Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 42

Google Books links to Baseball Digest
Hello.

While working on fixing invalid ISSNs, I came across some broken links to issues of Baseball Digest on Google Books. I was wondering if there was a quick way to track down all of instances of Baseball Digest issues on Google Books and seeing whether there's a replacement link or not.

Here's an example of the invalid links:

Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

MLB rivalries
Please see Talk:Major League Baseball rivalries and comment on how best to improve the page. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD
Articles for deletion/Ryan Jones (baseball) Joeykai (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Kirby Puckett
Another editor has left a note in this article pointing out that although the article claims he was picked in the 1982 Major League Baseball draft, that doesn't match what the draft article says. The draft article is based on MLB First Round Draft Picks - 1982 from ESPN, which doesn't mention Puckett. However, he is present, as described - 1st round, 3rd pick - in the 1st Round of the 1982 MLB January Draft-Regular Phase on Baseball-Reference - that draft doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia article, or even a mention. Can anyone disentangle this ? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See this quote on the subject from here :
 * "Originally, three separate drafts were held each year. The June draft, which was by far the largest, involved new high school graduates, as well as college seniors who had just finished their seasons. It started in 1965, and continues to this day.


 * A second draft was held in January for high school and college players who graduated in the winter. Finally, there was a draft in August for players who participated in amateur summer leagues. The August draft was eliminated after only two years, while the January draft lasted until 1986." Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So there'a a need for a set of articles 19xx Major League Baseball January draft for the years 196686, and 19xx Major League Baseball August draft for 1965-66? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably. Those were supplemental drafts, so of lesser consequence than the main June draft, but we are lacking pages on them presently. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion awhile back about doing something for the January drafts, but it never went anywhere.. I think they could easily get added to the main draft articles for the year rather than creating new articles. Spanneraol (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

www.baseballlibrary.com
Around 700 articles have references to this website, but it's dead - no trace of it at all that I can find. Anyone know where it's gone, or if its contents are available elsewhere? whois shows the domain having expired a few weeks ago. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The URL has now been taken over by a get-rich-quick website, so it's important to either fix or remove these citations. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Valuable source re: National Association's status as a "major" league
Happened upon this post from John Thorn recently. In it, John Thorn details the official MLB position on the NA's status. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Two baseball categories at WP:Categories for deletion
It is Hiroshima Carp players and Hiroshima Carp. The CFDs can be found here and here. Please come over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees

 * Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees has been nominated for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Pirates colors at Module:Baseball color/data
Just a quick FYI: there is a discussion over at Module talk:Baseball color regarding the HTML color formatting for the Pittsburgh Pirates. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to reach a consensus regarding the color order for the HTML color values for the Pirates at Module:Baseball color/data. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Minor League Baseball roster navbox templates
All Minor League Baseball roster navboxes have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates’ entry on the Templates for discussion page. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this Layne Somsen
I don't think this is necessarily Layne Somsen, but I think it's probably him. Can anybody who knows more about the Reds look at this pic and correct its name and description if necessary?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editosaurus (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

nevermind it's Ohlendorf Editosaurus (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Mickey Doolan or Doolin?
So on his wiki page, his last name is spelled Doolan. However, on his Baseball Reference page his last name is spelled Doolin. So I'm just a little confused on which one is right. Does anybody know anything about this? Taffe316 (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * His SABR bio (linked from BR) has Doolan, and I did a quick newspapers.com check where Doolan easily wins out. Once in a great while BR has a name where I'm not sure where they got it from, and this looks like one of those cases. Wizardman  13:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GBL Ballparks
Template:GBL Ballparks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 117Avenue (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion
There is a topic ban proposal that impacts a baseball editor at Administrators%27_noticeboard.—Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ed Delahanty in "The Best Phillies Team Ever" book
Another editor and I are disagreeing over the inclusion of a fact in the Ed Delahanty article. In 2014, an editor added the following line to the article:


 * Delahanty is part of the Phillies all-time 25-man roster in the John J. Rust book The Best Phillies Team Ever.

I recently removed the line. The editor who added the line has only edited articles to add specific references to books written by one author. More importantly, the editor's username (Rustyjj70) is suspiciously close to the name of the author (John J. Rust) whose books he or she exclusively edits to add to articles. Finally, there is no indication whatsoever that this self-published book is particularly important, noteworthy, or even reliable.

Rjensen disagrees with me and has reverted my edit. He has written on his Talk page the following explanation for his edit:


 * The statement "Delahanty is part of the Phillies all-time 25-man roster in the John J. Rust book ..." is valuable and useful to readers. The fact that an editor (Rusty) is an authority on the Phillies in my opinion enhances the value of the edit. Our job here is to maximize the value of info we give the reader and erasing such an important bit on info is not a good idea. If a reader buys the book, then that's not a crisis. Chances are the reader is keen on the Phillies. I think the sentence falls inside the Wiki guidelines on "advertising" at WP:PLUG: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.

Should this material be included in this article? ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like a self-promotion/spam campaign to me. Resolute 14:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Mets WikiProject
Can someone add it to the page, please? Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to wait until there's been some activity for a while before adding anything, given that pretty much every team-based project is currently inactive as is. Wizardman  22:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah team based task-forces/wikiprojects in all sports pretty much always fail. When the traffic on this talk page is so low there is no reason to not to just do the discussing here instead. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We will not fail. Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion: by holding your discussions on this talk page, both WikiProject Baseball and your group of interested editors can mutually benefit. WikiProject Baseball can use some conversations on this talk page to re-invigorate the project, and you may get more people interested in helping out with your planned tasks. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Town Team Baseball
Among other issues (such as oodles of unsourced info) should Town Team Baseball be capitalized like this? I wouldn't think it's a proper noun, but I just wanna be sure. Lizard (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Japanese baseball qualify as a top tier professional league
A reader wrote to wikimedia with some thought about this subject - but doesn't have experience editing. I'm starting this to start the discussion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, literally, the NPB is the "top tier" of baseball in Japan, since it's the highest level of pro baseball played there. Lizard  (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My first question is "why are they asking"? Is there a list of top tier professional baseball leagues that Japan should be added to/removed from? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been heated lately since Ichiro "passed" Pete Rose in all-time pro baseball hits last week. My guess is it has something to do with it. Lizard  (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it. I'm bowing out - please be kind to newbies.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * NPB is absolutely a top tier league. MLB, then NPB, then KBO, then CPBL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is specifically about Ichiro, then I think we need to rely upon how the majority of news sources report it. From what I've seen, the US reports tend to count his NPB stats. The Japanese media is including it as a matter of course, although they have noted some Americans don't like it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

DSL Mariners 2
Last night I was updating some of the Dominican Summer League roster templates and it appears that the second DSL Mariners team has folded. I was unable to find any sources, but they aren't listed on the DSL schedule page and clicking on the roster link in the template returns a (mostly) blank page. The template should be deleted, or redirected to the other Mariners DSL team roster page, in my opinion. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As I am still unable to find any info on the DSL Mariners 2 team, I am going to redirect the page. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 23:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Uncle Jake McGee"
Please note that the editor adding "Uncle Jake McGee" as a nickname to Jake McGee is active once again, and has now used two different IPs to disrupt the page. See the page history from March, as well as the RPP and the 3RR report I have filed for more information. Assistance in keeping an eye on this user would be greatly appreciated. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Brett Phillips
I would appreciate if anyone would chime in at Talk:Brett_Phillips_(baseball). Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Past playing positions listed in infobox for current coaches
Doesn't it seem misleading to have current coaches' former playing positions listed in the infobox alongside their coaching position? For example, at first glance it looks like Barry Bonds currently wears 25 and plays left field for the Marlins while also serving as hitting coach. In football we only include the current coaching position (see Dick LeBeau), and it looks like that's done in basketball as well (Jason Kidd). Is this a traditional baseball thing or something? I searched the talk page archives and the style advice page but I couldn't find anything on this with a quick search. Lizard (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally, a baseball person should have their current position at the top of the infobox, and past playing positions of any staff and execs should be listed somewhere else in the infobox. The problem with Dick LeBeau in the NFL is that his playing position is not anywhere in the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

