Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40

Managerial record tables
Are the manager articles supposed to contain win-loss records tables like the one found at Kevin Cash? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was a clear consensus the last time this was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_39. I don't mind some stats. I personally think end of season updates are sufficient for bios, not daily.—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Brandon Naples
Hello baseball experts! This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable player? Should the page be kept and improved?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Spanneraol. I have deleted it.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Baseball team title moves
User:Conde da Wiki153 was making some seemingly odd moves of some former major and minor league baseball team titles. I attempted to restore the long-standing names, but I may have messed up some due to dab links. If I have, please feel free to let me know and I will clean up. Rlendog (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He is still moving teams, re-naming them to the first ever name despite the teams often being much better known by later names... Have not been able to get him to discuss so far. Spanneraol (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

MiLB rosters out of date
Just a notice that I see lots of MiLB roster templates that are out of date. I've updated a few, but don't have the time to keep doing this all afternoon. Can anyone else jump in? It's mostly in the Class A levels, but also some at AA. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can look at some of them later this evening. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started my trip through updating these things... I tend to make two passes during a season, once when the season starts and then again after the short season leagues start... takes a little while to make my way through all of them though. Spanneraol (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We probably should have done this before Opening Day. I'll have time tomorrow to work on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't really do it before opening day because most of the minor league teams dont actually have accurate rosters until the season starts. Oh, can I mention one more time how I absolutely loathe the minor league roster navboxes.. they are a complete waste of space.  Spanneraol (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done maybe 10 DSL rosters so far. Spanish names are fun. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They should all be updated through at least the start of the season now, even added the VSL rosters.. i'm on to the Mexican League rosters now.Spanneraol (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

AfD participation request
There are presently 15 AfD at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball, and that number is likely to grow in the coming days. Right now, none of the discussions have seen participation from more than 5 users and several have barely been touched. It would be great if we could get some more eyes on these discussions so that consensus can be established without multiple relists. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Batting around
Of interest to some of you I expect is this article that just came out in the Wall Street Journal, with regard to disputes as to the meaning of the phrase "batting around" in baseball.

Our non-referenced (currently; someone may wish to address this) Wikipedia definition of the term is mentioned:

"Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, stands at odds with Wiktionary, its online-dictionary sister. 'When the player who led off the inning makes a second plate appearance in the same inning, it is called 'batting around,' says Wikipedia. Wiktionary says batting around means 'to have at least nine batters bat in a half inning.'" --Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC
 * I myself agree with both John Thorn and Vin Scully and believe that batting around implies 10 or men come to the plate. However, I'm not sure which of the two choices has received the biggest use throughout history. Penale52 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You cant "bat around" unless the same guy comes up to bat twice in an inning.. the term doesnt make sense otherwise. It comes from keeping score when you have to go to use the space for the next inning in your scorebook for the continuing inning. Spanneraol (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My view, based wholly on OR, is that a team has batted "around" when the 9th batter has completed his at bat (or, more accurately, plate appearance).
 * Just as a runner has run "around" the bases when he has touched the 4th (and final) base (home plate).
 * After the 9th batter has completed his plate appearance, and before the 10th batter even takes his first pitch, I believe the team has "batted around."
 * BTW, it comes up in Glossary of baseball (B) and in Batting order (baseball) on Wikipedia. Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm in the 10 batters to bat around camp, for exactly the scorekeeping reason Spanneraol says. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dickson dictionary says 10, so I added the cite to the article. Others can expand to include the minority view if they want.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tx. Dickson is a bit more subtle than that -- I've clarified what they say (9 have come up, "with the 10th batter coming up"). Also added a bit about there being different views.  It can still be expanded upon. Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can offer only anecdotal evidence, but I have delved deep into my memory. The play-by-play announcers have always said a team has "batted around" when the 10th man has come to the plate. The statement seemed to coincide with the viewer's realization that this inning was officially out of control; being that it was rare to see that same player bat more than once in an inning. Neonblak talk  -  16:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In my mind, batting around refers to when the 10th batter of the inning steps to the plate. Canuck 89 (converse with me) 21:49, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Watchlist
I seem to recall that there used to be a page where one could track changes to all articles that are part of this WikiProject. However, I can't find any such page. Does anyone know if what I'm looking for still exists? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this page what you are looking for? Spanneraol (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I know what he means, but that's not it. I'm trying to remember... – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can do it from here but i'm not sure if there is an easier way. Spanneraol (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that should work nicely. Thanks a lot! Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Related changes" only reports links that are on that page. i.e. links on the WikiProject Baseball page in this case, that have changed. It does not report all the changes to articles that are tagged for the project.—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to this watchlist before which was removed due to those toolserver changes a while back. Not sure if there is an equivalent.—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was referencing. Too bad it's gone now. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hamilton
Lots of vandalism on Josh Hamilton right now... trade probably wont be completed till at least monday as MLB and the union will want to look at this... so could use some help keeping an eye on that one. Spanneraol (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've protected it for 3 days.—Bagumba (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Beltway Series and previous teams
An anon from 2013 and I agree that it doesn't make sense to include predecessor teams from Montreal and St. Louis at Beltway Series, an article about a Baltimore-Washington rivalry. I don't know if the project has a standard practice or anything, but your input at Talk:Beltway Series would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of relevance to this project
I have opened the following discussion that may be of interest to those who frequent this page: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Chet McNabb - playing and/or coaching career?
I think that Chester D. "Chet" McNabb might have been a minor league baseball player and coach. Can anyone confirm that this guy (who had a cup of coffee in the NBA's early days) played/coached baseball, and if so, which teams? Jrcla2 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a little look on baseball-reference.com doesn't confirm your player. Closest being a Carl Mack "Skinny" McNabb, who was in the same age and career timeline. Neonblak talk  -  21:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The profile here seems to match up with the information in the article, so I'm sure those two are the same. He might have played beyond that one season in the minors, but as is that's all the info they have. As for a coaching career, he was a high school coach (what sport I'm not certain) while apparently also dealing with a pro baseball and basketball career; see here. All his Arizona-based work just makes me more curious about those two Baltimore games though; I couldn't find anything on those oddly enough. Wizardman  21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links Wizardman. I added a blurb about his baseball season in Phoenix. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Posting system
There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether or not, and if so, how, to expand the coverage of Posting system to incorporate the KBO posting system. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Posting system
There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether or not, and if so, how, to expand the coverage of Posting system to incorporate the KBO posting system. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic?
This discussion may interest some followers of this page. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Inside Corner update
The WikiProject Baseball newsletter, The Inside Corner, is currently on hiatus. However if you would like to spread some project news, solicit volunteers, encourage participation, or send any other messages in a newsletter format, please add a note to the talk page for the newsletter, and a new issue can be scheduled. Thanks to everyone for their help with the newsletter, and enjoy the season! isaacl (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Last Expos president
I have started a discussion on the appointment of the last Expos president. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate any assistance in determining a consensus view on this matter. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move
A requested move at Talk:Dan Jennings (baseball executive) may be of interest to the members of this project. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Greater Los Angeles Sports by year navboxes
Template:Greater Los Angeles Sports in 1946 and similiar templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I hate those templates.. good riddance. Spanneraol (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

MLB Divisional Standings
Not sure if it's just me, but the spacing for the "Home" and "Road" records is not wide enough and the records are 'word-wrapping' onto a second line. I tried to figure out what template needs to be adjusted, but it was way too over my head.Juve2000 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which page are you seeing the problem? It looks fine for me at 2015_New_York_Yankees_season; even if I shrink the width of my window it never wraps (you have to scroll to the right to view the rest of the table).  Same behavior for me on Safari or Chrome.—Bagumba (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It must be my settings, which makes sense since someone would have done something about it by now if it were a general problem. I see the same problem in 2014 and prior years as well.Juve2000 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Josh Bell (outfielder) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Josh Bell (outfielder) to be moved to Josh Bell (first baseman). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hiroki Ueno listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hiroki Ueno to be moved to Hiroki Ueno (baseball). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Addison Russell (baseball) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Addison Russell (baseball) to be moved to Addison Russell. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Guerrero listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Alexander Guerrero to be moved to Alex Guerrero. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been officially deprecated
Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of notable baseball players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for notable baseball players: Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding from the discussions is that all the current data has already been transferred, barring of course new updates since the transfer was done. For new articles, there are bots that create the initial Wikidata page. I presume someone then needs to go to the Wikidata page and fill in the appropriate data, and create baseball-specific fields as desired. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Isaac, that is what was said at the RfC. However, a cursory review of input persondata reveals that the only data points that were transferred were the so-called "brief descriptions"; no name variants were apparently transferred, including full names.  This is especially problematic for female bio subjects, whose maiden and married name variants have been ignored.  You may want to check a few articles for which you entered the persondata and compare it with the Wikidata profiles for the same articles.  I have found significant accurate data is being left behind.  Your mileage may vary.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Who is on the Wikipedia rooster?
Whats your suggestion for the Wikipedia rooster?

especially has he to be added, if the person is on no rooster at the website, gamechanger (rooster and stats), never played with the team in an official game, but training with the team and maybe sitting in the dugout durign games?

