Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Old-time Base Ball task force/Archive 1

Template
I modified the baseball wikiproject template to allow for the taskforce, please use this one as it keeps the articles organised under the main baseball project and also under the taskforce. If brown isn't a suitable colour it can be changed.. --Borgarde 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename
It should be called "Old-time Base Ball task force". Should I move the page? --Borgarde 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Old-time Base Ball template
I've created a preliminary design for an infobox at User:Bookworm1/Old-time Base Ball template. Let me know what you think! If the vote is unanimous, I'll go ahead and make it a template. -Bookworm1 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Voting for the template
 * Bookworm1 approves


 * Okay, I've been waiting a couple days; it seems like no one has any objections. I think I'll go ahead and make it a template.
 * Bookworm1 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help. Pre-20th century baseball is an area of much interest to me. --MrBaseball 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'll help out with this project. I'll add infoboxes to every page. Just give it time, I have other commitments to Wikipedia. I'm in over 20 projects, so this will just be another one. Soxrock 11:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help here. jj137 (Talk ) 15:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been working with 19th century baseball player, managers, umpires and executives for almost 2 years, and only recently discovered this sub, and will be continuing my devotion for these much ignored group of people. I've recently been able to achieve GA status for Bob Ferguson, and have created over 120 articles, most within this sub. Neonblak (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kick-start
I am going to attempt to kick-start this task force. I spent almost of all my time creating and re-working these articles anyway, but this task-force seems dead. I've added the assessment table, and will spend some time getting the old-time tags on all articles that fall within the task force's parameters. Speaking of parameters, what constitutes pre-1900. I would assume that all players who played the bulk of their career before 1900? If so, that might mean Honus Wagner, and Cy Young do not fall within the parameters? If no one else weighs in on this, I will change the wording to reflect this.Neonblak (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1876-1880 Reds
I'm posting this at the main project talk page as well, but this is probably the most appropriate place for it.

I notice there is no separate category for the players from this team, and they seem to be lumped in with the team that was founded in 1882. On various pages, I see conflicting information regarding whether or not the two teams were the same organization, but most of what I've seen indicates they were not. I'm going to go ahead and create the new category, and will go through and move players, but beyond that there are probably a number of pages that will need to be reviewed to address this issue. -Dewelar (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some to this discussion at the main baseball talk page. Neonblak talk  -  06:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to move further discussion back here so as not to clutter up the project talk page.
 * I've gone ahead and created the new category (along with ones for managers and seasons) and moved all the appropriate pages into them. I also removed the pre-1882 managers from the managers navbox and manager list.
 * In the process of doing this, I also noticed that there are separate categories for Cincinnati Red Stockings and Cincinnati Red Stockings (AA) for players, but not for managers. Noting this, I went under the assumption that the former belongs to the pre-NA Red Stockings and moved all the AA Red Stockings to the proper category. This left only a few pages in the original category. I didn't create a managers category because, as far as I know, the original Red Stockings only had one manager (Harry Wright). On the other hand, it also seemed illogical to submit the current manager page to CfD without having a primary topic category. So...I'm stuck here. Any thoughts? -Dewelar (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are my thoughts on this. Having a category for the original Red Stockings is up for debate, as it may be the only NABBP team with such a category.  If this is kept, then I suppose that one should be created for the Excelsior of Brooklyn, etc.  I added the rest of the 1869 team into the category just in case. In that vein, I suppose that the manager category wouldn't be necessary, even though I have seen, and maybe created, a few manager categories for teams that had just one manager.  Sorry for the bad edit earlier.  Shouldn't Category:Cincinnati Red Stockings managers by changed to Category:Cincinnati Red Stockings (AA) managers to coincide with the player cat?  Lemme know what you think, If I missed the point of your question, I appologize. Neonblak  talk  -  06:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably should be moved. I'm just concerned about the protocol for single-article categories, because I thought they might just get deleted. In fact, it might just be easier to create the new category and change all the existing articles rather than get it moved, because getting it moved requires an admin, I think. Also, I see no reason why we shouldn't create pages for the NABBP teams if there are enough articles to do it. In any case, it seems like we're on the same page here. Thanks for keeping this project going, and I'm glad I can contribute! -Dewelar (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