All-Star Game MVP
Last time I checked, it was against the consensus of this WikiProject for the MLB All-Star Game MVP Award to be listed in players' infoboxes. However, I wanted to verify that this is still the consensus regarding that award. An IP editor placed it back into Eric Hosmer's infobox a little while ago (completely ignoring the hidden note, as everyone always does), and I cannot revert it right now since I've already reverted it three times in less than 24 hours. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_32 is where this was discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold the phone. You're saying people ignore hidden notes? Preposterous. Lizard  (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Off topic- This Baseball fan lost interest in the all-star game a long time ago. Maybe due to Dave Parker getting the 1979 game MVP. He guns down two baserunners, but one of them was after me misplayed a fly ball to right. Lee Mazilli homers to tie the game and draws a bases loaded walk to force in the winning run doesn't get the award. What's wrong with that picture? It's an exhibition game not to be taken seriously....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The NBA's is also an exhibition, but the AS MVP is more associated with a player's legacy there.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For anyone who is unaware, WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice contains the consensus guidance for player articles, including highlights in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame navigational boxes nominated for deletion
I have nominated the 13 Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame navigational boxes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please re-evaluate article rating?
Team, I recently significantly expanded the article from FRED FRANKHOUSE from 3 uncited lines to what it is currently. I'm asking that the article be reevaluated for class rating, and for suggestions as to what I can do to improve the article. Thanks. --JGHSMC (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On a quick look through, just on content it looks like a solid C class. The infobox has some stuff that I'm not sure belongs, but that's easily fixed. The article is well-sourced, but maybe too sourced. Overciting can be an issue as all those footnotes can distract the reader. If a fact isn't likely to be challenged typically only one citation will do. "The dog barked" doesn't need 4 different sources to confirm that the dog barked, because that's what dogs do. Lizard  (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is not a C class, there are issues with the reliability of the sources, especially using an ancestry.com self-published source, which I'm sure is against policy. I also have questions about using this as a reliable source as I don't believe it had editorial oversight. Many of the content sourced with those two citations can be sourced elsewhere as it is not controversial content. I agree with Lizard about the citation overkill, especially when it's strictly disallowed like the lead. Also the pictures are not your own work as you clearly didn't photograph them. I read somewhere that pictures after 1923 that are published in the United States are copyrighted unless there proof to the contrary, in which you need to change the tag. I removed two of the images in question. Prevan (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns at Joe West (umpire)
I have a disagreement with over some edits to Joe West's article that I didn't find to be especially balanced. While Wpete510 has made a honest effort to clean up the wording, I am still concerned about the necessity of including the quotes from the White Sox announcers. To put it frankly, White Sox broadcasters have tended not to be the most level-headed, rational bunch, and broadcasters in general are often not a good source for fair-minded evaluation of umpiring performance. I still don't think the phrasing is very neutral, and I am concerned based on this edit that Wpete510 never intended to be neutral. Since I don't want to get involved in an edit war, I'd appreciate it if a few others could take a look, even if they just end up telling me that I'm being overly picky. Lepricavark (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Resource on list of major league umpires?
I have no idea about baseball but I am working on an article about a gentleman who amongst other things umpired one major league match (and many minor league matches) either in the late 1880s or early 1890s. I don't suppose there is a website that handily lists all major league umpires? --Roisterer (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Retrosheet has a list here.Penale52 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Big Three (Atlanta Braves)
This article was recently created, but I'm not sure what to think about it. As a Braves fan, I rarely recall hearing that term used. Not sure the article is needed either. Any thoughts?. - BilCat (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It would need to meet WP:GNG, with the threesome as a group (not individually) receiving significant coverage. No opinion whether it meets it, but the article currently being sourced purely from stats from baseball-reference.com gives no indication that it's anything but WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Reads like a fan essay, with no actual evidence of the title ever having been used. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Google search make the topic look promising. However, the content read like pure OR, cherrypicking fan memories from a stats site.—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "fan essay" comment. The article would be more at home in a sports magazine rather than an encyclopedia. That being said, Wikipedia does have similar articles such as Murderers' Row.Orsoni (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is Category:Nicknamed groups of baseball players. These articles can be effective when secondary sources are used to describe why the group is notable. One of the worst examples is something like Generation K (or Big Three (Miami Heat) in basketball), which is just three sections describing the members individually; that's what bios are for.—Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I recall them being known as "Generation K", though. That article can be improved. Was "Big Three" really a nickname for either the Braves or Heat? I don't know. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fkr the Heat, most certainly, though it may have been used for the Celtics first a couple of years prior with the Pierce-Garnett-Bosh trio. But that still doesn't tell us anything about whether or not the term was actually used for the Braves pitching staff at that time. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Big Three (Oakland Athletics) was also created by the same editor. I believe this topic is notable, but the article is mostly WP:OR recreated by their interpretation of cited boxscores.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

To me it feels like creating different redirects for every left-handed pitcher who was known as "Lefty". It's pretty routine for a sports journalist to call a team's top three starters the "Big Three". Personally, I don't think every baseball term of convenience used by journalists and fans warrants an article. isaacl (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NEO discourages articles based only on terms used. GNG could be met by sources that talk about the grouping, not just using the name is passing.—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm going to nominate the Braves article for deletion. The A's one probably does meet GNG, but I'll look into that as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention in my previous comment that, I had never seen or read anything in which the Atlanta pitchers were called the "Big Three". The same goes for the Oakland pitchers. It seems that the editor created his own name for the players.Orsoni (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you relook at the Google results I posted above (15:42, 27 July 2016). I only skimmed it, but I'd go through it more thoroughly if it gets nominated.  In any case, it seems more promising than the editor's recent creation of Fantastic Four (Golden State Warriors).—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the biggest sin of this article is the constant use of past-tense would. "They would win the game." "He would pitch 6 innings." "They would claim the pennant." Yeh? Would they? Did they or did they not?... Rant over, just a pet peeve of mine. Lizard  (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I hate when I see people write past-tense with "would". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that the Braves trio is notable based on recent coverage I found on the group, and undoubtedly more on them during their careers. —Bagumba (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The user also created Big Three (San Antonio Spurs). Thoughts? (p.s. the word "would" is used 120 times in that article.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And the word "would" is used 86 times in the A's article and 233 times in the Braves article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the their accomplishments and longevity, I would assume there's enough sources on them. I know during the most recent playoffs there was frequent mention of them surpassing the Lakers trio of Kareem, Magic, and (I think) Michael Copper for the most playoff wins by a threesome. (I was even on the verge of creating a list of most playoff wins by an NBA trio, but never followed through)—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The semi-promotional needs of sports journalism results in writers referring to players by various appellations. If they are distinct terms, and achieve a certain degree of widespread use, then they may qualify for independent coverage in Wikipedia. But having a different "Ace" article for each team would be pointless, and similarly "Big Three" is a common term used by many journalists for many teams. isaacl (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, "Big Three" mostly impacts the article title. The bigger question is whether there is significant coverage of the group itself, not just that the name is used often.  If there is coverage, the article on the Braves trio should exist, and we can debate on whether that article is named "Big Three" or something else.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a different discussion... In a similar manner, though, it is common for sports writers to discuss the top pitchers/players on a team and for convenience to give them some sort of label. The standards of sports journalism differ from that of encyclopedic coverage, and accordingly not everything in a sports article is suitable as evidence of meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When would you suggest that a group of players is notable for an article?—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think covering a group of players within a team is better done within the team (history) article or a season article, where it can be placed into context with the rest of the team and background for the season. Although I wouldn't be too surprised if someone can find a case where an independent article may be suitable, at the moment I just can't think of good example. For non-team sports, I can see a case for a group like the Crazy Canucks, where the name became a broadly-known nickname for its members and its membership was fixed. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A reader could be more interested in the group and less about the team, and a dedicated article could go into more depth on the group, whereas it would be undue in a team article.—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * An example would help; I just can't think of a case at the moment where a discussion of a group within a team would not benefit from the team context. What in-depth groups actually have an extensive history to describe that would not fit into a team / team history article? (I was thinking about a special team unit of a football team, but since they generally don't have a stable membership from year to year, and are subject to changes in coaching as well, I felt that it would still benefit from being placed into greater context. I also thought of Tinkers, Evers, and Chance, but their notability as a group derives from being in a poem, and so the coverage of the poem is sufficient.) isaacl (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Take Bash Brothers (disclosure: I started it). Depth that seems relevant to the standalone article but not to History of the Oakland Athletics would be overview of their amateur background, details of Monster Bash ritual, details on marketing of Bash Brothers, overview on their careers after Oakland, and more specifics on steroids allegations and use.  A merge would result in lost detail for the reader, commingling with non-Bash Brother text more relevant to the team, and forcing readers to look to individual bios to piece together some info that is not relevant to the team article, but is to the bios or an article specific to the duo.  An analogy would be to not have 2016 Major League Baseball All-Star Game, and spreading the details to 2016 Major League Baseball season and Major League Baseball All-Star Game.  I think it's OK to provide cross sections that have some overlap if the grouping is frequently discussed, which is more than just frequent use of a nickname.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not too surprised if a case can be made for some situations. I'm not convinced though that the article is mostly about the combined duo, as opposed to just covering some marketing done together (as many teammates have done) and putting their careers into juxtaposition. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While it has nothing to do with field performance, marketing is relevant to these phenomena, moreso perhaps if there is independent coverage on said marketing.—Bagumba (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage of marketing is often somewhat promotional in nature, but there can be neutral critical analysis of marketing as well. In this case, the marketing campaign might meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I'm still on the fence regarding the duo itself, as I'm unclear if they adopted the Bash Brothers persona as a separate brand from the team for personal initiatives (though of course it would be a moot point if it were determined that the campaign warranted an article). isaacl (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

chrono order of post-season results in infobox
MLB infoboxes show league championships, penants, division titles, and wild card links in reverse chronological order (newest to oldest). See New York Yankees (or Houston Astros, etc) The other major NA sports leagues display infobox content in chronological order, for example NFL New York Giants, NBA New York Knicks, and NHL New York Rangers.
 * World Series titles (27) 2009 2000 1999 1998 1996 1978 1977 1962 1961 1958 1956 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1947 1943 1941 1939 1938 1937 1936 1932 1928 1927 1923
 * AL Pennants (40) 2009 2003 2001 2000 1999 1998 1996 1981 1978 1977 1976 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1958 1957 1956 1955 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1947 1943 1942 1941 1939 1938 1937 1936 1932 1928 1927 1926 1923 1922 1921
 * East Division titles (18) 2012 2011 2009 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1996 1981 1980 1978 1977 1976
 * Wild card berths (5) 2015 2010 2007 1997 1995