Etron770 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any idea what you are talking about.. What is the "wikipedia rooster"? Spanneraol (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it have anything to do with this guy?  Neonblak talk  -  15:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he is talking about the rosters of each MLB team that are maintained on Wikipedia and the guidelines for who is listed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * yes like Cincinnati_Reds The question is because I would like to use the same guidelines for f.e EU Baseball Teams Etron770 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The guidelines for the current rosters are that they match the official source at the team website. --Spanneraol (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He comes to snuff the rooster? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

mlb.com bios
It looks like Mlb.com redesigned their player pages and the bios are gone... at least I cant find them... could be an issue cause I've used those bios to source articles in the past and I'm sure other have as well. Spanneraol (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A while back for Mariano Rivera, I managed to find out how to link directly to an individual page for his MLB.com bio (independent of the actual player page), and I've used that as a reference in his article. I just tried substituting a current player's MLB.com ID into the URL I used for Rivera - for Dellin Betances, the ID is 476454 - and lo and behold, I got Betances' bio page! See for yourself. Looks like the bio pages still exist (for now), and a little URL manipulation is needed to find them. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming you preserved the original URL for the player page in the Wikipedia article, you can use the Wayback Machine (https://archive.org/web/) to find archived copies of most webpages that have gone dark. It's a great resource for sourcing biographical details of athletes when league or team websites drop a former player's profile page.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: proposal to permit non-English Wikipedia links in navboxes
There is an ongoing RfC whether to permit non-Wikipedia links in Wikipedia navboxes @ Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Given this WikiProject's ongoing interest in navboxes, some of you may be interested in commenting. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Random article improvement
Something we haven't done in quite some time is pick a player and just build that one up to GA. I remember back in the day we got Dick Padden to GA that way, and it'd be nice to collaborate and try that again. Any players that fit the bill of one we could work on? (5-10 yr career, enough online sources to work with, non-current to avoid atrophy, no overly common names to make source finding easy). I'm clicking random for Baseball-Reference but keep getting one-season guys, so that's not helping much. Wizardman 16:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, that was fun. The other idea that we had was to include infamous, interesting, creepy, or crazy named players. I haven't written or expanded an article in ages. There are several articles that I've expanded, but never finished taking all the way to GA as well. I'd throw suggestions out, but it might be interesting to see what other people come up with. Neonblak talk  -  18:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just throwing out some guys of somewhat high importance who probably deserve better pages: Cecil Travis, Cy Williams, Mort Cooper, Irish Meusel, Herman Long, Bobo Newsom and Vern Stephens. Penale52 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Long's story seems like an interesting one, especially doing so well in Hall of Fame voting in 1936. Plus you guys can use The Sporting Life as a free source, not as much easily available with the others. Going off of Neon's suggestion I thought of Creepy Crespi, five-year guy who seemed to have an interesting career, plus there's enough on him. Wizardman  03:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any further suggestions/comments? Wizardman  14:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Players that I never finished and took to GAN include: Amos Rusie (later career and legacy) and Wes Ferrell (legacy). Notorious or other oddball players I've mentioned before, but also intended to expand: Marty Bergen (murdered family, then suicide) and Billy Earle (who was said to be creepy, had hypnotic powers, and an evil eye). I can't promise much time in the next few months, but I can contribute some less time-consuming assistance no matter who people would be interested in tackling. Neonblak talk  -  17:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those could work also, though I'd rather we tackle an article on the stub-start level; those you noted are in pretty decent shape so there's not as much to collaborate on there. Wizardman  14:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm going to work on Herb Washington if anyone wants to help. 105 MLB games as a baserunner only. It would make a good DYK, but it's already too big for a 5x expansion. It's start-class, but there are some big holes - no early life section, WP:WTW issues, unsourced assertions, etc. Open to helping with any of the guys mentioned above as well. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good one, I have a little free time tomorrow, I can do some research to chip in. Meanwhile, I have been looking around for another interesting player that has been seriously neglected. Neonblak talk  -  05:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Albert Pooholes listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Albert Pooholes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. I'm especially looking for someone that specializes in Hispanic players and/or knows Spanish due to the discussion that has already taken place. Thanks. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence structure
I've recently started a discussion with User:YahwehSaves about the format of the lead sentence on player pages, and I'm hoping that some project members will share their opinions here. As many are likely aware, most (but not all) articles open like this:


 * Player Name (birth date) is a/an (Nationality) professional baseball (player or position) for the (franchise) of Major League Baseball (or other league, such as Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, etcetera).

Former and deceased players differ slightly, using "was" instead of "is", etc. YahwehSaves has made adjustments to numerous player pages, including Ferguson Jenkins, Mickey Mantle, Roberto Clemente, Ernie Banks, and others. YahwehSaves has changed the sentence structure to the following, with minor wording differences for deceased players:


 * Player Name (birth date) is a/an (Nationality) former Major League Baseball (player or position) for the (franchise[s]).

I believe that the latter sentence structure is incorrect, as one does not play MLB, they play for MLB, and it is important that we show the distinction to the average, uninformed reader. Baseball is the sport, MLB is the league. The latter sentence puts the cart before the horse (in fact it eliminates the horse entirely). It is important to note that the first sentence structure is used on most ice hockey, basketball, and American football player pages. I think we should adopt the first sentence structure at the standard for baseball player pages, and put it into use at WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice/Sample biography (which would be a relatively minor change from what appears there currently) to avoid disputes in the future. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 06:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I wouldn't say incorrect (someone who is part of an organization can be described using the organization name as an adjective), I agree that for those who are not familiar with baseball and MLB it is preferable to start with "X is a/an (Nationality) professional baseball player", and mentioning MLB later. As I recall, there was some discussion on not including the position in the first sentence, again to clarify matters for the non-baseball fan, and this resulted in the current text in the sample biography. For former players who have played with multiple teams and possibly multiple positions, it may also be simpler to include this information across multiple sentences rather than one. isaacl (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the previous discussion where I initially put forth the outline for discussion (the reasoning put forth regarding the first sentence was for concision to highlight the most important facts first). As I mentioned then, I had not intended that the sample outline mandate a specific format for the lead sentence; nonetheless, it serves as a guide to best practices. isaacl (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is not this hard, folks. Generally, living players who are still active, can be easily described as


 * Robert Taylor Smith (born June 6, 1984) is an American professional baseball player who is a pitcher for the Boston Red Sox of Major League Baseball.


 * Or words to that effect. I am generally opposed to exact formulas for article leads; it sounds silly when every article follows the exact same formula.  Good writers should be able to follow the basic idea, and tweak it as the subject's circumstances require.  The basic phrasing can be easily modified to account for retired and dead players, too.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Trut-h-urts_man here. There's nothing unique to baseball that should prevent articles about the sport's players from sharing the same lead sentence format as other professional sports. I'm of the opinion that the lead sentence should always start by mentioning the person's occupation/title without any modifying detail before getting more specific because, ostensibly, that lead sentence defines, at the most basic level, what they are–regardless of where, when, or for whom they did it. In the case of baseball players, many end up playing in multiple professional leagues (MLB, Nippon, etc). Starting their articles' lead sentences with "is a professional baseball player" avoids a wordy list of the leagues they played in, as well as potential debates about which league should be listed first. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Y2K, to the extent we're talking about writing "is a Major League Baseball player" as part of the lead sentence, I agree. I think it would be preferred to write "is a professional baseball player" to start; I also think that the nationality of the player generally should be stated at the outset, too, because that geolocates the subject per WP:LEAD and WP:BIO.  Apart from "professional baseball player," the one-word description of nationality is probably the next most important factoid, and it doesn't fit conveniently anywhere else in the lead sentence or section.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't have any issues with nationality in the lead sentence, as it's a standard across Wikipedia. And I don't oppose mentioning current league/team either, but I think it should be after mentioning the person is a professional baseball player. Your "formula" above sounds perfectly fine to me (even if I would put position in place of the word "player"). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had six years to think about it, Y2K. Using the word "player" not only clarifies the meaning for non-sports fans, who may or may not be familiar with the position names, it also separate two links: "professional baseball" and "position".  It's all good.  Now, I will be the first to admit that the formula should be modified for deceased or retired players who have played for multiple teams.  Then, something like "is an American former professional baseball pitcher who played in Major League Baseball for 12 seasons during the 1920s and 1930s", or "was an American professional baseball pitcher who played in Major League Baseball for 12 seasons . . .", probably works better, with the a list of teams, or select list of teams, later in the lead section.  FYI, if you plan to use the initialism "MLB" elsewhere in the article, it should be parenthetically defined (i.e., "(MLB)") immediately following the first use of the full "Major League Baseball" phrase in the lead per WP:ABBR.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to derail this discussion too much, but I've always questioned the value of linking to "professional baseball", rather than just having it read "professional baseball". The pro baseball article is more or less a list and provides less value than the actual baseball article for a non-sports reader. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not married to the "professional baseball" link, Y2K. I would be happy to link to "baseball" in the lead instead.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggest following the principles of WP:LEADSENTENCE: "... the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." In that spirit, don't assume a reader knows whether a given position in a sport is related to a player, coach, or executive. Also, don't assume a reader is familiar with a specific league. Therefore, I suggest that the opening sentence explicitly state the person's role (e.g. player, coach, etc) and sport (e.g. baseball) before getting into specific positions and/or leagues.—Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussion, and  supported having a first sentence with just the role and sport, and deferring specific positions and leagues to the next sentence. Is this your opinion as well? isaacl (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the number of positions and leagues. If it doesn't sound natural, start a new sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with spelling out the position, rather than just saying "player". Most readers won't be confused by that. I can read an article on a sport I am not familiar with, and if it says "x" is a "position" -- I immediately deduce that they are a player. I don't believe we have to encumber the lede by saying "x" is a player, and then saying what type of player. Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment How about this: Mickey Charles Mantle (October 20, 1931 - August 13, 1995), nicknamed "The Commerce Comet" or "The Mick", was an American baseball player. Mantle played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the New York Yankees as a center fielder and first baseman, from 1951 through 1968. Mantle was one of the best players and sluggers, and is regarded by many to be the greatest switch hitter in baseball history. Mantle was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1974 and was elected to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team in 1999. Looking at other bios on the Net for Mantle, I couldn't find any that began, he "was an American professional baseball player" or was a professional baseball player, but found one that began, Mantle "was an American baseball player"... I also found Mickey Mantle, American Baseball Player, in several places. None saying, Mickey Mantle, American Professional Baseball Player. The Wiki Mantle article body does mention professional baseball and MLB is mentioned in the introduction 2nd paragraph. His ESPN MLB bio says "Mickey Mantle was a Major League Baseball player...".. Doesn't that mean he "played MLB"? Yes or no? The person that started this discussion says and rather insists "played MLB" is "not correct" and that none of you agree here with me on this point he considers important to readers (one editor said "I wouldn't say incorrect"). I'm not refering to current players because I don't think I improved edits for any current major league player (any player who "plays MLB"). YahwehSaves (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the idea was to include professional in the opening sentence. No one is claiming that MLB is wrong; the discussion is more about the best way to introduce the subject to an uninformed encyclopedia reader. If I'm reading about a player in some sport that I don't follow, just knowing that a subject plays in X league wouldn't help me, because I won't recognize the name or status of that league. I would want you to first tell me that the subject is a professional player, then you can throw in the league name in the next sentence. I hope that makes sense. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for picking up this thread from four years ago! As I see it, there is general consensus for the presentation order that is currently given as an example in the sample biography:

There have been no strongly expressed opinions in the current discussion thread on whether or not it is desirable to include this information in one or two sentences, in cases where it is not unwieldy to use one sentence. Does this seem to match everyone's understanding? isaacl (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Part of being a good writer is knowing when to use your common sense and not to try to squeeze too much into a single sentence. For expository writing, simple sentence structure is often best.  As a suggestion, for active players who are primarily notable for playing for a single MLB team, you can probably get all of the basics into a single introductory sentence.  For a retired player, say like Reggie Jackson, who played for multiple teams, etc., it may make sense to deliver that information in two (or even more) sentences.  Also, I would suggest that there are historical players who are widely known for a particular accomplishment (e.g., home run kings Ruth and Aaron, Sandy Koufax's perfect game, Bucky Dent's home run at Fenway, etc.), and that accomplishment should be recited in the first sentence or two of the lead, even before we get to a litany of every MLB team for which they ever played.  That's why I believe your example above should be treated as just that: a good example of a lead sentence, but not a required formula.  In writing a good article for a strong subject, a good writer should have the flexibility to alter the typical to emphasize that which is most important about a given subject.  That said, perhaps our WP:Baseball style guide should include typical examples of well-written one-, two- and three-sentence leads, as well as an unusual example or two for the likes of Babe Ruth, Satchel Page, or Roger Maris.


 * In reviewing some of the hall-of-famer articles for this discussion, I also note that we really need to be more circumspect about what topics we link in the lead (and everywhere else in the article). Commonly understood words like "American" and "player" really should not be linked at all per WP:OVERLINK, and linked words in the lead should emphasize only those that are the more important and the most relevant to the particular subject.  Linking to every link-able topic only detracts from the most important, most relevant links.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the previous sample version of the lead, I had not intended that it mandate a single sentence be used, but since the comments at the time suggested that the example be split into two sentences, I rewrote it accordingly. Like you, I did not feel it necessary to expound on the principles of strong writing or create a decision tree on the matter, and so by default left it to the editor's discretion on how to adjust the sentences appropriately. For better or worse, though, there are numerous contributors to Wikipedia who are not strong in writing and can use guidance. I can update WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice with a section that summarizes the key points discussed in this thread. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's probably (at least) three models that are currently being used:
 * Players who played for one team can probably have the team mentioned in the lead sentence e.g. Cal Ripken.
 * Players associated with multiple teams should at a minimum have their primary team, if any, mentioned in the opening paragraph e.g. Rick Henderson
 * For less notable stints, some article mention them in the lead, but after the opening paragraph e.g. Jim Thome, some players that never stood out for any one team have all their teams enumerated in the opening paragraph e.g. Aubrey Huff and Kenny Lofton, while Lee Smith (baseball) only lists a few of his teams in the lead.
 * Editors need to understand that guidelines and style guides don't preclude the use of common sense when there is consensus for an exception.—Bagumba (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding #2 (which I assume is for retired players) and #3, the text in the sample biography has some guidance on this already. I think the key information to record is the discussion and rationale, so any editor with questions can be pointed to the rationale, and I will capture this as well. (On a related note, the sample biography also includes guidance for the first paragraph on listing notable events or characteristics that epitomize the player. A listing of teams is suggested only if there are no particular highlights.) isaacl (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Player_style_advice&diff=668538612&oldid=666529160 updated the player style advice] with some additional guidance on the lead sentence. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Francellis Montas
Yankees10 and I don't agree on this one, so let's have a discussion: does he meet GNG yet or should he remain merged on the White Sox' minor league page? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record I do believe the article should be re-directed, but would not be 100% against a stand-alone as he is on the White Sox 40 man as a very good prospect and is a possible call-up this year (crystal ballish but whatever).--Yankees10 18:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He seems to have several articles about him, so would meet GNG and be appropriate for a standalone article, even if he never makes the majors. Rlendog (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission
What do you think about Draft:Historic Dodgertown? Should it be merged with Holman Stadium (Vero Beach)? Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a separate, notable entity that should be a standalone article. Rlendog (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Baseball related TFD and AFD
First, there are a bunch of International League season templates I nominated for deletion. Please come over here and give your view as to whether these should be kept or deleted.

Also nominated for deletion is 2009 Portland Beavers season. The AFD discussion can be found here....William 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases discussion
A few weeks ago I made edits to List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases to bring it more in line with other baseball statistics lists (e.g. List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins, List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits, List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters etc.) which was undone today by User:Sportsguy17. I have opened a discussion at the talk page to try to come to a consensus and would appreciate your opinions there. Thanks. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Official Major League Baseball team colors
Does any other Wikipedia editor out there know where to find official HEX/HTML/Pantone color information for all 30 Major League Baseball (MLB) teams? Specifically, I'm looking to find information that comes from MLB itself (like MLB.com, for example). I'm also not looking for information that comes from Colorwerx.net, unless an editor or someone from Colorwerx.net can prove the color information they have is official and comes from MLB.com. Please comment on my talk page if you do. I'm trying to update each MLB team's HTML colors in the infoboxes of each team's article. I've found MLB's online style guide, but it is password-protected and I do not have any credentials or any way to log in and find out what the colors are myself, since that website is apparently for business partners/media of MLB only. Please help if you can. Thanks Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Barring anything official, extracting the encoding from an acceptable, representative web graphic would be the next best alternative.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I tried to do here, for example. I right-clicked on that image and selected "Inspect Element (Q)". It displayed what the HTML color I had clicked on was. However, that's the source of my dispute with User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions), as you can see here, for example. His source is Colorwerx.net; however, he also cited Arc90.com, which says here at the bottom of the page that "(MLB)’s teams and colors are currently approximations. (They) am working on getting official colors." Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, would the average reader notice the difference? Or is this a debate of whether the "real" hex codes are used? Perhaps some side-by-side visual examples would be helpful.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply for the sake of consistency, I have occasionally done what Bagumba suggested, using the logo in the infobox. But since this is not an official source, I have not disputed changes made by some editors to align with other sources. isaacl (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Marlins are one such team where simply taking the color from the logo is potentially the wrong path to take. The orange from the logo is, whereas teamcolors.arc90.com and ColorWerx say it is , and there is very big difference between the two. Has anyone thought to email someone with access to MLB Style Guide (e.g. Paul Lucas from Uni Watch) to confirm the color codes? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Miami Marlins, the average reader WOULD notice the difference in colors, especially between Orange and Red . That's a noticeable difference. Also, why is taking the color from the logo wrong? I get that ColorWerx specializes in pro sports team color information, but again I ask, where does ColorWerx (and teamcolors.arc90.com) get its information from? Does it get it from MLB Style Guide? It's important to know its source, because if you don't know where its information comes from, the less likely you are to trust it as accurate information. The whole point is to have accurate color info. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to situations where the team colour is a component of the team logo; I apologize for any confusion. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