NA vs. ML
Since we are in the mood to make things acurate, I propose that all the NAPBBP player and manager categories should be moved to a new category under the parent Category:Major League Baseball players into National Association of Professional Base Ball players by team and National Association of Base Ball players by team. Since these leagues are not considered "Major Leagues", but it has been established, apparently, that the players themselves are considered "Major Leaguers". That way, we can keep all the pre-1871 team categories, like the Red Stockings, and seperate the 1871-1875 teams. As much as people like me want to promote the NAPBBP to Major League status, it doesn't appear likely that it is going to happen. I look forward to anyone's thoughts on this matter. Neonblak talk  -  20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should be separate, and also agree that the pre-1871 players should be taken out of the MLB players category entirely. There is already a category for NAPBBP players, which is a subcategory of 19th-century baseball players. I would suggest that the new category for NABBP players should have the same status, but without additionally being a subcategory of MLB players. -Dewelar (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I see a few things that may need moving and deleting then, follow me here.
 * Move Category:19th-century baseball players under the Category:Major League Baseball players, since they are considered "Major Leaguers".
 * Change name of Category:National Association baseball players to Category:National Association of Professional Base Ball players by team, created Category:National Association of Base Ball players by team, then move them both under Category:Baseball players.
 * Remove the parent cat for all National Association players by team from Category:Major league baseball players by team. Neonblak talk  -  23:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure '1' is necessary, but otherwise yes. -Dewelar (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Again there is some discussion of how the major leagues and Major League Baseball (r) do and should define our coverage of competitive baseball in olden days. See Talk: National Association of Professional Base Ball Players. The immediate stimulus is integration of NAPBBP playing records in the stat-historical baseball database presented at MLB.com (new sometime after 2006, new to me this week). --P64 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Chicago White Stockings
Ok, I, along with many others, know of the split between seasons of the Chicago White Stockings, and that it was the Great Chicago Fire that burned down their stadium and detroyed all of their equipment. Currently, the time between the team disbanded in 1871 and the Chicago White Stockings that came back in 1874 was called a "hiatus", but I am reading more and more that these are two different teams, complete with different ownership/players/personnel, etc. If this is actually true, it appears that alot of work would have be done to correct this. So in essence, the first White Stockings played from 1870-1871 in both National Associations, and the second White Stockings started play in 1874 and are now the Cubs. Thoughts on how to seperate these?  Neonblak talk  -  06:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here I see no reason to split the Chicago ballclub except practical ones: (a) everything pertaining to 1870-1875 or 70-71 or 74-75 or 71-75 is likely to be lost in the tidal wave that represents 130-odd subsequent seasons; (b) there are thousands of modern Chicago Cubs fans, so it's best not to dispute with them. If they prefer to exclude the 1870-71 teams we should be able to go along with that.
 * Changes in business form do not warrant splitting articles on ballclubs or leagues. The number of historical baseball club and league "reorganizations" in the sense of Business news is enormous. (Meanwhile too many articles(?) or categories or lists are split by team nickname, including some unofficial and poorly documented nicknames.)
 * The reorganized Chicago Base Ball Club did lease grounds for 1872, build a new ballpark there, and operate it commercially beginning in the 1872 season. Indeed, it hosted some NAPBBP championship games during 1872 and 1873. --P64 (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

1889 World Series
1889 World Series was simply a redirect. It really should be its own article. Would any of you like to take a stab at it? Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a few of those early World Series that aren't represented. Neonblak talk  -  15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Maroons and NL Hoosiers
Also posted at the main project talk page.

I figured it was about time to finish splitting up the Hoosiers into their separate articles, one for the AA team, one for the NL team, and one for the minor league teams (the FL team was already merged into Newark Pepper). In the process, I realized that the NL Hoosiers are essentially the St. Louis Maroons, just with different ownership and in a different city. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page for anyone interested in discussing. -Dewelar (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Billy Sunday GAR
Billy Sunday has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  02:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Early players
Finally yesterday I joined this Wikiproject.