Seems like these season links within the MLB infoboxes should be updated to chronological order. Is this current inconsistency by design? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, everyone else is doing it wrong. lol - Spanneraol (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, chronological order is the correct option.Orsoni (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be easiest to latest per guideline WP:SALORDER.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Presume you meant to type "earliest". I agree with that. The current to past ordering is odd. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems non-controversial to correct, here is the target list and completions : Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Arizona Diamondbacks UW Dawgs (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Atlanta Braves UW Dawgs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Baltimore Orioles UW Dawgs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Boston Red Sox UW Dawgs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Chicago Cubs UW Dawgs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Chicago White Sox UW Dawgs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cincinnati Reds UW Dawgs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleveland Indians UW Dawgs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Colorado Rockies UW Dawgs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Detroit Tigers Lepricavark (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Houston Astros UW Dawgs (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kansas City Royals UW Dawgs (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim UW Dawgs (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Dodgers UW Dawgs (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Miami Marlins Lepricavark (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Milwaukee Brewers UW Dawgs (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Minnesota Twins UW Dawgs (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * New York Mets UW Dawgs (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * New York Yankees UW Dawgs (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oakland Athletics UW Dawgs (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Philadelphia Phillies UW Dawgs (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pittsburgh Pirates UW Dawgs (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * St. Louis Cardinals UW Dawgs (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * San Diego Padres —Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * San Francisco Giants UW Dawgs (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seattle Mariners Lepricavark (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tampa Bay Rays Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Texas Rangers Lepricavark (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Toronto Blue Jays Lepricavark (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Washington Nationals Lepricavark (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nippon Professional Baseball
This is a question from a user who is not member of this project but who edits new articles on Japan. Another user has been adding lots of stub articles on Nippon Professional Baseball players. That's good, but some include players like Yuta Arakawa who retired without ever playing on the first team. As you know, NPB does not have a farm system (though there are some independent minor leagues), so each major team has a first team and a second team, the second one playing a regular schedule in some smaller town. Reaching the first team is thus like reaching the majors in the MLB. My question is whether a player who has only played on the second team passes WP:NBASE? Is there consensus about this on the project? Michitaro (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Eastern League (Japanese baseball) and Western League (Japanese baseball) are a farm system, albeit one with fewer levels than in the US. To answer the question, players who've only played for the affiliates in those leagues are only nitable if they pass the WP:GNG. oknazevad (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Cartwright
Can someone rewrite the article for Alexander Cartwright? The article needs be better research and reflect modern scholarly consensus on the subject.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Cartwright
Can someone rewrite the article for Alexander Cartwright? The article needs be better research and reflect modern scholarly consensus on the subject.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Chapman
See this edit. Thoughts are most welcome. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted the addition. It's WP:UNDUE weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Japanese team articles
Each NPB team article has a subsection titled "MLB players". Is there any guide as to who is supposed to be listed there? On first glance, the Hanshin Tigers list seems to include any person who has played MLB and played for the Tigers. As for dates, most seem to list when the person played MLB (not when they played for the Tigers), but I think it should be the other way around. Each team's article takes on a different format with varying degrees of accuracy; Hiroshima's list includes Hiroki Kuroda as an active MLB player (he's not) but is missing Kenta Maeda. If anyone can point in the direction of what the lists should look like, I'd be happy to fix them myself over time. If there has never been a discussion, then perhaps now is the time to have one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

First Tennessee Park FAC
Your input concerning the Featured Article candidacy of First Tennessee Park at Featured article candidates/First Tennessee Park/archive2 will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Anybody? Please... It wasn't promoted last time because of a lack of comments. ---> Featured article candidates/First Tennessee Park/archive2 NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jose Fernandez Nominated at WP:INTHENEWS
An article that may be of interest to members of this project has been nominated to be linked on the main under the In the News section. That discussion may be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:1990 International League season has been nominated for discussion
Category:1990 International League season, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging to Category:1990 in baseball. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Baseball articles with assessment comments
Hello baseball people. In line with WP:DCS all comments subpages have now been deprecated. However I noticed there are still quite a few baseball articles which have these subpages. For example, Does your project have any interest in keeping these pages? Should we move them to project space? Should we substitute them on the article talk page (as all the other comments subpages were)? Or shall we just delete them? Any thoughts would be appreciated &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gaylord Perry/CommentsBB
 * Talk:Billy Sunday/Comments (baseball)
 * If there are no comments in a few days I will deal with these pages as we have done with all the other comments subpages, and substitute their contents onto the article's talk page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is now ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

List of baseball players who died during their careers
I just did a massive reversion of this article after an editor made a separate section for players who died while in the military. Whether players should be separated from the main list for that reason is open to discussion but the new section had a glaring problem- It contained at least three entries for baseball players who died years after their baseball careers were over. Like Bill Stearns who passed away in 1898 but last played pro ball in 1875! Check out Bun Troy and Bob Neighbors too for problems.

The same editor also altered those 3 player articles to link back to List of baseball players who died during their careers. I reverted those edits.

Another possible issue with the this editor is his breaking off some players into a separate list just because they were playing minor league ball. I'd like to hear opinions on that.

The editor made some legit edits to the list but were undone in the massive reversion only because the military section removals would require more work to fix....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi - I'm the guilty party; apologies if I went off track, I'm pretty new here.... I concur, the table of Military personnel included players no longer active. I had been thinking the list of major league players (current & past) who died in military service could be a new page by itself (?). It's a known & interesting (to me, and perhaps others) list of major leaguers (current & past) who died in military service, which is what I was trying to capture, albeit not in the right place, in hindsight. Would moving forward to create such new page be a valid action to take vs. revert? I appreciate the feedback and will try to do better. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Need of a universal game log template
All I have to say is that I'm frustrated with the game logs that we have on all of these baseball articles. I have been editing on Wikipedia for more than six years, but I can't even figure out how to add the National League Championship Series schedule to the 2016 Chicago Cubs season article without messing up the coding and how it appears on everyone's screens. For the last year, I have found editing these game logs difficult. When I edited on the 2014–15 Chicago Bulls season article, I found adding and editing NBA game logs so much easier because all of the confusing code was already applied and all the users had to do was fill in the blanks.

Another problem that I have with MLB game logs is that there is a lack of universal consensus to their appearance or what is to be included in these game logs. On some articles, the text is in a different font or a different size. It is clear that this is an issue that must be addressed. I would say that my understanding of code on Wikipedia is between basic and intermediate. If there is someone out there that is willing to create an MLB game log template, I would greatly appreciate it. JC &middot;&#32; Talk &middot;&#32; Contributions 06:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

MLB redirect requests
There is a pending request at Articles for creation/Redirects to redirect the following 10 pages to the 2017 Major League Baseball season article: 2017 National League Championship Series, 2017 American League Championship Series, 2017 National League Division Series, 2017 National League Wild Card Game, 2017 American League Division Series, 2017 American League Wild Card Game, 2017 NLCS, 2017 ALCS, 2017 ALDS, 2017 NLDS.

The reason that the anonymous user provided was, "May be developed into articles in during next season." I'm not familiar with the baseball league system all that much, so I'm not sure whether the "National League" and the "American League" are a part of "Major League Baseball". Should this request be accepted or declined? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they are part of Major League Baseball.. I dont see the need for a redirect though... red links until the articles are created is fine by me. Spanneraol (talk)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I've gone ahead and provisionally declined the redirect request. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Final appearance in MLB game
I spent a lot of time searching through Infobox's and MoS's and couldn't find anything definitive on this - is there an archived discussion on this? It seems many people consider the final MLB appearance to be regular season only while many others consider it to include all MLB appearances (postseason included). I tend to lean towards postseason included, as a "final MLB appearance" is just that - a "final regular season appearance" would be different, of course. Thoughts? FYI, this is about the infobox parameter and the reason I'm bringing this up is the numerous changes to the David Ortiz page. Garchy (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is pretty obvious it is the last game they play in MLB. Not just the regular season. It seems silly not to include post season. Not to mention the section is titled Last MLB Appearance, not Last Regular-Season MLB Appearance. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the same way you think, but it seems that many others (including many in WP:Baseball) don't include the postseason. Maybe it's time for a new discussion on this? Garchy (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely think it should be last regular season appearance. Just using Joe DiMaggio as an example, Baseball-Reference and MLB.com both use September 30, 1951 as his final game, even though he played six games in the 1951 World Series. In my opinion, since not every player gets to play in the postseason every year, it wouldn't be appropriate to list a playoff game as their game in the infobox, especially since the infobox only lists regular season stats. Penale52 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then we need to change the titling of the section to Last Regular-Season MLB Appearance. Because that would be factually incorrect to call it his last MLB game since he played 6 more games after that. And whether or not every player gets to play in the post season is irrelevant since we are only talking about that specific individuals last game. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If a player's career stats in the infobox are assumed to be regular season only, the dates of debut/farewell should follow suit. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 16:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would actually suggest we point that out as well. I was not aware that was only regular season until now after reading them for 10 years so I imagine other readers aren't assuming that either. Wikipedia isn't in the business of implying, we have to be factually accurate. So the titles need to change or the information. This actually brings up a good reason why stats suck in the infobox, but I suppose it is the best we have since we don't do stat sections in the articles themselves. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This has been confusing me as well - I think we should propose a change to the infobox parameter so it is titled "Last Reg-season appearance", or something similar. I agree if the other infobox stats are regular season only that this should be retained, but I still think the last appearance looks misleading with its current title. Garchy (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC) To be honest it's the same in hockey, where career stat summaries separate regular season from playoffs. (I believe it was Marcel Dionne who said, when questioned about the longevity of his career versus Guy Lafleur's, not to forget that Lafleur had played a lot more post-season games than he had which don't show up in the career games played stat that is typically quoted.) For clarity to those who aren't fans of the sport, though, I think changing the headings should be considered. isaacl (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference of course is that both are still listed in that case, just separately. Games played is also different than describing ones last game. But yeah, I am ok with the information staying the same as long as the headings change. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For the major North American sports leagues, it's typical for fans to default to regular season career stats (for example when they say Barry Bonds hit 762 career home runs). But it makes sense to clarify this, particularly for those not familiar with sports or post-season playoffs. isaacl (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Both Raúl A. Mondesí's article and his Baseball Reference bio list his MLB debut as October 30, 2015 (during the World Series) and not the first game he played during the 2016 regular season. So I think for consistency sake, final MLB appearances should include the postseason. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard is regular season is the "last appearance". The case of Raul Mondesi and Mark Kiger are anomalies. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We should go by what the official sources list.. and those are almost always regular season. Spanneraol (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * After looking at The Warrior's BR bio, you're right. I stand corrected. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Spanneraol says, go with what the official sources say. The fact there is this much discussion makes me think WP:OR. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have no problem going with the official sources, but if that is the case we need to clarify the heading to make it clear to readers, especially ones that would not be familiar with the odd usage of last game, that we are indicating regular season. And use a note for the rare cases that deviate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly my issue as well - I don't care which one we go with (as long as it can be referenced), but the heading is misleading. I would propose the Infobox baseball biography template be changed to say "Last MLB season appearance" or "Last reg season MLB appearance", or something similar - I don't think we need to list both dates in the infobox but it would be nice to have it clarified. Garchy (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of using "MLB reg season debut" and "Last MLB reg season appearance" in the template to eliminate any confusion. Canuck 89 (have words with me) 20:22, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