TfDs of note
This project may be interested in the new TfDs of Template:Infobox MLB All-Star Game and Template:Infobox Wild Card.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 08:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed moves for some single-season stat pages

 * List of Major League Baseball doubles champions → List of Major League Baseball doubles leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball triples champions → List of Major League Baseball triples leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball home run champions → List of Major League Baseball home run leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball runs-batted-in champions → List of Major League Baseball runs-batted-in leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball runs scored champions → List of Major League Baseball runs scored leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball stolen base champions → List of Major League Baseball stolen base leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball wins champions → List of Major League Baseball wins leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball saves champions → List of Major League Baseball saves leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball shutout champions → List of Major League Baseball shutout leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball strikeout champions → List of Major League Baseball strikeout leaders
 * List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions → List of Major League Baseball earned run average leaders

With the exception of batting, I am basically proposing that all of the pages for single-season stat "champions" should be moved to "leaders." Here's my rationale behind this proposition: While the player with the highest batting average in a season is almost always referred to as a batting champion, it isn't always the same type of case for the other stats. And in my personal opinion, "leader" is a more accurate description than "champion" for these stats, because the baseball season isn't simply a competition where the ultimate goal for a player is to have more of a specific stat than any other player does in that stat. So while they are not the "champion" of some competition for that particular stat, they do happen to be the leader of it in a particular season. However, before making such potentially-controversial moves, I figured I should definitely start a discussion about it and see how others feel. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 100% in agreement. I've never understood why champions has been used. The more common phrase is "leader" in everything but "batting champion".--Yankees10 02:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've always thought it odd when I've come across "stolen base champion" in an infobox, but never had the wherewithal to do anything about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not tied to "champion", but a problem with "leaders" is that it is ambiguous if it means leaders 1) for each season, 2) by season totals (e.g. for HR, Sosa would be No. 3 with 66 behind Bonds (73) and McGwire (70), even though Sosa was never MLB leader, or 3) by career totals.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would leave them as is for the reason Bagumba mentions. Leaders is too ambiguous. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Personally, I think a list of leaders implies season by season, which is what these lists are. Resolute 13:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not make it "List of Major League Baseball single-season strikeout leaders" or "List of Major League Baseball strikeout leaders by season" if there's any confusion as to the period of time being considered? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion. This takes care of the possible ambiguity Bagumba pointed out. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "champions" reflects common usage, and I agree that in context "leaders" implies the leader in each season. isaacl (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Leaders" is better; leading the league in a particular statistical category is not a "championship" in any normal meaning of the word. Using "leaders" is also consistent with the practice of the other major sports WikiProjects.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Plain old "leaders" implying "leaders by season" could work if we adopt a consistent convention. For example these career leader articles are currently named with plain "leaders": List of Major League Baseball leaders in bases on balls, Major League Baseball titles leaders.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

On a related note on naming of "leaders", a lot of our career leaders list names seem contrary to WP:LISTNAME: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself ... Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list." Still, many of our list names list the cutoff in the name, e.g. List of top 100 Major League Baseball leaders in games started as opposed to maybe List of Major League Baseball career leaders in games started—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support removing those "top X" phrases from the article titles too. The cutoffs for those articles are arbitrary and have for some, have changed in the past several years. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With that in mind, it might make sense to adopt the following format:
 * All-time stat leaders: "List of Major League Baseball all-time strikeout leaders", or "... career strikeout leaders"
 * Seasonal stat leaders: "List of Major League Baseball seasonal strikeout leaders", or "... strikeout leaders by season". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that "career" and "by season" sound the best. What do others think? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Career" and "by season". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "By season" is unclear if its all the leaders at the end of each season, or the leaders with the highest season totals—irrespective if it led the league that year. I think "annual" is more succinct than "by season" e.g. List of Major League Baseball annual strikeout leaders.—Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that "annual" is any more specific than "by season" regarding this potential point of confusion. I prefer "by season" since baseball stats are kept on a per season basis rather than annual. isaacl (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this until now. See proposed annual vs seasonal distinction at .—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Naming alternatives for "leaders" lists
As far as stats lists, these are the following type of lists that are possible:
 * 1) Career - leaders by career totals
 * 2) Annual - leaders for each season
 * 3) Seasonal - leaders with highest total in a season, not limited to the leaders for a given season (i.e. Sosa would rank third for season HR total)
 * 4) Progressive career- career leaders at the end of each season

Also, Major League Baseball is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for MLB, and it is not ambiguous which MLB is being referred to with other baseball terms in the title, so perhaps these lists can be shortened to use "MLB"

I would propose that the list name ideally be something like "List of MLB  leaders in "

Here is a listing of all current articles under Category:Major League Baseball lists with "leaders" in the title with the proposed name change:

—Bagumba (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just read WP:ACRONYMTITLE, and while I guess we could abbreviate MLB, I'd rather spell it out. "NL" can be the abbreviation for the Netherlands, "AL" for Alabama. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't use abbreviations in the page titles if there's any chance that it could lead to confusion with something else the abbreviations could stand for, but we could definitely have the abbreviated versions as redirects. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that any of these pagenames need the prefix "List of". --P64 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have to have "List of", but they have been there, and per WP:LISTNAME: "A common practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___ (for example list of Xs)."—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the acronyms and went back to the full names for MLB and NL. Any objections to the following renames:

—Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

On hidden notes
I wish they'd work. At least this guy's honest – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Too bad they're only fooling themselves (we don't know whether they're male or female) by thinking that they own the article... --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Think bigger: They own Wikipedia, if not the world.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's true, I fear for us all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hamels and Gomez
Hamels deal looks like it's happening. Still not all details are available, so I am reluctant to publish that one yet ... I full protected Hamels for six hours an hour ago. Gomez deal is NOT happening.  Go  Phightins  !  03:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Gomez deal is off now? I was doing IRL for a little bit there..... We keep saying "it ain't over till it's over". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gomez deal is off ... something medical fell through. Per Jerry Crasnick, Hamels deal will NOT be finalized until tomorrow with medical rechecks. Keep reverting folks :-) Hamels is full protected for 5 hours still.  Go  Phightins  !  03:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So the Latos deal? Peraza, wow, is that done yet? Still catching up on MLBTR which is crashing with a 502 . – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Ah I see it's not done until tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No productive editing is going to happen on Cole Hamels, Jake Diekman, or Matt Harrison (baseball) until deal is done ... inclined to full protect for 8 hours or so?  Go  Phightins  !  03:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Diekman full protection lasts another two hours, Hamels' expired ... I reinstated semi-protection for 24 hours, and Harrison's full protection lasts another two hours. Still no official announcement of deal, so inclined to add semi-protection to Harrison and Diekman for 24 hours as per Hamels, and let dust fully settle. I am heading out for the day, so if there are developments, another admin can adjust protection as needed -- speaking of which, especially without Secret and Wizardman, we need more admins in this project ... you folks know who you are!  Go  Phightins  !  13:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm back from my vacation so I can help with tracking this stuff.. though obviously the bizarre three-team deal involving the Dodgers is the one i'm following closest. Spanneraol (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, this deal looks like: Dodgers get Latos, Peraza, Wood, Johnson, Avilan, Arroyo; Braves get Olivera, Paco, Bird; Braves get Morse, the draft pick, and three minor prospects. Complex. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wilmer Flores is getting some vandalism (poor guy). Lesson 101 on why not to trust what you read on social media, though I blame the Mets for not keeping mum on the details while it was being processed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a thought
There's a way to code Current sports transaction such that when it's used on the page, it could create a warning when a person goes to edit the page, right? That could be a great place to stick a picture of Wilmer Flores. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Crying Wilmer Flores. Unofficial trade editing makes Wilmer Flores cry. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 16:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's Editnotice I was thinking of. I'll see if I can finagle it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what I want to do, but I don't know how to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a great idea, though, if someone can figure out how to actually implement it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We could use it to list transactions that were reported as done but didn't get completed, like Carlos Gomez last night, the Grant Balfour / Baltimore Orioles signing last year, and some from other sports. The Chris Paul non-trade to the Lakers, perhaps. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think one has to be an admin to create an edit notice ... I want to say. I will investigate.  Go  Phightins  !  17:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit notice requires admin. I'd thought about it before, but am skeptical how many people will heed the fine print anymore than in the "current sports" template or the uw-sportstrans warnings on their pages.—Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It can't hurt, and it might help. Someone might pause when they read a longer explanation than a blue template can provide. I appreciate the admins looking into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a previous discussion on using edit notices. Sure, it can be tried; I just wouldn't get my hopes up about its effectiveness. isaacl (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If only one IP reads it and holds off on "breaking the trade", it would be worth it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the cost of admins maintaining the edit notice for dozens of players, and with say a dozen IP editors ignoring the notices? Maybe, but I won't say it's an obvious net positive. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why my idea is to tie it to the template, so that it's automatic on any page if the template is there. I wouldn't want admins to have to make an edit notice for each time a player is rumored in a trade. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, unfortunately to the best of my knowledge it's not possible to trigger the creation of an edit notice in that way. As far as I know, only the edit filter capability can take some separate actions when an edit occurs, and it can't cause a page to be created. isaacl (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bummer :( – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, including text on an article's page can't trigger the creation of an edit notice. Yes, only editors with either the administrative privilege or the template editor privilege can create or change an edit notice outside of one's own user space. (You could work around this by having the edit notice transclude another page, but personally I think it's a bad idea to circumvent the security restriction in this way. Adding content onto everyone's edit page is a potential way to introduce phishing attacks (in theory, the Wikimedia software will not allow anything bad to be included, but having multiple layers of security is safer).) isaacl (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very unfortunate. That means that the only way we could put those edit notices on the pages of baseball players in trade limbo would be to have an admin do it manually. And that would require there to always be an admin online who pays attention to baseball trade news, which means we would need multiple admins in charge of it, since no admin can be online 24/7. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In truth, most of the deals confirmed by anonymous sources that are reported by generally reliable sources usually do go through, so I think most editors actually think they are putting "correct" info in. However, we're talking WP:RSBREAKING here, which is a point understood by only the more veteran and responsible editors.  I don't expect drive-by editors to know, and for others it will be a gradual learning process.—Bagumba (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