[0] I revised some articles on early players to provide some coverage of their NABBP careers and upgraded them to Start class. See John McMullin and Dickie Flowers for example. There I have "written up" some records of pre-1871 play, more detailed than team affiliations --with references to Marshall Wright's stat-historical compilation-- but I have not added to any Infoboxes.
 * P.S. My main point was simply that I am covering pre-1871 play in prose (literati must pardon the term) rather than in tables or Infoboxes. -P64

[1] Comment: This project uses Stub class broadly and Start class reservedly. Considering that nothing much will every be known about many of these article subjects, many of our Starts and some Stubs probably satisfy the not-very-rigorous descriptions of C class.
 * P.S. I will upgrade known NABBP players to Start class only after covering pre-1871 play in the modest fashion described here. I don't plan to list NABBP teams in the Infoboxes without any coverage in prose. -P64

[2][a] Questions: How do you-all select the career stats in the Infobox for major leaguers? For example it's 9 Runs and 0 HRs for Bob Armstrong (baseball), 43 Hits for Frank Selman, and 1 RBIs for Joe Kernan (baseball). (I didn't edit any of those numbers; did correct the identification of Armstrong's "9" from RBIs to Runs.)
 * I agree with the reply by Neonblak below. -P64

[2][b] Is there consensus to use the Infobox and to feature major league playing stats for everyone who did play in the majors? (The example of Satchel Paige suggests Yes but also shows another focus in the Teams and Highlights sub-boxes. Is Satchel Paige a model useful for early players too, who were notable before 1871?)

[3] About those Categories: [a] Attention: The last category now listed for Bob Armstrong (baseball) is "United States baseball outfielder, 1850s birth stubs". I doubt that should be displayed, along with the equivalent note in italics just above the categories. Maybe I caused this by redundant display when I rearranged the footer. [b] Comment: Somewhere we may have a stub whose list of categories is longer than the so-called prose! Is there consensus to use all of "Major League Baseball center fielders | Baseball players from Maryland | 19th-century baseball players", using Armstrong for example? Generally I have added players to their NABBP team categories (eg, Category: Baltimore Marylands (NABBP) players is up from 7 to 10) but I have not added them to these other categories. --P64 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, since most of the time, it's been me mass assessing oldtime articles to ensure that each one is assess with something, if it looks like a stub, or already tagged as one on the article page, I just went ahead assessed it as such. However, if you feel that any particular article meets the Start through B standard, you are free to re-assess as you see fit. 2) As far as the infobox stats go, there doesn't seem to have been a standard stat table to use, so I try to use categories that will show some numbers; it doesn't look good to me to show that someone went .000, 0 HRs, 0 RBIs in a career, looks better to show 1 Game played, 2 at bats, 1 base on balls (as an example). However, if you think different stats would look better, go ahead and change it, not a big deal. 3) Most of the time, its me hanging out here in the oldtime-baseball task-force, so the more people like you that have an interest in helping out, the better this great era of baseball will be. I especially like your interest in the NABBP player lists, it helps get those article created and categories filled. Neonblak  talk  -  04:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For one player John McMullin only, I have listed NABBP teams in the Infobox, following the popular naming convention and the established list style. The linked team pages may or may not cover their pre-league histories; that's another matter.
 * I have inserted a parenthetical divider that finesses the matter of "major leagues" and "MLB". At the same time let me note that the box provides "MLB debut" and "Last MLB appearances" without apology to the brand owner. What do you think? --P64 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried out a way of listing the teams in McMullins' infobox, but had another one as well. You give a heading for each early league.  Such as NABBP, then list those, NAPBBP, then list those, NL, then list those.  Lemme know what you think.  Neonblak  talk  -  21:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I chose to avoid repeating "NABBP" on every line, not to mention using a longer version of that name, but I don't yet! have any strong or nearly complete opinion about styling the Infobox list of Teams. We need other opinions but that isn't urgent. The number of pages for NABBP players is small enough that all of their Infoboxes can be changed manually in "no time", as time runs here. On this scale there is little harm in proceeding either to experiment or to cover all of them in a uniform style.
 * How many 1871 NAPBBP players do now have pages?