Sand-based athletic fields
I'm not sure if this should be in your project or golf, or both? Bearian (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

World Series infobox
The infoboxes of each Year World Series article, isn't functioning properly. The previous year article link correctly go to the previous year World Series article. However the next year article link incorrectly goes to the next year MLB season article. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. Someone was playing around with the template. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 16:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was deliberately [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_World_Series/sandbox&diff=745877511&oldid=735433065 changed in the sandbox] and then synched to the actual template. I added a note on the template talk page pointing to this discussion. isaacl (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There's still some of them directing incorrectly to the following MLB seasons. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you try adding "?action=purge" to the end of the URL in order to force the page to be regenerated? isaacl (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Visit the page in question. Then modify the web page address by adding "?action=purge" to the end of the address (without the quotes) and load the modified web page address. isaacl (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That techno stuff is over my head. Someone else will have to handle it. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, instead of visiting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_World_Series, visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_World_Series?action=purge . isaacl (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

US 50,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more states than they might otherwise work on. If there's the interest I will start 1000 State Challenges like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of states regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for the US and your specialist/home state like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every state, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any state sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

2017 World Baseball Classic standings
Can someone make the First round standings? I don't know how to do it. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 03:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball stadiums
Today one user decided to split List of current Major League Baseball stadiums into two separate articles – List of current Major League Baseball stadiums and List of former Major League Baseball stadiums. In my opinion the original article was perfectly fine with everything in one place. Moreover, the "former stadiums" article lacks sources and is just a list with no real value (as of now). Someone thinks that just because NFL has two separate articles, so should MLB. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also applies in this situation. Anyone else feels the same? – Sabbatino (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sourcing problems and additional context should be addressed regardless if the content is in a separate article or contained in another. Given the length of the list of former stadiums, it seems like a natural division to separate current stadiums from previous MLB stadiums. (If the list of former stadiums were to be reintegrated into the first article, its name ought to be changed to remove the word "current".) isaacl (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, Issacl is on the ball with this one. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to see how other users feel about this separation. As long as there is an understanding – I won't have a problem with it. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WS champion templates
If someone is on the NLCS roster and not the WS roster do they belong on the WS Champion template. There is some back and forth at this page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know this isssue is fairly common. E.g., the 2016 Chicago Cubs added Kyle Schwarber to the roster for the 2016 World Series even though he had not played since April. Someone had to have been removed from the roster who was on it for the 2016 NLCS. What is our policy for such players?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging the WP:MLB regs, , , , , , and --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging the involved editors and --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that only players who were on the World Series roster should be included. Spanneraol (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, only guys on the World Series roster should be there. That's the way it's been done.--Yankees10 16:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the consensus we came to a few years ago. We haven't had cause to change it. (The player removed for Schwarber, for the record, was Rob Zastryzny. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned before, personally I believe the article should follow what reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable third-party sources say. However last time the matter was discussed, as I recall this view did not gain consensus support. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty cut and dry IMO. No world series appearance, not in template. Obviously there are players who contributed big time to teams that couldn't be in the series for one reason or another, but it is what it is. If we tried to do it the opposite way it would simply be way too subjective. Wizardman  00:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just needed an answer. I am not trying to change policy. There was just some edit warring and I wanted us to get it right.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. In the short term, I am sure people will be sticking WS Champ on the Rob Zastryzny page and on the page of whoever was the last guy on the NLDS roster that Rob Zastryzny took the place of for the NLCS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made changes to the Tommy La Stella, Rob Zastryzny and 2016 Chicago Cubs season pages in light of this policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am of the opinion we shouldn't have these navboxes anyway so don't really have much to say on the subject. They violate WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED as it is just a list of people who shared a title and are only tangentially related. In that every player on the box would not be expected to be listed on every page the box is used on which is intended per navbox. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think World Series roster is a sensible, measurable standard. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

List of expandable baseball stubs
Just FYI - I created User:EricEnfermero/MLB veteran stubs, which is just a list of baseball biography stubs where the player had a somewhat significant career. When I searched the baseball stub categories for articles that I could destub, I was always frustrated by the number of single-game or single-season player entries that probably can't be expanded much. This is a list of the players who have stub entries but who played in MLB for at least five years and at least 500 games played or 100 games pitched. I know that there are better ways to quantify a career than these arbitrary experience cutoffs, but I figured that if a player stuck around more than a few years then there was probably enough significant coverage to expand the entry.

The list ended up being pretty tedious to create, so I hope it helps someone besides me to identify articles that are ripe for expansion. I think there are some really interesting players among this group and there are definitely some potential DYKs. I just expanded Dick Hoblitzell and I'm thinking of trying to get it to 5x expansion. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Impressive! Certainly worth going through for anyone looking for something that's actually worth expanding (more so than the cup-of-coffee guys, certainly). A few of them I recognize from my ever-growing to-do list so I'll try and knock those guys out first. Some of these names in particular I'm surprised have such small articles, certainly the majority of these can be expanded to DYK or even GA without too much difficulty. Wizardman  15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Some help
For the last few weeks, has continuously added WS champion to both Frank Thomas (designated hitter) and Nomar Garciaparra infoboxes despite consensus that the player must be on the roster for it to be there. I left a message on his/her talk page but it was ignored. Can I get some help with this? While I don't think i'm violating 3RR as I consider this disruptive editing/vandalism, it would be nice to get some others to watch these pages.--Yankees10 19:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. If you look at other sports, injured players are still considered champions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chehgarg (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good for other sports. This is a baseball consensus.--Yankees10 20:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This user also broke the 3RR rule. The problem with WS stats is that they don't list other players than active roster. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