NC A&T baseball navbox
I don't usually work with baseball navboxes but is this one properly formatted? ThanksUCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Steve Gromek
I'm working on Steve Gromek's article. In researching him, I've discovered that he is best remembered for a picture taken of him and Larry Doby after game 4 of the 1948 World Series. I'm not all that Wiki-savvy, and don't feel like creating all sorts of copyright issues (I never seem to get this kinda crap right), but it would be nice to add that picture to his article. I mean, it seems kinda silly to me at this point to say that he's famous for a picture, and not include said picture.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's something I thought of adding myself (Gromek was on my to-do list forever, but my activity's down to basically zero now). Generally fair use images aren't allowed, but I think this is one of those cases where the image's significance is major, and as long as you have that evidence (which I'm sure you have, there's enough talk about the picture out there), then I don't see there being an issue adding it to Gromek's article (or Doby's either for that matter). Since I see you're working on him btw, I'll dig through my sources and help out, I think I have some old Sporting News pieces I got years back on him. Wizardman  12:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll go ahead and upload the image. If I screw anything up, feel free to reedit it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCI No. 8 is applicable: "Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate." This rationale is sometimes abused, so I'd advise fleshing out a good number of sentences in the article to make it obvious and avoid potential disputes over non-free usage.—Bagumba (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I uploaded the image. I'm not sure what I did right or wrong with the rationale for its use, but I'm all for someone who knows more than me fixing it. As far as justifying it in the article, that will come within the next 2 days. Would have done it today, but life got in the way.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of players as World Series Champions
I recently made an edit to fix an issue with Matt Cain to add 2014 to the list of World Series champion years. It was reverted back by someone referencing this page that says only those that were on the active roster for the World Series should be listed as World Series champions. I suggest a change for this rule. If a player was on the active roster and was a contributing member of getting the team to the World Series during the season then they should be credited as a World Series champion. Active player on the World Series roster or not he was a member of the team. He played for the team during the year, was at all the post season games and was award a World Series ring. Anyone in such a position is always considered a World Series champion. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed so many times already. Anyone in the organization can get a ring. Should we all list them as champions? If they were not on the postseason roster, they aren't going to be listed no matter how unfair it seems. TL565 (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a reference, see a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_34. I'd suggest summarizing the pros and cons brought up before, and see if a new proposal can address most of those concerns.  IIRC, I tried a compromise of placing a footnote in Barry Zito for the 2010 WS, but I see it is no longer there.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also going through this on Skip Schumaker with some talk page discussion Talk:Skip Schumaker. In Skip's case, he was sent to AAA in early May and not recalled until September and not on any playoff roster.  MLB.com does list World Series champion as an award, but I think they only include players on the active WS roster, not the full 40 man roster. Of the sources generally linked at the bottom of each player's page, that's the only one that included World Series under awards. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You might consider redirecting that discussion here, where potentially there might be more participants.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus can change, and I'm not particularly married to one side or the other on this one. The WS navbox templates are kept to the active roster for the World Series, which makes a good reference point for whether or not to call someone a "World Series champion". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the reference I've been using for years. If they are not on the champions navbox template on the bottom of the page, they should not be listed as champions. I don't know why people insist having a ring makes you listed as a champion on here. It reminds me of when people kept trying to add Bengie Molina as a 2010 champion when in the WS, he was on the opposing team, which was completely ridiculous. I think the consensus should stay as it is. If years are added on a player's page, delete it at first. If it continues often, add a hidden note telling editors it shouldn't be added. That usually helps. TL565 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As I stated in the last discussion, I believe if there are reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable sources that refer to a player as a member of a World Series champion team, then the Wikipedia article can state this as well. To do otherwise is original research, based on an "I don't like it" justification. isaacl (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox label doesn't specify "member of a World Series champion team", nor any other criterion; as it shouldn't, the label must be short (just long enough to say World Series champion rather than world champion or World Champion). The label links to List of World Series champions which is primarily a table giving World Series winning and losing teams and managers. It doesn't cover whether and which players are WS winners in prose (where it doesn't discuss the managers either), table or notes. No doubt the Wikipedia player biographies can go either way, or go variously in prose, infobox and notes, without foresworn "original research".
 * For notes, such as Bagumba may have provided for Barry Zito the 2010 WS, it may be best to create a WP:template that will give much of the explanation in uniform wording. Such as BBWAA balloting key and BBWAA balloting 2, except for use in a footnote rather than a right-hand column. [Those two are not easy to find because they are not in a baseball templates category.]
 * --P64 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Listing a World Series championship as a career highlight is a shorthand of saying the player was on the World Series team. isaacl (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of sticking with the status quo. I believe we've used the postseason rosters (where they can be ascertained) as the barometer for inclusion in the navbox. So Kevin Cash, who was on the LDS roster for the Res Sox in '07 is in the navbox, but Nomar Garciaparra is not included in the '04 navbox. I believe this conversation has happened in relation to Dennis Martínez and he inclusion (or lack of inclusion]] in the 83 Orioles navbox due to his injury keeping him out of the postseason. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This issue will probably just simmer until either a core, star player suffers a season-ending injury before their team makes and wins the WS, or a BLP is contested by the subject. For the latter case, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_9, where it was added though he was on the physically able to perform list when his team won the Super Bowl. Until now, it's been easy to dismiss non-star players or ones that have been suspended.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If a player was on a World Series roster or regular season roster is considered a champion by the organization recently Carlos Delgado was the topic of the situation he played in games during the regular season for the 1993 Toronto Blue Jays Roster and didn't play in any of the post season games but remained on the team and was apart of the roster regardless I believe if a player is on the roster regardless of playing in any games or having at least one game played they deserve a championship the movie Semi-Pro covers the situation where a player can sit on the bench for a team and not participate in any games and still win a NBA championship just like the same in baseball if the player is on the roster they are considered a champion Delgado should have the 1993 World Series champion recognition for being apart of the team he was indeed on the roster during the season and remained on the team till 2004 JMichael22 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious with the Semi-Pro thing.--Yankees10 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't blindly subscribe that a player has to be on the playoff roster to be considered part of WS champion. However, Delgado was only a September call-up and had only 2 at-bats..  Barring lots of reliable sources calling him a part of the World Series team (doubtful), I would not include players like him.—Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions
I just notice that there is still inconsistency between the original naming proposal at and the latest proposal at. I think it's a good idea to have a poll on the current options.

Lists of MLB stats leaders can be categorized by the following types:
 * Background
 * 1) Annual - leaders for each season
 * 2) Seasonal - leaders with highest total in a season, not limited to the leaders for a given season (i.e. Sosa would rank third for season HR total)
 * 3) Career - leaders by career totals
 * 4) Progressive career- career leaders at the end of each season

Note: We don't currently have any list of season leaders.

