User talk:Dewelar/Archive 3

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Dewelar! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 938 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Roy Smith (1980s pitcher) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. José Ortiz (second baseman) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Rich Barry - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Valencia

Tx for your work on the article. I agree with (or am fine with) most of your edits. I would only note the following three points. 1) It's not the case that every rookie who breaks into the major leagues this year was sought after in trade talks for major MLB ballplayers, but the club declined to trade the ballplayer. That is one way, along with stats, that we gather how a minor leaguer "projects" in the eyes of the major league teams. I think, over time, it becomes of lesser interest, as when the ballplayer becomes established. 2) Gardenhire's quote is notable. Not every rookie who is brought up, and otherwise thought to be on the cusp of riding the bench or sent back down, has the manager say that he will play and be in the lineup (not jsut coming off the bench). Again, that over time becomes less notable. 3) Punto's statement is notable. Not every rookie in his first month ballplayer is identified as the third baseman of the future. And, of course, for the fellow who might otherwise have that role to say it, is especially significant.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(Saving my response for posterity)

I understand your point of view. Allow me to respond to each:

* (1) Not all receive that consideration, but there are enough that do to make it non-notable

* (2) As I mentioned on the project talk page, every player gets puffery from their organization. While it may not take the particular form that Valencia specifically received, it will be some variant thereof. It is also non-notable because Gardenhire himself is known to want to get his players into the lineup immediately upon their recall in general. He did the exact same thing for Wilson Ramos, Trevor Plouffe and Luke Hudson when they came up earlier this year, and has done similar things with any number of rookies during his tenure.

* (3) This quote says more about Punto than it does Valencia. Nick has always been a very gracious and sportsmanlike fellow. I think he'll probably make a great coach someday, if not a manager himself.

-Dewelar (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Easier to keep the conversation in one place. Thanks for your response. My thoughts. 1) Reasonable people can differ. I btw wasn't the editor who added that. But can understand it being notable for the reasons given for the early parts of his career. It certainly given the reader info they cannot glean from stats. IMHO. 2) Puffery is one thing. But knowing what a player is valued for is another. Do they say: a) he is great at going with the pitch; b) unbelievable arm strength, or c) sacrifices his at bats to help the team, grounding to the left side to help the team at his own expense when he believes it is needed. All or any of that would be of interest, and worth reflecting. Them saying "he is a good ballplayer -- not so much". I feel this is a more important point than point 1. We shouldn't delete info that a fan would want to know, that cannot be gleaned otherwise by info in the article, because of different points of view on this IMHO. 3) It says something about both. Punto would not make that comment, I expect, if he did not believe it. Just as you are less interested in generic non-specific positive comments from team staff, I am more interested in specific, "he will be our third baseman of the future" comments by a player Valencia would move over. The fan, again, can't glean from the rest of the article or the stats how Valencia is being projected. This is highly relevant in that regard, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

1) That the Twins consider him valuable is reflected elsewhere in the article, and this quote was, to me, just repeating that in the context of rumors that never panned out.

2) The Gardenhire quote I removed said nothing like that about Valencia, just that "he's going to play", which is nothing other than Gardenhire's standard M.O. with young players. I left in the quote about what they thought he did well and such, so perhaps you're confusing me with someone else here.

3) Punto has always played all around the infield for the Twins, and that likely won't change no matter what happens to Valencia. He is the starting third baseman this season because that was the hole the Twins had where he could be plugged. If and when Valencia establishes himself, Punto will probably wind up back at shortstop or second base, just as he has for several years, because the Twins value him. Indeed, Punto said something similar a couple years ago when the Twins first brought up Alexi Casilla to replace him at second base.