How should I handle this obituary?
I came across our article on former big leaguer Dave Adlesh and found it was rather disorganized at the bottom and included an unsubstantiated claim that Adlesh had died. I removed that portion of the article for the time being, but I found this obituary which is clearly about the same person and provides a little more information for the article. I am, however, unsure if this obituary is a good enough source since I found no other information to substantiate that Adlesh has died. Significantly, even his B-Ref page does not reflect his having died. Lepricavark (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the obit suffices, since it clearly notes him as the ballplayer, though perhaps I'd drop a line at baseball-reference and have them double-check it, since they usually catch the players without major careers pretty easily, but maybe this one slipped through the cracks. Wizardman  03:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd double check it just to make sure it isn't another Bill Henry case though I will admit the chances are slim for that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've dropped B-Ref a line and I'll see what they have to say about it. Lepricavark (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They updated it on their end, so that confirms for me the obit was legit. Wizardman  12:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Spring training seasons
Do spring training seasons get articles? (shouldn't they go under pre-season play of the regular season?) I noticed a pair of drafts on spring training seasons -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft:1986 New York Mets spring training
 * Draft:1969 New York Mets spring training
 * No they don't. Both those drafts were created by an editor who was blocked for sockpuppetry....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 World Baseball Classic standings
The 2017 World Baseball Classic article needs the standings for all the Pools A, B, C and D. I would make them but I don't know how to make them. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 16:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Raft of templates for deletion
Notice that there are a bunch of Template:Foo Mascots baseball coach navbox templates for deletion listed at Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Leagues in infoboxes
I'm not sure whether or not there is prior consensus for this, but if not let's get one on the books here. User:Kingryan227 is adding leagues to team listings in infoboxes (e.g. here, here, and many more on his contributions page) which I believe to be unnecessary. On my talk page he lists his reasoning as "they're foreign teams". This is the English language Wikipedia, and not the American/Canadian Wikipedia. There are English speaking people outside of Canada and America who would obviously view MLB as a foreign league. Furthermore, the infoboxes we use are not MLB-specific – they are "baseball biography" infoboxes. Either all leagues should be listed after the teams or none should, and my personal opinion is that none should be listed in the teams section of the infobox. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying User:Yankees10 also is opposed to this, and I am hopeful that, one way or another, we can establish a consensus here. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Either all leagues should be listed after the teams or none should." I heartily agree with that. We shouldn't take a U.S.-centric approach with these infoboxes. I'd be inclined to say don't put any leagues in the team section at all, but would listen to arguments for putting them by every team. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause a big issue with this but I just feel like we should add the leagues next to the teams because I believe that it would be helpful towards anyone who is doing research on certain players as an example. If they see a team that they don't recognize, having what league they are in would be tremendously helpful for those people I feel that if I didn't know about all the leagues and everything that it would help me out a lot I am only doing it to try and assist Wikipedia members.  Kingryan227  ( Decrees •  Acts ) 23:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They could easily look in the body of the article for this information. It doesn't need to take up space in the infobox.--Yankees10 23:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice currently states for post-integration era players, only teams in Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball should be listed. That being said, this aspect didn't get (to my recollection) any discussion at the time when I wrote it. Is there any consensus for adding additional leagues? isaacl (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfectly summed up Trut-h-urts_man. Exactly my reasoning as to why they shouldn't be there.--Yankees10 23:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to include the leagues.. anyone could simply click on the team name if they were unfamiliar with the team. And Issac, I have always thought KBO teams should also be included as that is the other league that is included in the NSPORTS guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * KBO should be included in the style advice. What about CPBL? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Without going back to check, to my recollection, the player style advice was written before the KBO League was explicitly listed in the baseball notability guidelines. It makes sense to align the two. (BTW, isaacl) isaacl (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the KBO should be included, and I think the CPBL should also be included as well. I'd also like to ask to please stop adding the leagues to infoboxes until this discussion reaches a consensus.  Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 00:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For players that have played in one of the leagues listed in the baseball-specific notability criteria, I think the infobox should only list teams in those leagues. Accordingly I do not favour adding the CPBL. However for players who have not played in any of these leagues but have met other notability criteria, then I think the infobox should list the teams in the league(s) with which the player is most associated. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The boxes should be consistent.. so i think it would be a mistake in that case to list Mexican League or minor league or whatever teams in that case... Stick to the ones in the notability criteria and only those... We specifically removed CPBL from the list after a discussion awhile back. Spanneraol (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems kinda wrong to me to not include the EDA Rhinos for Manny Ramirez, to pick one specific example. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see his participation in the CPBL as being essential to include in a succinct summary of his biography. isaacl (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a noteworthy step in his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The first pro team signing is a noteworthy step in player careers, but for players who make the big leagues, it is overshadowed. In a similar manner, playing in this league after his major-league career is a secondary item. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For a player such as a career minor leaguer who satisfies the general notability guideline, I think that an essential component of a succinct summary of the player's bio is the teams or leagues with which the player is most closely associated. Perhaps a list of the associated leagues would be sufficient? I don't think this needs to be consistent with players who have been in the top leagues, where their participation in lower-level leagues is not as essential in a succinct summary. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

While including CPBL teams in infoboxes remains up for discussion, it certainly looks to me that we are in agreement that leagues should not be included in infoboxes following teams. As it has been almost a week since anyone has offered an opinion on the situation, I am going to move forward with removing the leagues from infobox team listings, and I hope that others will join me. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Leagues in infoboxes
I'm not sure whether or not there is prior consensus for this, but if not let's get one on the books here. User:Kingryan227 is adding leagues to team listings in infoboxes (e.g. here, here, and many more on his contributions page) which I believe to be unnecessary. On my talk page he lists his reasoning as "they're foreign teams". This is the English language Wikipedia, and not the American/Canadian Wikipedia. There are English speaking people outside of Canada and America who would obviously view MLB as a foreign league. Furthermore, the infoboxes we use are not MLB-specific – they are "baseball biography" infoboxes. Either all leagues should be listed after the teams or none should, and my personal opinion is that none should be listed in the teams section of the infobox. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying User:Yankees10 also is opposed to this, and I am hopeful that, one way or another, we can establish a consensus here. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Either all leagues should be listed after the teams or none should." I heartily agree with that. We shouldn't take a U.S.-centric approach with these infoboxes. I'd be inclined to say don't put any leagues in the team section at all, but would listen to arguments for putting them by every team. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause a big issue with this but I just feel like we should add the leagues next to the teams because I believe that it would be helpful towards anyone who is doing research on certain players as an example. If they see a team that they don't recognize, having what league they are in would be tremendously helpful for those people I feel that if I didn't know about all the leagues and everything that it would help me out a lot I am only doing it to try and assist Wikipedia members.  Kingryan227  ( Decrees •  Acts ) 23:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They could easily look in the body of the article for this information. It doesn't need to take up space in the infobox.--Yankees10 23:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice currently states for post-integration era players, only teams in Major League Baseball and Nippon Professional Baseball should be listed. That being said, this aspect didn't get (to my recollection) any discussion at the time when I wrote it. Is there any consensus for adding additional leagues? isaacl (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfectly summed up Trut-h-urts_man. Exactly my reasoning as to why they shouldn't be there.--Yankees10 23:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to include the leagues.. anyone could simply click on the team name if they were unfamiliar with the team. And Issac, I have always thought KBO teams should also be included as that is the other league that is included in the NSPORTS guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * KBO should be included in the style advice. What about CPBL? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Without going back to check, to my recollection, the player style advice was written before the KBO League was explicitly listed in the baseball notability guidelines. It makes sense to align the two. (BTW, isaacl) isaacl (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the KBO should be included, and I think the CPBL should also be included as well. I'd also like to ask to please stop adding the leagues to infoboxes until this discussion reaches a consensus.  Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 00:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For players that have played in one of the leagues listed in the baseball-specific notability criteria, I think the infobox should only list teams in those leagues. Accordingly I do not favour adding the CPBL. However for players who have not played in any of these leagues but have met other notability criteria, then I think the infobox should list the teams in the league(s) with which the player is most associated. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The boxes should be consistent.. so i think it would be a mistake in that case to list Mexican League or minor league or whatever teams in that case... Stick to the ones in the notability criteria and only those... We specifically removed CPBL from the list after a discussion awhile back. Spanneraol (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems kinda wrong to me to not include the EDA Rhinos for Manny Ramirez, to pick one specific example. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see his participation in the CPBL as being essential to include in a succinct summary of his biography. isaacl (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a noteworthy step in his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The first pro team signing is a noteworthy step in player careers, but for players who make the big leagues, it is overshadowed. In a similar manner, playing in this league after his major-league career is a secondary item. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For a player such as a career minor leaguer who satisfies the general notability guideline, I think that an essential component of a succinct summary of the player's bio is the teams or leagues with which the player is most closely associated. Perhaps a list of the associated leagues would be sufficient? I don't think this needs to be consistent with players who have been in the top leagues, where their participation in lower-level leagues is not as essential in a succinct summary. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

While including CPBL teams in infoboxes remains up for discussion, it certainly looks to me that we are in agreement that leagues should not be included in infoboxes following teams. As it has been almost a week since anyone has offered an opinion on the situation, I am going to move forward with removing the leagues from infobox team listings, and I hope that others will join me. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Minnie Miñoso DOB
I was looking back at the Miñoso entry and noticing that we use a 1923 year of birth. I was surprised by that, so I revived the discussion at Talk:Minnie Miñoso if anyone wants to weigh in there. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Jersey numbers
This may be a perennial topic, but I'm a ten-year experienced Wikipedian whose fairly new to editing of sports topics. What is considered the best sources for jersey numbers, and does the project recommend a single authoritative source? Are sources required when changing jersey numbers in player articles and team rosters? And is this an issue worth making a fuss over, or does the Baseball project just let the fanboys/girls just play with the numbers, and concentrate on more important things such as BLP issues? (No sarcasm intended here.)

I primarily watch the Atlanta Braves articles and several player articles, and I'm seeing numbers change without sources. These often contradict the roster on the Atlanta Braves website. Today, 2 IPs and a registered user are changing Dansby Swanson's number from 2 to 7, and the registered user also changed the number at Template:Atlanta Braves roster navbox and Template:Atlanta Braves roster. So apparently this change is being reported somewhere.

