of you want this article to be in different sections, the opinion part of this will make a big difference to the article. Do you think we can compromise? Is opinion allowed in the showcase section. Thanks once again. AtomicXYC (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
AtomicXYC, you can choose the type of newsletter content you are interested in contributing. If you'd like to write about one of the best articles or images within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, then feel free to add it to the Showcase queue. If you'd like to write an opinion piece, then feel free to write something up and place a link to it under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk#Works in progress section. If you want to write about the history of baseball cards, or some other specific topic, then you might be better off finding an existing Wikipedia article to which this information can be added. isaacl (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Roaming vandalism on team articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Several ip accounts and some "new accounts", most likely the same person, have been vandalizing the "ownership of the team articles. Cubs, Cubs again, Braves, Braves again, Braves a third time. Thats just two articles, but the problem may be bigger. If you all could keep an eye on some of the team articles when they show up in your watch list, that would be great.--JOJ Hutton 16:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox MLB player

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place at the discussion page for Infobox MLB player, regarding having fields for the college and high school attended by an MLB player. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

World Series in infobox

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

I attempted to put in Eli Whiteside's infobox that he was a 2012 World Series champion, along with a note explaining that he was not on the playoff roster in 2012, similar to what was done on Barry Zito in 2010. User:TL565 keeps reverting my edit, informing me that Zito was a "special case" and that the consensus is to not include the World Series in the infobox for a player as minor as Whiteside was in 2012. However, I have seen many articles (Randy Knorr, Tony Cruz, and Mike Dunn are a few examples) of players whose contributions were about the same or less than Whiteside's who still have World Series champion listed in the infobox (without even including the explanatory note, for that matter). Should it be included or not? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a previous discussion on this topic. Personally, I think the simplest approach is to follow what reliable, notable, independent sources say. I realize this may lead to seemingly inappropriate labelling in some cases, but to do otherwise is a "we don't like it" argument. isaacl (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Zito shouldn't be listed either. It's a simple line.. either he was on the post-season roster or he wasnt. I'd delete the listing from the guys you mention. Spanneraol (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter either way to me, as long as its consistent and that there is support for it at this project.--JOJ Hutton 12:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
How do we source whether or not a player was on a postseason roster or not? This seems like a "rule" the project is making that will be very hard to verify, especially for older World Serieses. Also, if a player plays in the entire regular season and is injured and the team wins the World Series, seems to me they should have it listed in the infobox. But a September callup that plays in 5 games probably shouldn't get it in the inbox, so I don't know where to draw the line. This is not an easy problem to solve. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I like issacl's proposal, which I think is a great idea for players it applies to. However, some players do not have many sources refer to them at all after their team wins the World Series, such as Whiteside. I would recommend going by sources for players that have them, but we should probably come up with a rule for players that do not have them. If a player has few outside sources, then few people besides us will probably care what we do to the infobox. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I noticed that Randy Knorr's bio on the Nationals' website says he earned a World Series ring in 1992. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Who is or is not on a postseason roster can be easily verified with B Ref. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Every yahoo in the organization down to the secretaries in the office get a world series ring. It is not hard to source who played in the post-season... Just check on baseball reference and see who played in a post-season game, thats whats done for the older seasons. Thats a bright line thats easy to check.. after that you get into subjective discussions about who contributed and who didn't. Spanneraol (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it funny that this has become an issue again. The rule has been straight forward for years. Just because someone gets a ring does not automatically mean they should be listed as a champion. Otherwise minor players who played just one game in the majors would be considered champions. I don't understand why User:Sanfranciscogiants17 suddenly wants to add Whiteside for 2012 when he seemed fine with it up until a month ago. TL565 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Not really necessary for this discussion, but I'll tell you why anyway. I only recently started working on the Whiteside article, and when I started, it had 2012 in the infobox, in case you've forgotten. I added a note clarifying he was not on the roster that year, and right away, it was removed from the infobox. Knowing that several articles of players as minor as Whiteside (such as the above ones) had World Series Champion in their infobox, I wanted clarification on that point so that the article would be correct, whether by listing it or by not listing it. I would say that there have been so many articles that listed World Series in the infobox that this issue is not straightforward (or, at least, is not well-enforced). Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because someone else added it doesn't mean they were right. That is not an excuse. The other players that were listed shouldn't have been added as well. TL565 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think a player should be listed as a World Series champion if they are on the team that won at any point during the season. Teams don't just go to the World Series just by random chance. They get there by being good during the entire season so anyone that contributes to that end result should be recognized for the impact they had. --Jimv1983 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