-Dewelar (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Phillies all-time roster

Cheers for the fix. I'm finding these things piece by piece as I pick my way through the roster, but I haven't made any changes to the main article yet because I don't know what format the finished product is going to take. Thanks again. — KV5 • Talk • 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding items to talk pages with someone else's signature

I never added yuristache's signature line to anything. Where did you get the idea that I was doing such a thing? Kingjeff (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And how does the canvassing still apply? Kingjeff (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add it to her talk page. I only added it to some of the team talk pages to make anyone who wishes to participate that there is an ongoing discussion in another talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I think you did assume good faith. yuristache started a discussion on 30 teams talk pages. I suggested that yuristache bring it to a central location which yuristache did. Do you want 30 different discussions going on about 1 single topic? I think not adding them would be improper conduct. There would be too many people going to all 30 article talk pages to say that there would be improper canvassing. Both opinions would be represented by the link and the fact that several have been against it have showen this. If we had 30 different discussions going on then we could end up with different results for different teams which would go against the values of a WikiProject. Kingjeff (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, yuristache added most of them to team talk pages. Kingjeff (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop Williams

Since the Chicago Cubs page says the name was changed in 1901, I added the information in the infobox. I went off of that as my point of reference. I would also like to advise you against using words like "improperly". That can be disparaging to some editors and is not assuming good faith on your part. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have no issue if you re-add the "Orphans" name in the infobox. I see nothing that supports the claim that it was changed in 1902. It seems it was changed after. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the article is up for DYK. If you would like to comment or review, it can be found here. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue was that the article was in my user space (here) and I saw that you already created it. The article as a whole had many issues including the "Orpans" name (as we have now settled), the incorrect death place and some issues regarding WP:MOS. I assumed that no one would mind if I expanded on it. I did not realize that you would have an issue with something that seem's to be so small as a category. As it stood (to me, at least), you did not assume good faith. You could have asked me why I removed it on my talk page if you had a question about it. Also, the word "improper" is a term that can be damaging to an editors reputation. Please think about that in future cases. Again, I would like to say thanks for all the work. I hope all is cleared up. Have a nice day! --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The MoS issue was the fact that there was a hyphen "-" rather than an en dash "–" in the infobox. Also, it is always correct to write out the year (correct: 1902–1903, incorrect: 1902–03). Those were the main issues. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen anything to the contrary to say we cant asses the articles. The way I see it, if it is such a big discrepancy in class or importance, another editor can change it. I always use the WikiProject of the state they were born, WikiProject Bio and WikiProject Baseball. Once and a while, a person moved to another state at a very young age (like Ryan Garko) and I add the state WikiProject they moved to. I will be on the look out for any discussion on the Cubs/Orphans matter. Thanks again. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

TfD: MLB yearly infobox variants

Please see TfD: MLB yearly infobox variants, to which I have added more tempates, since you !voted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Utility Player"

Please remove the term Utility Player that you reinstated on Jose Bautista (Fielder). This edit was a direct violation of an edit by a Wikipedia administrator that I requested change this inaccurate term. Just because you believe in your relative stance that he is a utility player does not necessarily make it an accurate fact. Otherwise, I request that you make a Utility player title for one player on all 30 teams in the MLB. Ben Zobrist of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays is a utility player cited in the article "Utility Player", yet he doesn't have "Utility Player" beside his name. Chone Figgins doesn't have it beside his name and he's a utility player also cited in the article. Same with Mark DeRosa. I know these guys don't need further titles because they are only single notable people, and this can justify why utility player isn't necessary besides their name, but it still doesn't justify that Utility Player is in the title besides Jose Bautista name.

Fortunately it now redirects from Jose Bautista (fielder), but it still says Utility Player in the main title. Now I am going to kindly request that you change it back to fielder or I will have to report as Vandalism. I have several administrators in mind that will hear out my case, that will gladly make the edit. Thank you for your time. Objective44 (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Objective44, stating that a change made by an editor is "a direct violation of an edit by a Wikipedia administrator" is inappropriate - administrators do not have any authority about the content or naming of articles. These conventions are codified in the various guidelines and policies (for example, naming conventions), and administrators simply enforce those policies.

Regarding the use of "utility player", it is employed as a disambiguator, and applied to articles for players whose names are not unique. The articles about Ben Zobrist, Chone Figgins, or Mark DeRosa do not use it for just that reason - the names are unique for articles on Wikipedia. José Bautista instead requires a disambiguating term; although I agree that "utility player" isn't a good choice, there hasn't been a viable alternative presented yet.