What's the best course to follow with this issue? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally I have referred to Baseball Reference for historical players, and the team web sites for current players. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally that is the way to go.. sometimes during the offseason the team rosters arent updated as quickly as things change so it is possible that updated numbers could show up somewhere (a press conference or twitter report from a beat reporter) before the roster is updated. If in doubt, ask the person changing it what source they are using to verify. Spanneraol (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! - BilCat (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for Sam Fuld
G'day ladies and gentlemen, the article on Sam Fuld, a professional baseball player, has been nominated for a Good Article reassessment. Any editor who is interested in taking part in the review, is invited to join the discussion here: Good article reassessment/Sam Fuld/1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Postseason Article
There's an article I discovered that needs to be reviewed for the quality scale. Zacchaeusbarbour (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Bracket category
I also made this category with Brackets from 1969 to 1997, and 2007 onwards. Need some help, can't do it all entirely, let me know when some of you are finished. Zacchaeusbarbour (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Umpire RFC
and I had an interesting debate at Talk:Chris Conroy on how to include criticism in umpire articles, especially in regards to interpretation of key WP:Neutrality and WP:BLP policies. We reached an agreement at that article, but not on how to apply this to other similar ones. This is an area of interest to me and I would like to work through the other umpire biographies, but feel I first should get a general consensus on what standards editors think should apply when including criticisms of umpires. I have drafted a simple RFC at User:Aircorn/Sandbox/Baseball umpire RFC and would like to host it here. AIR corn (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a comparison to player errors is instructive. Players make occasional errors. Most of the time, they don't affect a game's outcome, though sometimes they do. Either way, due to the nature of sports reporting, they will get coverage of varying degrees. I believe it is undue weight to discuss them in a player's article unless there is a substantial direct relationship to the team's seasonal results (for example, the error made by the 1986 Boston Red Sox in the World Series), or a significant effect on the player (such as if fan persecution resulted in a player trade, or retirement). I think umpire errors should be treated in a similar manner. Errors that affect game play are not commonplace, but they aren't highly rare, either, so I believe the truly notable ones are those that have a substantial direct effect on the team's seasonal results, the umpire, or a player (the error that nullified a perfect game is an example of the latter). As always, on a case-by-case basis, exceptions can be made.
 * Regarding general qualitative criticism (say on an umpire's ability to manage the game, or pitch call accuracy), I think (as the referenced thread discussed) inclusion will have to wait until there are sufficient retrospective sources covering the matter. Qualitative evaluation is highly subjective, and so looking at what a preponderance of sources say is desirable. Including quantitative evaluation may be more feasible, but I'm not sure the reliability of the stats is at a point yet where this information should be routinely included. isaacl (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Umpiring mistakes that get noticed usually have some effect on the game or it's a persistent (or perceived persistent) issue with that umpire. I think mention should be made of errors that have enduring mention (see the 85 World Series) but that's where I'd draw the line.  If it's mentioned a lot in that game/series in national media but only local after that year, probably shouldn't be included. Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. I agree with everything said above so maybe there is no need to take this to RFC. The issue with maintaining modern umpires is not the easily revertible vandalism, but the well sourced criticism of their decisions made during an individual game or series. Requiring some form of enduring mention will make it easier for me to clean these up (NFL seems to use a similar approach to its referee articles). I will wait a bit longer before going through the other current MLB umpires, especially as has not replied yet. FWIW, I am writing an essay on referees/umpires that I may bring onto project space soon and any feedback on that would be useful. AIR corn  (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. My view is that anything that received coverage in multiple reliable source should be included in a page. It's not our job to decide which controversies/errors are significant or not - that's what reliable sources do. I think we can debate whether an article only in a single local newspaper is sufficient to merit a mention in the article - I can see it going both ways, depending on the source and the depth of coverage. I don't agree that an error must rise to the error made by 1986 Boston Red Sox in the World Series, which is undoubtedly the most famous error in the history of baseball. On this standard, virtually no umpire controversy would be sufficient to be mentioned. One of WP's policies is WP:NOTPAPER - absent a policy not to include something that is reliably sourced, it should not be removed. There is simply no requirement that an event have enduring coverage - that is the standard for articles, not content. If you are going to routinely remove reliably sourced content from multiple articles, I think you will need to do an RfC to get input from the wider community. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Routine coverage for baseball has been deemed through consensus discussion to be insufficient for an occurrence to be included in an article. Everything in an MLB game will get covered by typically at least three sources as a matter of course. Covering every player error in the player's article, for example, would overemphasize this aspect of the player's career. Walk-off home runs get coverage too, but that doesn't mean they should automatically get included—it would be a rather random thing to include in most cases. It is a normal part of the editing process to judge which facts should be given greater prominence over others. isaacl (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that a baseball error that is very briefly, and tangentially, mentioned in a game recap does not need to be included. However I don't think this is what I was disputing with Aircorn. The argument was about errors that are the subject of articles in reliable sources. One of the disputes involved Aircorn wanting to remove this from Chris Conroy's page: "On September 3, 2015 in a game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres, Conroy failed to invoke the neighborhood play,[8] ruling Justin Upton safe at second in the sixth inning and subsequently drew the ire of Dodgers manager Don Mattingly.[9][10]." The sources given were Yahoo and CBS Sports, both of which wrote articles specifically about this incident. Another sentence he wanted to remove was this from Vic Carapazza's page: "In 2015, he was heavily criticized by some players and media members after Game 2 of the 2015 American League Division Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and Texas Rangers for what some saw as an inconsistent strike zone.[6][7]" The cited sources were Sportsnet and Fivethirtyeight. While not included on the page, there were also articles appearing in the Toronto Star, CBC News, Sporting News and so on specifically about Carapazza's strike zone. I think you might agree these are not examples of "routine" coverage. I'm just not sure on what basis these sorts of incidents shouldn't be covered, based on WP's policies. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the coverage is non-routine. Sports journalism serves a promotional role as well as its neutral observer role, and as a result, reporters are going to write articles about every aspect that will draw the attention of fans. In today's click-bait world, this will often mean lots of small articles on individual events. Discussion about the neighbourhood play not being called will typically arise when it occurs; it's atypical but not so rare for the player to be called safe that it should be noted every time it happens. Inconsistent strike zones is also (unfortunately) a frequent complaint, and I don't think coverage of every incident is warranted. For example, high-strikeout games are usually (nearly invariably?) beneficiaries of generous strike zones. With the advent of pitch tracking technology, eventually we'll just be able to refer to those stats to provide an indication of umpire consistency. isaacl (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While wikipedia is not paper this does not provide a free pass for inclusion. BLP and Undue are some of the strongest policies here and they very much favour not adding information just because we can verify it. I have always been of the opinion that these relatively minor incidents can be included on Wikipedia, just that this should not be at the umpires page. They fit better at pages more suited to game details (be that a season, series or game article).
 * My standard for including umpire criticism is similar to what has been proposed here by Isacc and Ravensfire. I usually look for an impact of the incident on the umpires career or even the sport as a whole. There are times when a officiating decision has led to a change in the rules or an umpire being stood down or disciplined in some way. This could be seen as a lasting impact. A biography is an account of a persons whole career and if an incident had no impact on their career then I don't think it should be included. There will be exceptions that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis, but as a general rule it is sound and similar to what happens at other biographies.
 * With modern umpires we end up with articles that consist of a series of fan complaints (see Ángel Hernández (umpire) for one I haven't touched yet and Gary Darling for one I have). I strongly believe that this falls foul of WP:BALASP and WP:Undue as we are highlighting small incidents in a long career. I am willing to work through these (I have done similar work on soccer, rugby, cricket, basketball and American football referee articles), but will do so to the standard decided by this wikiproject or the community at large.
 * I am seeing a consensus here (albeit one with low participation) about how to approach these articles, so I am not sure an RFC for my part is necessary now. If someone still wishes to start one you are more than welcome to use my rough draft. AIR corn (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I very strongly disagree with your proposed rule. I would request that you refrain from removing well sourced content from umpire articles without going to an RFC first. We are going in circles here, but BLP policies say nothing about routine removal of all negative information that is sourced to multiple reliable sources. General impact on the sport or on their career is an inflated and undue standard that, while it may sound appealing, isn't based on any WP policy. This is not the standard used anywhere on WP, whether for baseball umpires, executives, actors, or religious figures or so on. We don't wait to write articles for people only until they're retired or dead. Using reliable sources to create an article is the very core purpose of this encyclopedia. I know you have strong feelings about not criticizing umpires, but I don't think that should distract from allowing others to create umpire pages that are longer than stubs. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We are circling each other, but others have opined now so it is not just about us anymore. WP:Consensus is all that really matters, so I will wait to see if anyone else has an opinion before proceeding. AIR corn (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Pound symbol for jersey numbers
This has bothered me for a while so I was wondering if there was a reason why baseball articles use "#" to designate retired jersey numbers in the infobox. MOS:POUND specifically states not to use the pound symbol to refer to numbers, and instead to use "No." Is there some traditional baseball significance to using the pound symbol? Or is it just something that no one was aware of/cared to fix? Lizard (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would need a pretty good reason for project to override general MOS. FWIW,  members of San Diego Padres retired numbers have been pretty much using "No." for a few years now.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, but of course. Count on San Diego's No. 1 Wikipedia sports editor. I though maybe since baseball traditionally uses #, the baseball project was just following suit. Lizard  (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

YahwehSaves confusion again
YahwehSaves is returning to flurries of activity after a recent block, and one of his current targets seems to be date ranges. At Billy Williams (left fielder), he's pretty forcefully asserting that Williams had 20+ HR and 84+ RBI in 13 consecutive seasons, from 1961 to 1974. (True, except that the date range is 1961 to 1973.) At first I thought he just made a typo, but he really believes that 1961 to 1974 is 13 seasons and that by saying "to 1974", we are somehow not counting the 1974 season.