MLB Coaches

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As a Red Sox Fan I have the Red Sox roster on my user page. All of the MLB rosters include the coaches. I spotted that Brian Abraham (catching coach) didn't have a Wiki page. I know that many coaches previously have been MLB players, so they have fairly large Wiki pages. I also have found out that Brian Abrahams does have a variety of good-sized sources. I was wandering if someone (or some people), would like to help me find present coaches and create Wiki pages for them. If this is not a good idea please let me know. Targets:

  1. -Create all missing articles with no Stub-Class
  2. -Upgrade them all to C-Class?
  3. -B-Class??
  4. -Good article?
  5. -The good chance of getting them all to FA.
  6. -Former coaches?

Atomic XYC 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As a decently manageable goal, maybe start with active MLB managers and try to get them all to C-class, then proceed from there. I have been working on something similar with Baseball Hall of Fame inductees. Using Muboshgu's Baseball Mountain page, I made a list of all of the HOF entries that still have Start-class ratings. I track them on a subpage of my userpage, crossing them off as we get them to C. You might try something similar. I'd be willing to help locate some coaches at some point. I do know that sometimes bullpen catchers are included as coaches on roster templates. The one for my team (Javier Bracamonte) has pretty trivial mentions in reliable sources. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 19:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A project member

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow baseball editors! Today, I had the pleasure of awarding the editor of the week award to one of our own, Bloom6132. If you would like to thank Bloom for his fine efforts, please head over to his talk page. Remember, you can nominate anyone you feel is deserving of a little extra recognition at the editor of the week page. Happy Easter everyone! Go Phightins! 15:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Damon

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Damon, as most of us know, has not appeared in MLB since 2012. He expressed a desire to go to spring training with a team this year, and as far as I know, he's still working towards playing in the majors and getting to 3,000 hits. This is not likely to happen, but we don't know that it's not going to happen. I believe he should be listed as a free agent on his article. Yankees10, Spanneraol, and Wizardman disagree with me. See my talk page for the discussion. Just want to see what the rest of the community thinks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

When a reliable source a few months ago said he's still open to playing,[14] not sure why there is an urgency for WP:OR to say he is retired. Let WP readers decide for themselves if a player that last played X years ago is for all intents and purposes retired or not.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's the last discussion about this topic on this page, which didn't really form a consensus opinion. For current-day players, my understanding is that below a threshold age, a player must file a request to start drawing his retirement pension, which I suppose is the only way to distinguish an official retirement from an unofficial one. isaacl (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Damon should be continued to be labelled a free agent (it's already been over a year since he last played). At the same time, he shouldn't be declared retired until he officially announces it. My suggestion is that using the term "inactive" would be a good compromise. Several FLs (e.g. Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award, Golden Spikes Award, etc.) already utilize it to distinguish active players from those who haven't played for over a year. Any thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Most baseball players do not officially announce their retirement.. they simply dont get another job and are involuntarily retired. It's silly to list everyone as a free agent that hasnt played in years just because they never held a retirement press conference. There is no crystal issue here. Spanneraol (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It's wrong to list them as retired, though, if they're not retired. And it would've been wrong to say Bobby Abreu wasn't making any more MLB appearances after 2012 as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Good points are being made all around. Damon is obviously not retired; but since he is actively seeking MLB employment -- and probably playing in some independent league somewhere -- it's difficult to argue that he's "inactive". I agree with Bagumba that there is no particular reason to attach a label until there is a clear indication. Once he's announced retirement, or started drawing pension money, or a reasonable length of time has elapsed (HOF uses 5 years), then he's retired. Until then, let readers draw their own conclusions. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_37&oldid=1140107382"