Naming conventions option for normalizing the naming of these lists include:
 * Proposal
 * 1) "List of  leaders"
 * 2) "List of  leaders in "

Following are examples showing the current disparate names of articles, and the changes using the two proposed options:

!Vote for option1 leaders

 * 1) Trumps option 2 by slightly shortening the name by removing the need for "in". Status quo of continuing to have no naming convention is undesirable aside from saving some page moves.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree completely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) This definitely seems like the best option. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely.  The use of the word "leader" for players who top particular statistical categories, either season or career, is a more accurate and precise choice of words than the word "champion" .  The proposed changes above also impose a greater measure of consistency in our nomenclature for baseball articles, lists, and potentially categories, too.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with this one.--Yankees10 22:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree, although I think we need to separately seek a consensus on whether "annual" is the best option versus "by season", "seasonal", or "yearly". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull;  contributions) 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "by season" wouldn't work with the proposed format; it would need to be an adjective. Otherwise, we would need "by career", etc, unless we wanted to continue with ad hoc, inconsistent formats similar to the status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the case of "by season", I would envision it to go at the end of the article title ("List of MLB leaders in ERA by season"). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you endorsing Option 1 now, but are saying that consensus may change later for "annual"?—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
For seasonal lists, I prefer using the term "season" or "seasonal" versus "annual", as the stats are on a per season basis, and not per year. This would allow similar lists for the Australian Baseball League to follow the same naming convention. isaacl (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guilty of being MLB centric :-) Still, the leader is determined annually, even if the season itself straddles two years (like it appears to for ABL).  Also, do you have any suggestions for naming an article that just has the highest single-season marks, which allows for multiple "leaders" in the same season to be listed.  Granted, we don't seem to have any of those for MLB yet, but it'd be nice if we could incorporate it into our naming convention to allow for future expansion.  For that matter, are there any lists of leaders currently for ABL, or is that hypothetical as well?—Bagumba (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "single-season" is the typical descriptive phrase used in reference sources, so I suggest "List of Major League Baseball single-season doubles leaders", for example. Regarding the seasonal leaders, personally I feel that since the stats are season-centric, it would be more suitable to describe them as such. This would also reinforce that they cover the regular season, and not, for example, the post-season. Regarding southern hemisphere leagues, I only took a quick look which failed to uncover any existing lists, but I admit I could have easily missed them. isaacl (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Single-season" vs "season" are too similar, and give no hint that one of these is the one that lists a leader for each season. FWIW, baseball-reference uses "yearly league" (for the leader each season) and "single-season" for the highest total, regardless of season.—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. I think the original suggestion of "List of Major League Baseball doubles leaders by season" is sufficiently descriptive. isaacl (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're going to have to do a formal proposal with before and after listings, as I can't exactly picture right now what you are exactly suggesting for each of the type of lists we have. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the different kinds of lists as a package deal, so I hesitate to bundle them into a single option. Here's the two we've discussed so far:
 * Individual season: List of &lt;league&gt; &lt;accomplishment&gt; leaders by season
 * Single-season: List of &lt;league&gt; single-season &lt;accomplishment&gt; leaders
 * For progressive, I suggest mimicking the conventions used by History of the tallest buildings in the world: History of &lt;league&gt; single-season &lt;accomplishment&gt; leaders isaacl (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the concerns being raised about the naming conventions for articles that detail the most "bla bla stat" that players have ever compiled in a single-season. However, I feel like most of the time those types of rankings are mentioned, the word "record" is mentioned. For example, the current article Major League Baseball single-season home run record seems to be pretty clear on what it encompasses. I would expect to see Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa at the top of that list. For annual home run "champions", I would expect to see wording in the ballpark of "seasonal", "by season", "annual", or "yearly". Perhaps single-season record articles should all use the word "record" instead of falling back on "leaders". EDIT: Well, it looks like the single-season home run record article has a progressive listing of the record holder, but not the all-time highest totals for a single season... maybe that should change? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if "record" is appropriate for a list; there is only one record holder, while a list has the top-X "leaders".—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've invited earlier participants from who have not already commented at this poll. I've also arranged for to later assess consensus here and formally close this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of graphics for Toronto's Level of Excellence
Carlos Delgado's bio contains a graphic with just his name in honor of his inclusion in the Toronto Blue Jays' Level of Excellence. Is there any real value in this? I clicked on it thinking it was a link to an external image, but no, what you see is what you get. I'll presume this is the case for all the other Blue Jays honored.—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not in favour of the use of graphics to depict banners for team retired numbers / honoured players, but their use is widespread in various team articles (last time I checked). isaacl (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think those graphics are utterly pointless. Replace it with actual pictures of the actual "banner" at least.  Hell, I might have some pics from my trip to SkyDome last year. Resolute 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have always liked the graphics. But I could have sworn they were "outlawed" awhile ago. I had wondered how the baseball ones survived. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd bet that most/all baseball bios whose number was retired has one, and every team has their own shrine.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ones I checked at the time, as I recall, contained all information in text as well as within the graphic, and so there isn't really any other policy reason for objecting, as far as know (one could object that the graphic is redundant, but it can be argued that persons earning top recognition from a team are worth a bit of additional weight in presentation). isaacl (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can live with ones with a number in it, Delgado's seems absolutely redundant and non-intuitive.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I forget which it was, but it was something about images can't be used specifically for decoration which is what those were argued as being since as you say everything could be done in text instead. I forget what policy it was a part of, perhaps WP:ICON. It may also have been the fact that it included non-free content in the form of logos. I am not sure. As I said I always just assumed they were supposed to go, and they had been removed from the hockey articles that had them a very long time ago because of whatever the issue was, just was never sure why they didn't in baseball. I personally like them though. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to get to the point about text with San_Diego_Padres, for example. Being that we have a photo of the actual retired numbers display, a table replacing the player position and retirement dates from the generated graphics seems reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah on that article I might even increase the size of the photo to make it more obvious. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pet peeve
I left the following note at 's talk page 'cause he is a good friend and adviser. Then, I came to this project and saw familiar names and faces. Maybe someone can take a look and advise. You "guys" seem to know the ins and outs of baseball team articles: I have been editing the 2015 Chicago Cubs season and related Cub articles since the beginning of the season. Except for a few minor additions to the game log and the player stats by other editors, I have been the lone editor since opening day. Today, a new editor made some drastic changes to the batting and pitching stats which, I think, were completely unnecessary and only created a confusing "look". I didn't think it improved anything so I undid his edits. In plain English, it greatly pisses me off that he/she makes such a drastic, inconsiderate change to a statistical chart that has obviously been updated by someone for months and doesn't even bother with an "edit summary" or any type of explanation. I guess what I'm requesting is some good advice on how to proceed. In your estimation, do these changes improve the article? Was I right in "undoing"? Thanks,. Buster Seven   Talk  20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you were right in undoing. You should send the other editor a note and explain that you have been working on the article and that if he wants to make drastic changes to the layout he should discuss them on the talk page first before making the changes. Spanneraol (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Buster Seven: We encourage bold editing, but WP:BRD is a normal cycle, so nothing has gone wrong in that respect. The other editor made the change without an edit summary, so we don't know the exact intent. Your revert, while it did have an edit summary, is only a slight fully helpful with "Unnecessary changes". AGF, the other user probably thought it was necessary, so a bit more explanation would have been welcome.  At this point, you can be proactive like Spanneraol suggested and engage the other editor. Barring that, the other editor will ideally move on to the discuss phase if they still disagree with your revert.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AGF is fine, I do it all the time. And I undid to create the BRD cycle. Ive sent him a note. Baseball team articles require a certain courtesy between editors. I would never be so bold and inconsiderate as to just make "whilly-nilly" changes to a "under constant daily construction" type article which is what ALL team articles are. I was being kind w/ "Unnecssary changes". If I said what I really thought, I might have gotten banned. . Buster Seven   Talk  22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, the edit summary was fine :-) Seriously, there are ways to say how a change makes things worse without making it personal.—Bagumba (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the others. I fixed your date format for you because 'Murica! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Baseball lists moved
I've moved all the baseball lists per consensus at. If anybody is interested, the links to the old page names can be cleaned up to link directly to the new names. If not, the redirects are in place.—Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be lists that did not have "leader" or "champion" in the title before, but are essentially of the same genre, like List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs batted in. Any objection to renaming this to List of Major League Baseball career runs-batted-in leaders. The 1,000 cutoff will continue be used in the list as a cutoff, but does not need to be mentioned in the title. (WP:LISTNAME: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself ... Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.") This would apply to other lists with cutoffs in the title, that also don't currently have "leader/champion" in the title.—Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I support this 100%. If we're going to implement a new format for article names, then it needs to be reflected on all articles instead of just a select few.Taffe316 (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support this 100%. One curiosity might be a few articles like 300 save club, which is the only article listing all-time saves leaders but is not named in such a way. I wonder if we should revisit the way it (and others) are named. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 23:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think maybe articles such as 300 save club or 500 home run club can stay the same for now, but lists that hold "top 100" in their title should be renamed.Taffe316 (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 300 save, 500 home run club, et al, probably qualify as WP:COMMONNAME, so I wouldn't change those. If in doubt, they should be put through WP:RM individually.—Bagumba (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Traded pitcher's win/loss record.
I can't believe this even needs to be discussed but to avoid an edit war here we go. It's standard on just about any other game log or mlb.com for that matter to list win/loss and save records for the season even after the player goes to another team. But a particular editor seems to want to only list team stats in the game log because he/she thinks it might confuse people to list season stats. What's the consensus on this issue? RobDe68 (talk)
 * It's standard in box scores and articles to combine records when they are in the same league. However, is there a convention in RS's for a team's game log?  FWIW, http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/schedule/sortable.jsp?c_id=tor&year=2015 only lists Price's team record.—Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was the page in question. There has to be some standard but the other team pages I checked (Tigers, Rangers) have combined season records (Boyd, Norris, Feliz, Hammels). I didn't check every page but I'm suspecting that's the standard. I'm inviting the editor in question to this discussion as we speak. RobDe68 (talk)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, if it exists, should be considered, but it's infinitely more useful to understand why something is done a certain way, and deciding if it still make sense.—Bagumba (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (copy-paste from edit conflict) Particular editor? It's me. I have a user name. There's no war, just one edit by you and one revert by me. Listing Price as 11–4 in the Blue Jays 2015 season page would confuse new readers, as he has 2 wins in a Blue Jays uniform. His other 9 wins and 4 losses came with Detroit. An uninformed reader wouldn't know that, and scrolling through the game log isn't going to help them either. It's just unnecessarily confusing. The Blue Jays official site lists Price as 2–0. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 19:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about a note at the bottom of the page, explaining that Price's combined season record is X–Y, while the record displayed in the game log is just with Toronto? I have changed the page to include these notes if you'd like to check it out. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 19:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We should list Price's record as 10-4 and 11-4. It's just confusing to see him as 1-0 and 2-0, especially when you check out the game's boxscore and the numbers don't match up.  Canuck 89 (talk to me) 19:17, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think this should be discussed and a consensus reached. Aside from Price, I haven't found another example in any other game log for team stats (Norris,Boyd,Feliz,Hammels,Jim Johnson etc.). Who knows, maybe the answer is to change all of the other 2 team pitchers to team stats, but let's discuss it. I was actually surprised there was nothing on this before. RobDe68 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