Would someone like to attempt to explain the date range thing to him, or at least to monitor the Williams entry for further mathematical misadventures? In general, when one of his pages gets edited, he responds with a larger edit, often with even more errors or with awkward wording introduced under the pretense of "improving" the entry. Earlier, when his edit summary said he felt I was "hampering" him, I tried to reach out on his talk page, but he deleted the message with an edit summary of "not needed". We just don't communicate well, and that's not a situation that I have experienced with other editors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Bob Davidson - GA?
Thinking about trying to get Bob Davidson (umpire) to GA if this is an effort that would interest anyone. A few years ago, I was introduced to the GA process on Joe West (umpire), and with a few people's help (primarily Go Phightins! and AutomaticStrikeout) we got a pretty unrefined entry to GA. It has remained mostly stable since that time. With Davidson's retirement, it should be less susceptible to some of the typical umpire vandalism, and I think Davidson is one of a handful of umpires where there are enough independent sources to do some good things. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Balkin' Bob! Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. When are you thinking of beginning? I'd be happy to either stay out of it and do the GA review or I can help as time allows.  Go  Phightins  !  20:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a quick reply! I did some pretty minor stuff with the lead and added a source related to his early life, but I may not be able to start working on bigger issues until next weekend. I always appreciate your work either as reviewer or collaborator, and I'd be happy if you participated either way. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Likely Vandalism
At least one account has been systematically changing the personal data in articles on umpires: check the contribs for User:Braves2995 -- Special:Contributions/Braves2995 I don't know enough about these subjects to determine for certain whether it's vandalism, but it seems very likely. In one article, Eric Cooper, another account definitely did engage in vandalism only two days later, and they may be the same person. I undid that edit since it was obvious vandalism; other people will have to confirm whether Braves2995's edits are also vandalism. Ryn78 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the edits are not vandalism. The user is updating the umpiring crews for this coming season, and he appears to be doing so accurately. Lepricavark (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The crews are correct, the alphabet might be switched up because the source uses numbers vs letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braves2995 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) How do you get rid of the crew members title on the right side of Jim Joyce and Bob Davidson pages, they are both retired. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braves2995 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about retired numbers at WP:NFL
There is a discussion concerning listing of retired numbers in the infobox that may pertain to this project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League Lizard  (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Minor league heritage
What do you think? Should Down East Wood Ducks include a full history of baseball teams also hailing from Kinston, North Carolina, in the article's history section and infobox? Or, as an expansion team, should it briefly mention the sport's history in the city but not include past team names, championships, affiliations, etc in the infobox? I support the latter, as the team has no relationship to any previous team from Kinston (outside of being based in the same city and ballpark). It has a brand new franchise history starting this year with its entry into the Carolina League, everything else belongs to disestablished franchises. User:Kinston eagle contends that project consensus says that a current city team should be merged with all the earlier minor league teams from that city. In other words, all or a majority of the content from Kinston Indians, containing the sum of Wikipedia's information on baseball in that city, should be merged into the Wood Ducks' article. Eagle cites the Durham Bulls and Winston-Salem Dash as examples of how this is the current practice. What does the project think? NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel as though "being based in the same city and ballpark" is a pretty substantial relationship, but in addition it also is in the same league, has one of the same owners and has members of the same front office staff. But this isn't just about the Indians and Wood Ducks. There seem to be many minor league teams that are set up one way and many set up another which begs for consensus on one overall policy concerning minor league teams and cities. Kinston eagle (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As separate teams, with separate histories, a brief mention is the only appropriate course of action. Franchises carry history. What if it were a situation, hardly unheard of, where one team moved out of a city and another team in the same league moved in? Would anything more than a brief mention be appropriate, considering the franchise to which the history actually belonged is still around? To do otherwise would be to give the history to the wrong franchise. Same thing here; just because the new team in town is an expansion team, doesn't mean that we can just give them the history of prior teams in the same city. oknazevad (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We've been somewhat inconsistent with this as their isn't really a consensus. Some teams trace the history of the franchise from city to city and some, usually historical teams whose ownership connections cant be easily traced, follow the history in the city.. We never really established a clear consensus and I think it should be addressed on a case by case basis. Spanneraol (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's much too much. It looks like it was copied from Kinston Indians. We can include some info on past iterations of baseball in Kinston, but then link to the Kinston Indians article for people who care to peruse it. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of merging from Kinston Indians when this issue came up. Upon completion, there would be no Kinston Indians page to link back to. As a side note: either solution would involve problems of its own. Kinston, for example, has had 8 distinct different franchises that would each need to have pages made. The player categories for Kinston Eagles would need to be split up into six different categories as there were Eagles teams in six different franchises. There would be Kinston Eagles (Virginia League), Kinston Eagles (Eastern Carolina League), Kinston Eagles (Coastal Plain League), Kinston Eagles (Carolina League, 1956-1957), Kinston Eagles (Carolina League, 1962-1973), Kinston Eagles (1978-1982). Kinston eagle (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That merger is a very bad idea. And yes, the categories should be split, as lumping them all together falsely implies that all the players played for the same team, when they did not. oknazevad (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

FLC review request
It's been over a month since the List of Major League Baseball players with a .400 batting average in a season was nominated for FL. So far, only one user has commented. If a few more folks from our baseball community can give it a quick look and some input, that would be great. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Problematic Kinston Eagles dab page
Kinston Eagles is a disambiguation page, and the final three links on that page all point to Carolina Mudcats. Those final three links cover a time period from 1962 to 1984. However, very little history of any Kinston Eagles teams is provided in the Carolina Mudcats article. The Kinston Eagles page itself was a redirect to a Kinston Indians page prior to February 23, when changed it into a DAB page and redirected the Kinston Indians page, which had a lot of useful information, to the Carolina Mudcats article. This is a very discombobulated and non-ideal arrangement, so I'd like to get suggestions on how this might be better organized. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This was the result of a previous conversation with a larger scope regarding baseball in Kinston, but also the lineage of MiLB teams. It looks to me that at least all of the Kinston teams from 1978 to 2011 (Blue Jays, Eagles, Indians) should be combined into one article titled Kinston Indians. Kinston teams played continuously during that period which suggests they are the same franchise. A second article may be Kinston Expos covering that team's 1974 season and the Eagles' play from 1925 to 1973. Again, this looks like a continuous franchise. Hat notes may be used to direct readers to other versions of the Eagles covered in different articles. The two other Kinston teams (Highwaymen [1922] and Robins [1921]) may be combined into a third article or left separate depending on their relationship. Of course, during this process, content would need to be rescued from those pages that now redirect. Pinging in case he doesn't see this. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The 1978 Kinston Eagles were a Carolina League expansion team. That team became the Kinston Blue Jays who became the 1986 Kinston Eagles who became the Kinston Indians who became the Carolina Mudcats. It is all the same franchise. There is no reason to have a Kinston Indians page since the Mudcats are the same team. If you feel the Kinston Indians page had a lot of useful information for the Mudcats page, feel free to move that info there. It's all still in that page's history. Just keep in mind that everything prior to 1978 belongs to earlier franchises. Everything from 1962-1974 belongs to the Kinston Expos page which is what that franchise was named when it was ultimately dropped from the Carolina League. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, so the bottom two being linked to the Mudcats makes sense, although it seems like much of the information from the Kinston Indians page was about teams prior to the 1987–2011 Indians, and that information could have been preserved elsewhere. I also don't understand why the Kinston Expos page is redirected to the Carolina Mudcats page if they aren't really connected. Shouldn't the Kinston Expos have a separate article? And I find it curious that the Wilson Tobs article makes almost no mention of any connection to Kinston. Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes it should. I don't know who did that or why. Kinston eagle (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Kinston Expos page has been a redirect since you redirected it back in 2007. I'm not quite sure what to do with that page. Lepricavark (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Importance rating for MLB team season articles
Are MLB season articles suposed to be given a low-level or mid-level importance rating? Doe it differ from one article to the next? I've seen a fair amount of both levels. Lepricavark (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would assume that teams that made the playoffs would have a higher importance level than teams that did not. Spanneraol (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move
Nick Castellanos → Nicholas Castellanos – Per, "In all official ways, the Tigers said, starting third baseman would be referred to as Nicholas – not Nick – Castellanos". I figured I could move the page myself, but I'd prefer to do it this way, with consensus. There's a discussion on the player's ralk page. RobDe68 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