Answer: All but one, if I clerk correctly: William J. Bill Kelly (outfielder) for the Fort Wayne Kekiongas. Visit Bill Kelly at Retrosheet. Indeed Kelly seems to be the only major leaguer with debut 1871 to 1876, whose firstname we know, and the only regular player, who does not have a page here. "McCloskey" of the 1875 Washington Nationals seems to be the only other 10-game player missing, with debut 1871-76. --P64 (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think the Infobox list of teams provides the most important information in the Infobox, for most ballplayer articles (but no majority of reader visits). Nevertheless, its current location at the bottom is reasonable because the list is often relatively long. We must have articles shorter than their Infoboxes, at least when displayed on a typical full screen. I haven't noticed it. --P64 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are comfortable using the trademark MLB for league play beginning 1871, then I recommend using the parallel structure MLB debut, MLB finale, MLB Career (statistics goes without sayin') as titles of the three central cells. (I haven't made that change anywhere.) --P64

Orange highlights everything specifically about the Infobox list of teams, continued at the new section, Infobox list of Teams.

Early teams
Today I cleaned up Category: National Association of Base Ball Players teams, then streamlined and updated a summary of its coverage on the Category talk page. While it literally reports on the category, that summary thereby reports wikipedia coverage of the NABBP teams as far as I know.

I admit that I found only one page to add, and only by luck. That one I renamed from "Cream Citys" to "Milwaukee Cream Citys" in order to match the naming style that has been widely used here. I recommend it. --P64 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are streamlining this era, maybe you could create a stub for the Union of Morrisania. Seems to be a club that it referred to quite a bit, but no article yet.  Also, would you recomend using "Morrisania Unions" instead? Neonblak  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Naming convention. Isn't it reasonable to use that convention for all team/club article titles? I say this despite writing the other in prose, because I think it doesn't matter much with a redirect from Union of Morrisania. AFAIK we have few of those, I admit, and we have no more formal redirects such as Eckford Base Ball Club, perhaps with a geographical qualification. (The plural title such as Athletics of Philadelphia seems to be strictly redundant for users; that one hits "Do you mean Athletic of Philadelphia", linked to a redirect that we have. Editors must avoid the plural red link, however.)
 * In writing more than a prosified list of a player's team affiliations, I would generally try to specify Morrisania "now in the Bronx" or Lansingburgh "now in Troy" and thereafter use (the) Union, Unions, Union club without further reference to Morrisania or Lansingburgh.
 * We should strive to leave team/club naming conventions implicit in player articles and we should keep any explanation short where necessary. Maybe some boilerplate on player Talk pages will be useful. Supposing a comfortable clear explanation in one paragraph, I believe it would be appropriate only for team/club articles and for player Talk. --P64 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ... what would I do in practice? When listing NABBP clubs that do not have pages here (see below, section "Infobox list of Teams"), I have liberally or even universally used the style represented by "Enterprise of Brooklyn" and "Irvington of Irvington, NJ" &mdash;with a bluelink for the city if not very famous, no redlink for the club except Union of Morrisania. Where I know of an article on the club, I have linked to its title using the modern naming convention of its title, no redirect. For example, see Everett Mills. --P64 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Early seasons
For now these are only sections of so-called "lists" but they begin coverage of the later NABBP seasons by prose and tables that should someday be, perhaps, 1870 professional baseball season, 1869 professional baseball season, and 1868 baseball season.
 * 1870 in baseball and #Amateur_clubs
 * 1869 in baseball and #Amateur_clubs
 * 1845 to 1868 in baseball

Along with Talk:1869 in baseball they provide a few slightly different trial looks at how to present the basic team records of W, L, and T games. They also amplify my reply to Neonblak above, that I would avoid much use of the "Morrisania Unions" naming style outside of article and category titles.

Do the league seasons beginning 1871 use "Templates" for more compact code? faster data entry? --P64 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ... 1871 in baseball does not use the Template. There are big basic problems with what is presented in that league standings table but let me say that I dislike the column-widths strongly, especially forcing the team names to display on two lines. I don't believe that "Wins" and "Losses" need to be spelled out, nor would "Ties". --P64 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox list of Teams

 * In the "Early players" section, <font color = "darkorange">Orange highlights everything about the Infobox list of Teams.