Finally, don't threaten other users with administrator intervention simply because you dislike an edit that user made. It isn't productive, and doesn't gain you any favours. Vandalism is an action to disrupt the content; a content or naming dispute is not vandalism. Mindmatrix 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sean Tracey

Hello Dewelar, Thank you for your efforts. It seems as you have put unreferenced and false information on Sean Tracey's page and yet you edited information that I put up as unreferenced. Tracey was shuffled around by the Orioles in 2007 after they took him off their 40 man in mid May, and there arent many sources, just blogs, for they had him on both the Norfolk Tides D.L. and the Aberdeen Ironbirds roster during his rehab assignment in 2007. He went to Minor League Spring training with Baltimore in 2008 and spent the entire season on the Norfolk D.L. again, after suffering further injury to his lingering injury sustained in 2006, forcing him to under go shoulder surgery in April of 2008. He then was granted free agency after the 2008 season, and signed with the Angels in 2009 and after getting hurt pitching in a minor league spring training game he spent time in extended. So he did pitch in the Angels system in 2009, (just not for an affiliate) After a failed rehab attempt in extended Spring Training the Angels released him in June while he was still injured (no sources for that either). There arent any citable sources for transactions for the Newark bears stint either (sign/ release/ activate) Tracey was asked to give the Bears what he "had" for they were extremely thin on pitching and Manager Tim Raines was a coach for the White Sox during Traceys service time in 2006. Newark couldnt even pass Tracey in a physical after the game, and told him to go home and get his surgery for his injury he was trying to play through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaternation (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Relocated MLB clubs

Fear not, I know about the opposition of MLB editors towards splitting the team articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1980 Lynn Sailors

Per your request here, I suspended arguing my point for inclusion in the 1980 Lynn Sailors afd discussion. Others may have refrained from entering their comments based on your request. Meanwhile, User:Beeblebrox has closed the discussion and deleted the article. Please contact him about reversing his decision until the issue can be fully resolved. Thanks. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor league season articles

You claimed that I presented no evidence in my argument, and I can say the same of you. You only cited guidelines that questionably effect the notability of the articles. You also cite a discussion that produced no consensus, but you seem to think that your side was the consensus. You mention WP:GNG, but you do not specifically cite the reasons that the articles do not meet those guidelines. As far as I'm concerned, you have not presented any evidence as to why all MLB team season articles can be considered notable, while all MiLB season articles are not considered notable. Unless you provide this evidence, then I see no reason that minor league team season articles are not considered notable. I am happy to consider your side of the argument when your evidence is presented. Branson03 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on me to prove they are not notable. As I'm sure you're aware, it is impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they are notable. My specific statement was that nothing present on the pages asserts their notability. You have not denied this. That, in and of itself, is enough to allow for deletion of these pages. Note, also, that I never claimed my "side" was the consensus. What I said was that the consensus seemed to be to use WP:GNG -- my "side" would have been to establish clearer guidelines within WP:NSPORTS, which may or may not have been looser than that. When there is no consensus, the default is to use WP:GNG anyway, so it's not like anything changed.

However, as you claim that is not enough, I will elaborate on my own reasoning. WP:NSPORTS has established that seasons of professional leagues at the highest level carry presumed notability. MiLB seasons do not meet that threshold, as they are obviously not the highest level. Since there is nothing specific at WP:NSPORTS to accommodate these seasons, the next place to look for guidance is WP:NEVENT. That's where routine coverage becomes relevant. All material presented on those pages falls under that umbrella -- you'll note that WP:ROUTINE specifically mentions sports coverage as one of the varieties thereof. Therefore, in order for these seasons to be considered notable, coverage from outside the sports media must be presented. Through past experience, I am unconvinced that such coverage exists. You must show that it does -- by finding some.

Obviously, this is only my opinion, and just as obviously I am not the only one who is arguing that these seasons are non-notable. I'm no admin, so I have no authority or decision-making power. I'm not the person you need to convince, even if there was a chance I could be convinced. -Dewelar (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

season infobox

Hey... what happened with adding the previous and next year links on the season articles.. Did that get abandoned? It looked like you guys had it done last time I saw an example? Spanneraol (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So how do we get that thing to be implemented? Which version is the right one?Spanneraol (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• How do i set the next season when the name changes? Do i need to use redirects or is there an easier way? Spanneraol (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind.. figured it out. Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)