For more data points, other sites that list a TOR game log with pitchers' records all seems to list Price's overall record (not TOR only stats): ESPN, Fox, and CBS. Listing it either way has its own limitations. All things being equal, I'd go with the prevalent convention in sources, which so far seems to list the overall record (which is also consistent with box scores)—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the only place I see team only records is that sortable team schedule you posted. It's like that for other teams too but that seems to be done for fans' sake, I don't think that applies here FWIW. RobDe68 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The gamelog should list his full season w/l record as that is what is listed in the box scores. The team statistics section should list only his stats for the team. Spanneraol (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Utley reports
In a nod towards suggestion earlier at about placing a warning when a player is in an unconfirmed transaction, Template:Editnotices/Page/Chase_Utley will come up if anyone tries to edit Chase Utley.—Bagumba (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Facts (such as that Utley is in uniform with the Phillies as we speak) don't do enough, so we need to be as proactive as possible to discourage this sort of editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still hoping this trade falls through... I dont want particularly want them to wind up with Utley.. He's been downright awful this season. Spanneraol (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He's been better since he was activated. Small sample size, sure. Possible dead cat bounce, yes. But my team is rolling out the duo of Stephen Drew and Brendan Ryan at the keystone. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

0-1 on the warning helping so far.—Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is no way to tell who has been deterred, short of running a study with a control group.—Bagumba (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't know if anyone clicks "edit", sees the warning, and stops. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, three editors making additions without citations. Not sure if that's an improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it didn't make a difference, or maybe it would've been worse without it. The editnotice approach now has N=1. I thank you for humoring me by trying it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional awards/accomplishments for infobox inclusion
A while back, we had a poll to decide which awards/accomplishments to include and exclude from the infobox. It was pretty comprehensive, but there were a few items that were not discussed. I thought now might be a good opportunity to revisit any items that had been missed. One item in particular I wanted to discuss was the Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award. While not as widely known as other awards (and not given out with specific regularity), it is MLB's equivalent of a lifetime achievement award, which in itself, seems pretty significant to me. What does everyone think? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that it's given by the Commissioner, and has only been awarded 15 times so far (and only 12 times to an individual who played in MLB), I would say that it should be included in the relevant infoboxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning number retiring ceremonies
Is it inappropriate to mention when a player's number was retired by a team within the team's article after the ceremony has officially taken place? By mention, I mean a sentence (supported by a reliable source of course) which simply says something like "Player A's number was retired by the team before the Month, Day, Year game against team X,Y,Z." Even if such a sentence is not needed, it still seems that the retiring of a number is something that should be supported by a reliable source at least somewhere within the team's article. The reason I am asking this is because a sentence about the retiring of Paul Konerko's number by the Chicago White Sox and the reliable source supporting it keeps getting removed from the article because the event occurred earlier in the season. (See Talk:Chicago White Sox for specifics). I don't edit lots of MLB articles, so I am wondering if this is some kind of content guideline setup by this Wikiproject. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would make for pretty dry reading to put sentences for each within the retired number section. Citations can be added to the retirement dates in the existing table of retired numbers. Including a few sentences in the season article would be desirable. For particularly notable retirements, a sentence in the history section of the main article may be suitable. isaacl (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback isaacl. I understand what you mean about making th article dry. Still I think if the source cited can be used somewhere then it probably should. Maybe within the "retired numbers" template after the date as you suggest is the way to go. I discuss it on the article's talk page. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

January vs. June drafts
Hi guys -

I have Alan Wiggins up for a GA review right now and I need more help with an issue that has arisen in the review. Wiggins was drafted in January 1977. Per Major League Baseball draft, there were two amateur drafts per year at that time - a small January draft and a large June draft. In describing Wiggins being drafted, I was going to link to 1977 Major League Baseball Draft, but that entry seems to only refer to the June draft and I can't find one for January. In the lead for Alan Wiggins, I have it linked to Major League Baseball draft and piped to MLB amateur draft. I figure that the generic draft entry will at least explain the issue of January vs. June, while the 1977 draft entry doesn't mention Wiggins or other January draftees at all.

I have some questions:
 * Am I understanding correctly that the drafts were equivalent - both consisting of first-year players from HS or college?
 * The MLB draft entry suggests that the matter of Jan vs June was related to when the player graduated, but unless I am misreading something, Wiggins was drafted in Jan 77, played JC baseball in the spring and signed with the Angels in May. Why was Wiggins eligible for the January draft if he had not graduated in December. I feel like I'm missing something.
 * Is there an entry that covers the January 1977 draft for linking purposes?
 * What is the best wording to use in the body and the lead to describe a January draftee of this era?

I appreciate the help. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I've been able to gather, the January draft was for high school and college players that graduated in the winter... though from my research in the past it seems like most of the players drafted in it were JC college players. I think its unlikely that he played in college after he was drafted. I do know there are no current pages on that draft on here. I'd just refer to it as the January Draft... There was also a secondary phase of the draft for a while which makes things even more confusing. These other drafts SHOULD be mentioned in the draft articles for the years they existed.. it remains a serious flaw that they arent mentioned. Spanneraol (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response. His BR profile has him as a Jan '77 draftee and this source says he was on the '77 Pasadena City College team. I thought I had more describing him as playing for PCC that spring, but I am questioning that now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Spanneraol that our handling of these January drafts is one of our weak points here. We should think of a systematic way to approach adding the information, either to the existing draft pages or to their own independent pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay if I took the 1977 Major League Baseball Draft entry and expanded it to cover both drafts? I am thinking that we should eventually do this for each relevant year; this could be a start. I just didn't want to do that if there was some concern that Jan 77 and June 77 should have separate WP entries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any reason to make separate articles for the January draft, so combining them makes perfect sense.. go for it. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If they are combined, it should be clear in the article that the January one is a secondary draft i.e. not as big of a deal if one was a high-draft pick in Jan vs. June.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated Major League Baseball draft based on source that says JC players can be drafted in January, but they must finished their current season in JC before signing.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Am I understanding correctly that the drafts were equivalent": Wouldn't "MLB draft" typically imply the June draft, unless it's qualified? Also, when one refers to a player being a first-round pick, I would assume it's mostly notable if it was in the June draft, not the January one.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely does imply that now, but I can't find specific evidence that this was true in the 1970s. I don't think they used terminology like secondary to refer to the entire January draft. The January and June drafts have both had secondary phases if I'm understanding correctly, but that didn't have anything to do with Wiggins' situation as far as I can tell. On individual player pages, I wouldn't be in favor of casting the January draft in a different light than June - unless we can find specific sources that reach that conclusion. In the specific case of the Alan Wiggins article, I feel most comfortable writing what I know (first round pick, January 1977) and letting readers (or other sources that are as of yet unknown to me) determining the significance of it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * UPI in 1981 called the Jan draft "an oft overlooked amateur selection process". Baseball America in 2007 wrote that "the January draft is barely remembered." MLB.com in it's draft history pages doesn't even mention the January draft. If we look at baseball-reference.com's page on the Jan 1977 draft, most of the players don't have links. I think we need to apply WP:BALASPS: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Two lists for career batting average leaders
I just noticed that we have two lists that cover career batting average leaders: List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders (created 2015) and List of Major League Baseball players with a career .330 batting average (2008). Do we need two lists for basically the same stat?

Generally, we only have at most one career leader list per stat, the exception being when there is some more exclusive common grouping:
 * 3,000 hit club / List of Major League Baseball career hits leaders
 * 500 home run club / List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders
 * 300 win club / List of Major League Baseball career wins leaders
 * 3,000 strikeout club / List of Major League Baseball career strikeout leaders

However 300 save club exists, but there is currently no separate List of Major League Baseball career saves leaders (it redirects to the 300 save list).