DSL Orioles
Today the Orioles announced that they are going with one DSL team instead of two. Should we delete the second roster template or redirect it to Template:Dominican Summer League Orioles roster. They may expand in the future back to two teams but who knows? Thanks for yall's input. NYGiantsfan1991 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd go for deletion. Can easily be recreated if they go back to two teams. Spanneraol (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles
So the 2017 World Baseball Classic is ongoing, but there are duplicate articles regarding the Pools like in the case of Pool B and another article with an identical name. Can anyone do something about that? –Zacchaeusbarbour (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where's the duplicate? That first link is to 2013's Pool B. Lizard  (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just now realized this, I changed the links to show what I meant. Whereas Pool A has a line in between, the rest don't; I had to change the sections to say that. Zacchaeusbarbour (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I've removed your speedy tags from the WBC pool redirects because you didn't provide any explanation for why the pages should be deleted. Lepricavark (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I rushed it to delete the articles. Zacchaeusbarbour (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have an idea (regarding postseason coverage)
Okay, how about this; what if, like the case of the NFL, NBA, and NHL playoffs, we consolidate everything into one article. The article will be called 2017 Major League Baseball postseason, and will be divided into American League and National League halves. Does anyone like this idea?–Zacchaeus (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I find those three articles to be barely manageable. I prefer the way we do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Secret Nine Baseball
Greetings I'm seeking help for Secret Nine Baseball article, can anyone suggest sources and content?Sir.Leyenda (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend taking another look at the OffBeat Magazine article and gleaning more information from it (being careful not to plagiarize). A quick glance at the article turns up details about a few different games played in 1931, as well as a scheduled game in 1932. How about mentioning the episode of Armstrong and his bodyguards 'playing' ball? As for sources, I've had a difficult time turning up much for the minor league negro team articles I've worked on (Nashville White Sox, Nashville Stars, & Nashville Cubs). Your best bet may be to try to turn up the Louisiana Weekly article mentioned in the article. Perhaps your school's library could help locate it. Let me know if I can do anything else to help. NatureBoyMD (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I will say the article needs a severe copyedit. Misused words abound, and the grammar is full of errors. Maybe a request to the guild of copy editors? I would go over it myself, but I honestly can't tell what some passages are intended to mean. oknazevad (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and I appreciate the time you gave to look into this article.Sir.Leyenda (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You're invited...
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, which involves articles in your WikiProject, regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 06:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Marichal - Roseboro image deleted
An editor has deleted the Marichal - Roseboro incident photograph from numerous articles citing policy WT:NFCC which states: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. I am not well versed on content submission but, am throwing this out there to see what other editors think.Orsoni (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For every article you use an image on, you must provide a rationale for its use on that specific article. So not only do you need to provide fair use rationale, but rationale for use on both Juan Marichal and John Roseboro. And even then, an editor can deem the rationale insufficient for a number of reasons, including NFCC8 which you cited above. Personally I usually opt on the safe side and stay away from non-free images. Lizard  (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing teams outside of the majors in infoboxes
Is it the policy or style of this project to discourage or revert listing teams outside MLB in player infoboxes? Even though he played on the team when it won the Little League World Series, Jonathan Schoop's infobox does not list Pabao Little League as one of his teams. In fact, Schoop's infobox doesn't list the Dutch national team, the Norfolk Tide, or the Bowie Baysox either.
 * The info box just lists teams in MLB, NPB or KBO as those are the ones we decided on in a debate ages ago. Minor league teams and certainly little league teams don't belong there. Spanneraol (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While winning a world championship at anything, including little league baseball, is definitely notable, I tend to agree that the info box should reflect professional baseball involvement. In my opinion, a little league world championship would be best fleshed out in the text of the article.Orsoni (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice for the currently-followed guidance. For post-integration era players who have played in Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, or the KBO League, only these teams should be listed. isaacl (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. That's very different from the way soccer-player infoboxes are done and even hockey players in the NHL have their minor-league and national teams listed in their infoboxes.  I suspected that baseball would be done different and wanted to make sure before I changed a bunch of infoboxes.  As a personal aside, in addition to editing, I also use Wikipedia as an information source.  While watching a Texas Rangers game, I was frustrated to find Martín Perez's World Baseball Classic team was not listed in his infobox.  The commentators twice discussed his time at the 2017 WBC, but neither time mentioned which team he played for. --Acjelen (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WBC navboxes are at the bottom of the page. Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see now.  Thanks.  I'll look for those now (and add them when they are missing) --Acjelen (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I spot checked a few NHL players; their national team participation is noted in the infobox, but I didn't see any mention of AHL, IHL, or junior teams, unless they are currently in the AHL, in which case their current team (but not past AHL teams) are shown. Of course it's just a small sample, but it's not something I recall seeing before for NHL players. isaacl (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE
Just a note: A discussion has begun at MOS, concerning team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about changing the notability guidelines for athletes
See Village_pump_(policy). -Spanneraol (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern Illinois Huskies in which members of this WikiProject maybe interested in. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 20:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging list of league presidents with actual league
I was editing the National League page and I noticed the list of NL Presidents section is all but empty, with a separate page for the list. Therefore I propose a merger between these two pages, and keep the article of the list as a redirect. The same should probably be done with the American League (AL). –Z.I. Barbour (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The lists are too small to require alseparate articles. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree.Orsoni (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion at Talk:Wrigley Field ivy
The merger is proposed at Talk:Wrigley Field ivy. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is closed as "merged" to Wrigley Field. The merger is still in progress, so help is welcome. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels
A move discussion about moving the page Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim to "Los Angeles Angels" has been opened at Talk:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim that may be of interest to editors here. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That didn't take long
I noticed earlier in the day that someone created a redirect page for this year's NL Wild Card Game, it just caught me by surprise because I tried to assemble the articles a while ago to no success (with the same AfC tool). So what can we do about the page? Just build on it for now, as I was planning on doing, or just leave it blank for now?—Z.I. Barbour (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing rehab appearances in "notable alumni" section of Minor League teams
Should players who only played for a minor league team on a rehab assignment, and not while they were actually a minor leaguer, be listed under "notable alumni" on that team's page? Would there be any difference in the standards of what makes them notable? For instance, Ivan Rodriguez is a Hall of Famer who made a few rehab appearances for the Potomac Nationals late in his career. Jonathan Papelbon also made rehab appearances for them, but is a less notable, though still well-known, player, who, while he'll never be a hall of famer, is a six-time all-star. Journeyman infielder Stephen Drew also made a few rehab stars for the P-Nats, but is less well-known and notable than either of those two, though he'd still likely qualify to be listed if he made the appearances while he was an actual minor leaguer. Should any of them be listed? All of them? A future hall of famer making a rehab start for a minor league team is more notable than a journeyman infielder like Drew doing so, but does that even make him an "alumnus"? He was already an established major leaguer when he played for them. What does everyone else think? Smartyllama (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be added....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree.. a rehabbing player isn't really a notable alumni... though they should probably be listed on all-time roster pages, perhaps with a notation that it was a rehab appearance. Spanneraol (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've never thought that any of those minor league pages should arbitrarily have alumni listed in a separate section. But, if those sections are going to survive, and an established big leaguer played for them, they are technically a former player of that team, so it would make sense to include them. Penale52 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A proposal
What if we merge the Baseball box and the linescore into one template. Would that be likely, and how would it look on, say, a World Series page? Z.I. Barbour (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this is your proposal, what do you think it should look like? What problem are you trying to solve? isaacl (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it will place the linescore to the side, much like this, and move the home run list and the winning/losing pitchers to the bottom of the box. The main problem is the fact that there's two boxes, one of which is almost never used for postseason articles (that's the baseball box). Z.I. Barbour (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability
An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask about an RFC on just WP:NBASE. Would it be too soon for just that following this RFC? South Nashua (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. What are your issues with NBASE? Perhaps you should discuss them here first? Spanneraol (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Personally, I think notability is established if someone is drafted in the Major League Baseball draft. I'd like to see that added. I also personally think notability is established if a game is played in a major-league affiliated minor league. I know with soccer, notability is established if a player plays a game on a fully professional side. In this day and age, just about all minor league players are fully professional, if not all. If one assumes that every professional player was in Little League at some point and the 2.6 million figure is accurate for registered Little League players, that would mean that anyone playing in the Majors or the Minors is in the top .001% of that group. Reaching that echelon among a group that size is a notable accomplishment. South Nashua (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you considered how many people are drafted every year and how many people play in the minor leagues? That would be a ton of new articles and players in the low minors get very little coverage unless they are a top prospect. There are currently 40 rounds in the draft each year, and it has been around since 1965. And in the past teams could have as many as 20 minor league affiliates. The tides at NSPORTS seem to be moving towards making things more restrictive rather than less restrictive. Currently it is a rather simple line that is easy to understand.. one major league game... if you extend it to one minor league game or a draft pick it gets really more contentous. Spanneraol (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it becomes more contentious. I'm new to this Wikiproject, but I'm assuming Baseball Reference and other comparable sites would could as reliable external sources? There's a bio on there for pretty much everybody who's ever picked up a baseball professionally in the U.S. I understand what you're saying regarding restrictiveness, but I think it would serve the encyclopedia if there was a standardized restrictiveness across the board for all sports. The only real difference between somebody who plays in League 2 of the English Football Pyramid and someone who plays in Single-A or Double-A baseball is the lack of franchise affiliations. The comparable level of play is the same across the sports, and yet the soccer player is considered notable and the baseball player is not. South Nashua (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Baseball Reference and other stats sites are considered routine coverage and can't be used to indicate that a player meets English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. In the end, there needs to be enough significant, independent, non-promotional, non-routine, secondary coverage in reliable sources so that a biography can be written. Stats sites don't provide this. isaacl (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just it, there are minor leaguers where that can be established. If not all, then most. Generally a minor league team isn't going to be located in a city that isn't large enough not to have its own media sources. You'd think you'd be able to build something decent between that coverage and the Baseball Reference background. Conversely, for players who have a Cup of coffee callup, there's a still a possibility that there might not be much, even though it's a certainty that there's something. South Nashua (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)&diff=768942960&oldid=768940738 discussed elsewhere], sports journalism has promotional aspects as well as local community coverage concerns which have to be carefully weighed when evaluating its suitability as sources demonstrating that Wikipedia's standards for having an article have been met. If you feel you can go through the roster of your favourite minor league team and illustrate how they all meet Wikipedia's standards, it would be helpful for making the case of broadening the rules of thumb for baseball players. isaacl (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Thanks. South Nashua (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Could someone help identify this 2017 Seattle Mariner?
Hi guys -

I am uploading some images I took on a recent baseball road trip and I have a doubt about the identity of one player. I obviously thought it was Guillermo Heredia at first, but now I am not as sure. Looking at other photos of Heredia, he didn't previously have facial hair, so is it just the goatee making him look a little different? Heredia played in that game and he scored a run around the approximate time the pic would have been taken. I can't find any other Seattle player or coach who this might be. Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The most recent pics of him on other news sites over the past day or two do show him with some stubble, so yes that's definitely Heredia. Wizardman  14:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it! EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Opposite field into Glossary of baseball
I would've just done this myself, but I've been very inactive, so don't want to step on any toes. I don't see the purpose of or justification for opposite field as a separate article. Discuss! Staxringold talkcontribs 13:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If there were ever a term that should just be done it's this. The article is literally one paragraph when the indiscriminate list of players is removed. No discussion needed, I'll just do it. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC) PS, please don't put all caps in section headers.
 * I think you just jinxed yourself. Apparently opposes this. Winner 42  Talk to me!  23:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Id like to see why. oknazevad (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to see the indiscriminate list of players. If you keep merging the article, I won't be able to do that. Mk8mlyb (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2017
 * Hello? Anybody here? Mk8mlyb (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2017
 * You'll need a much better reason than that. Lepricavark (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really mean to keep the edit permanent. If I visit the page, I'll just do my thing and after I'm done, I'll just redirect the page or let you do it. I'm sorry if I rubbed people the wrong way. I don't trash people unlike a lot of other people who engage in these types of discussions. Mk8mlyb (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2017


 * Support merge - no need for separate article. Content is concise enough to fit in glossary, and unlikely to ever be expanded upon. Timtempleton (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Lizard  (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)