This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
@Lincolning and Go Phightins!: I'm not aware of a consensus in WP:Baseball that game logs must contain just the player's last name. (If there is, let me know, please.) In my opinion, it is easier to just list the first and last names rather than to pipe the last name. I also like first & last when looking back at past logs (it jogs my memory than just a last name alone). Any thoughts? Bob305 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, nearly every other page uses only the last name - in fact, I couldn't find another that did list full name. The link is still there to allow people to click on it. Makes the log look much cleaner with one name in my opinion. I have no information beyond that however. Lincolning (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, we did these with just last name. Don't know when the change to full name happened. I think last name only looks better, but that's just a preference. I don't know that there's any policy on point. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