Since .330 is not a "club" per se, do we need two lists for career batting average, the other being a top-100 list? Or should they be merged? Note that the .330 list used to have a less exclusive .325 cutoff, if that is of any significance to anyone..—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of merging the content of the two article types under the "List of" article names, and making the "club" articles redirects. There isn't any reason for the redundancy - one list is simply a subset of the other. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 00:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not saying for the .330 list, but for the "clubs", presumably a lot of prose can be (or has been) written about the history, and I'm not talking the WP:OR about how many are left and right handed, how many are in the HOF, etc. If redundancy was a real concern, I'd lean towards keeping the clubs, because they meet WP:LISTN, where as top-100 is just some nice number. Note, however, that an AfD for the list of top-500 home run leaders decided to keep the list before, but WP:CCC. Also, all the "club" lists are FLs too.—Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure much of the prose on the clubs' histories could be merged into the "list of" articles with a little massaging, if that is the direction we took. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 00:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm open to discussing the clubs in general, but that might be better in a separate thread. For career batting average, it sounds like you'd be in favor of merging. Would top-100 be your choice for cutoff over .330 then?—Bagumba (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Top 100. Unless a club's membership is over 100, I would favor using top 100 as our limit for all all-time stats leaders. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 00:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While a cut-off of top 100 or .330 average is both arbitrary, I would consider top-100 to be less problematic on that front. Resolute 03:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've previously discussed, I prefer performance-based inclusion criteria, as this is a less arbitrary cutoff than top-X players. Generally speaking, the player's performance above a certain level of achievement is the important aspect to highlight. isaacl (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "clubs" have separate relevance due to considerable reliable sources discussing specifically those clubs, separate from the more general leaders. But I am not aware of any significant coverage for a .330 batting average versus a .300 batting average or .333 batting average or .320 batting average.  So I would agree that this one does not have separate notability from the top-100 list. While 100 is admittedly arbitrary relative to 99 or 102, 100 being a round number makes it a popular choice generally for Top-X lists, as opposed to 99 or 102 or any other number of similar magnitude. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiment above that .330 is mostly arbitrary, with few sources talking about the grouping. In the absence of anything better, top-100 is a nice, round number, generally accepted, if nothing else.—Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've redirected List of Major League Baseball players with a career .330 batting average, while merging some of its prose into List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders.—Bagumba (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Federal League considered a major league?
I was updating Gene Richards' bio to include sourced info about his having set the major-league rookie stolen base record with 56 in 1977, which Tim Raines broke with 71 in 1981. However, Raines' bio stated unsourced that Benny Kauff was the record holder with 75. I deleted it, and added the sourced info that Raines held the record at the time, but then I looked at Kauff's bio claiming that the Federal League was a major league. In the event the Federal League has come to be considered a major league, but no/few sources have directly called Kauff the rookie SB record holder, should Wikipedia still recognize him, or go with earlier sources that have discounted the Federal League.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Federal League was certainly a major league (lower case "m") but was not part of the Major League Baseball organization, so I am not sure Major League Baseball (which is the only surviving major league) recognizes Federal League records (any more than they do, say, Union Association records). So if official sources count Raines as the record holder, he should probably be listed as such, possibly with an explanation (and Kauff's article should mention his record with appropriate qualifications as well, assuming that he wasn't topped by a player in another major league other than the AL and NL. Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is a product of the media using "major league" and "Major League Baseball" somewhat interchangeably. That being said, the only source that I can find that would indirectly support Kauff having held the "major league" record would be this SABR stat listing. The claim for Kauff is seeming a bit like WP:OR to me.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Names for lists based on single-game stats
OK I've renamed most of the lists based on the naming convention at.

Recapping, list names for stat leaders are now of the form: List of <type_of_listing> leaders

where <type_of_listing> includes:
 * Annual - leaders for each season, e.g. List of Major League Baseball annual doubles leaders
 * Seasonal - leaders with highest total in a season, not limited to the leaders for a given season, e.g. List of Major League Baseball seasonal triples leaders
 * Career - leaders by career totals, e.g. List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders
 * Progressive career- career leaders at the end of each season, e.g. List of Major League Baseball progressive career hits leaders
 * Progressive seasonal - all-time seasonal leaders at the end of each season, e.g. List of Major League Baseball progressive seasonal home run leaders

What's left are some lists based on stats for a single game:
 * List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game
 * List of Major League Baseball hitters with two grand slams in one game
 * List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game
 * List of Major League Baseball hitters with six hits in one game
 * List of Major League Baseball hitters with most runs in one game
 * List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 18 strikeouts in one game
 * List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning

Should we convert these following to the general format, like "List of Major League Baseball single-game leaders", or should some/all be exceptions?

Also, in light of possible "single-game" lists, maybe we should change "seasonal" to "single-season" too?—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion of changing "seasonal" to "single-season". As for the single game lists, this is an interesting topic. I'm all for following the format but at the same time these to seem to be special accomplishment lists and a strong argument could be made for not changing the names. Hopefully more people will join this disscussion as I'd like to here some more opinions on this subject. Taffe316 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Seasonal" should absolutely be renamed to "single-season", as "seasonal", in my opinion, is interchangeable with "annual" or "yearly" (which is a completely separate category from what is intended here). As for single game lists, I suppose if we wanted to be consistent, we could rename them as recommended, but I am neutral on this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I semi-boldly renamed it to "single-season", there are only two pages, so no big to undo if there is real objection.—Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also moved List of Major League Baseball hitters with most runs in one game to List of Major League Baseball single-game runs scored leaders for consistency, since the original name was generic to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Poll for handling single-game lists
Following is an overview of single-game stats lists, showing existing names, whether it is currently an FL, and it's generic name using current naming conventions for stats lists:

Some options are to move to the generic name to be consistent, or leave the name as is, but have a redirect from the generic name for consistency. Add other options as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 1 - Move to generic name


 * 1) Prefer not having specific cutoff criteria within the article name. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Initially went with status quo name in Option 2, but moving here in the interest of trying to form a consensus, and the name being in a consistent format with the other lists is definitely a plus.  In truth, I can go with way on the names.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - Keep existing name, create redirect from generic name
 * (move my !vote to Option 1) These all seem to be specific, semi-recognizable achievements, as opposed to being a generic cutoff for a leaderboard as in the career and annual lists. Most are FLs as well. I'm inclined to leave the achievement as the name, but have the generic name as a redirect for those familiar with the generic naming convention who are searching for a specific single game list.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 3 - Do nothing
 * Option 3 - Do nothing

I've gone ahead and made the moves as described above.—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Template merger
Template:Infobox MLB player and Template:Infobox baseball biography are finally being merged together. Babe Ruth is an example of what he new infobox looks like. It's essentially the same thing with the only noticeable difference being how the debut and final games are displayed (it's now "MLB:" instead of being "MLB debut" in the header). What do people think about the new way? Should it stay this way or go back to how it was displayed? Personally I think it should be in the header like it was previously and only be necessary if the player played in another league. It just looks odd if the player only played in MLB.--Yankees10 22:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you... it looks a bit weird if he only played in one league. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think if someone has only played in one league, the header should state the league they played in for the debut/last played date (e.g. "Professional debut" becomes "MLB debut" and "Last professional appearance" becomes "Last MLB appearance"). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 23:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hiya. I'm the editor who's going to be completing the merge via bot, once we settle on appearance. I've edited Infobox baseball biography in its sandbox to display the league of the debut/final appearances in the header if they are supplied in situations where there are no more than one league. See Template:Infobox baseball biography/testcases. The left is what we have now, the right is my update. ~ RobTalk 00:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't know if Ichiro is a good example to use since he did play in different leagues.. none of which was named TFL. Spanneraol (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's purely for test purposes to demonstrate the different headers; the information itself is irrelevant. I just typed in some stuff to fill the relevant fields. ~ RobTalk 05:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Any feedback on the proposed design? If not, I plan to implement it early next week. It's what matches most closely with the original Infobox MLB player template, and a couple of you described the change I made as desirable above. In the absence of any opposition, I'll consider this resolved. ~ RobTalk 06:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There was a small accessibility issue with adding links in the header. Given the color schemes used by some teams, having links in the header with a default link color would violate WP:COLOR. As a result, I'm implementing what was in the sandbox with the addition of a feature to de-link any parameters that are placed in a header. Keep in mind that these are always links to the leagues players played in, which are surely present in the article itself, probably in the lead. This trade-off is necessary to allow for the design you've asked for. Let me know if you'd like any other changes. ~ RobTalk 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, if we're putting MLB in the debut/final headers, it also makes sense to put that in the career statistics header as well, correct? That's been the past use of this template, such as in Dan Black (baseball). If we put the league in some headers and not others, it would look incredibly inconsistent. Any objections? ~ RobTalk 04:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. No objections here.--Yankees10 05:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile to merge Template:Infobox MLB player/testcases into Template:Infobox baseball biography/testcases, and in the interim having a side-by-side comparison of Template:Infobox MLB player to Template:Infobox baseball biography. I'm assuming it's expected to look pretty much the same?—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox MLB player appears to be split off from Infobox baseball biography (or vice versa). There may be minor differences in dimensions, but the headings and parameters are exactly identical with the exception that Infobox MLB player treats MLB as the default whereas Infobox baseball biography requires the league parameters, as it's more general. ~ RobTalk 06:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox baseball biography/testcases now has Infobox MLB player in a side-along comparison for the first testcase, which is the only one worth comparing as the other contain multiple leagues not supported by Infobox MLB player. Other than some minor dimensional differences (image size, for instance) and color configurations (the infoboxes seem to reverse the team colors in some areas, not a big deal), the content is presented in pretty much the same way, as should be the case. ~ RobTalk 06:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)