The Teams list should not be limited to MLB even if we do use that brandname back to 1871. I doubt that readers will infer the Team list is more comprehensive, even if the titles of three preceding cells specify MLB and the Teams title does not; on the contrary, some will presume that Teams covers MLB only, even though MLB is not specified. When the given list of teams is more comprehensive, therefore, we should somehow indicate that. I don't like long listings, such as "Negro Leagues" or even "NABBP" after every team name where applicable (which Neon suggested). So I have opted for a heading National Association of Base Ball Players at the beginning of the Teams list. Unlike Negro Leagues, OB minor leagues, and Japanese leagues for later players with notable mixed careers, the NABBP part of anyone's career is ~always at the beginning. Thus the method of dividing the Teams list with bold headings does not interfere with its familiar chronological order of teams, and the N.A.B.B.P. heading (if any) is ~always the first item in the Teams cell.

What about demarcation between the NABBP and following portions of the Teams list? I have inserted another heading National Association of Professional BBP for everyone who continued in so-called MLB only as a player before 1876. This partly-abbreviation fits the space available and appears only in a pair with the full N.A.B.B.P. spelled out. For other major leaguers with some NABBP team listings, I have used either League player or both that and League manager, depending whether a previous editor had demarcated "As Player" and "As Manager". The use of "League" is noncommittal regarding the MLB brand and it fits our practice in calling NAPBBP a league, or the "first professional league".

Always I have formatted these two or three headings within the Teams cell using initial semicolons, hardspaces, and colons. That improves the look by indenting the headings a little and the listings a lot, rather than jamming N or a bullet against the left boundary of the cell. It also leaves "League player" and "League manager" easy to change by substitution of MLB for League, if others decide to go there, because League always appears literally as the string  (followed by "players" or "managers").

For example visit Jack Chapman. Among the three NABBP team listings only Brooklyn Atlantics is linked. There is no page for the Enterprise or Quaker City club, nor do I recommend true stubs, so I have not redlinked those listings. (There is a Category:Brooklyn Enterprise players. While listing NABBP teams I have added the same pages to previously existing "players by team" categories.)

Marshall Wright's compilation is the source for almost all of my NABBP teams listings and classifications in players by team categories. I have not provided references and I feel tentatively that superscripts are inappropriate there. I have upgraded any article from stub to start only where I have included some write-up of the NABBP career, typically relying on the data compiled by Wright, with a reference. For example visit Dickie Flowers. --P64 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of pages that need major work
Recently, the National Association as a major league page went through PROD and was deleted without any fanfare. It has since been restored, but it drew my attention to the page, and...wow, is it in horrible shape. I have added a paragraph on the basic nature of the controversy, but I figure someone from this subproject could probably better handle this than I. For an important historical (and statistical) issue, the page has almost no information on the issue itself, and instead consists mostly of background on the NAPBBP.

On a similar note, the Differences and evolution section of the Baseball rules page mentions absolutely nothing about the rules of the 19th century (or, indeed, any major rule difference beyond the introduction of the DH), and indeed the focus is on the "static" nature of the game's rules in the "modern era". It's seriously pathetic. On this one, I don't even know where to start, since the differences between the modern game and the game of, say, 1871 are so vast. -Dewelar (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2011 (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)

Hands lost redirect
Hands lost is an ancient baseball statistic. It previously had its own article, a stub. Somebody recently redirected Hands lost to Baseball statistics, without adding any material about Hands lost to that article. I don't know if anyone here cares about old-time statistics, but this seemed to be a good place to mention this loss of coverage. Lou Sander (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Research request
Need a source. Many "RS" (a dubious classification with regard to early baseball), such as the Britannica, assert that Philadelphia N.L. officially adopted the name Phillies in 1890, making it the oldest team name in American professional sports. But I'll be darned if I can find a primary source backing up the assertion. Anyone? Solicitr (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)