Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
WikiProject Baseball is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
Baseball WikiProject
Information
Project page talk
  •Discussion archives
Participants talk
2007 MLB team articles talk
2008 MLB team articles talk
Game logs talk
Articles talk
Dif.  •1  •2  •3  •4  •talk
Project category talk
Baseball Portal talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  •Worklist  •Log
Article Improvement Drive talk
Peer review talk
Deletion sorting
Quiz talk
Tools
Project banner talk
Welcome banner talk
Userboxes
Large Userbox talk
Project Userbox talk
Area specific
Baseball Players talk
College baseball talk
Leagues and teams talk
Little League talk
Old-time Base Ball talk
International
Australian baseball talk
Japanese baseball talk
Korean baseball talk
Taiwanese baseball talk
MLB Team
Boston Red Sox talk
Chicago Cubs talk
Cincinnati Reds talk
Los Angeles Angels talk
Minnesota Twins talk
New York Yankees talk
Philadelphia Phillies talk
St. Louis Cardinals talk
edit · changes
Shortcut:
WT:MLB

Archives
All archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Contents

[edit] Game Log templates

I was updating the game logs and noticed that Seattle Mariners still uses the Game Log template instead of having it on the team season page. Last year I believe we used templates. Somebody started to make the templates for 2008 but most were never used. I moved the Cleveland game log info to the template before I realized that most weren't being used. Is there any particular reason we are not using the templates now as opposed to last year? RobDe68 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I help edit with some of the game logs, and I personally think that it is much easier just to edit the game logs on the team's page rather than having to go to the seperate template page to edit it. Andy4226uk (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Andy4226uk, and I have tried to say it constantly. But people continuously wish to move them to templates when there is no reason. It is a template used on one article, it should stay in the artlce, not a template. It is easier to edit, and it is easier to notice changes if you watch the main page. I believe all game logs should be in the main season article, and not seperate template space.--Borgardetalk 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I moved the game log back to team season article for Cleveland. I may do the same for the Seattle article even though it's been using the template since the start of the season. RobDe68 (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A user has taken made most, if not all, of the game logs to templates earlier this afternoon. I personally believe that the logs should be in the articles as the templates are single use only and it is easier to edit them on the season page. --Michael Greiner 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the game logs should be included on the page only. Templates should only be used if the content is going to be used in multiple articles. Game logs are only going to be used on the specific season article for a team, unless there is a use I am not thinking of. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I am glad that you are all in a consensus, however that is not the policy. [1] and is not what has been done in previous years. Personally, it is easier for me to see if someone has only changed the template than to get notified for every change to the team page. (Puerca (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
Where does that "policy" state that the game log should be on its own page? The "code" section merely states that the game log should be moved to its own page after the season is complete. However, the examples given in the section itself are non-existant. It would appear the "Policy" is not agreed to by the members, therefore I think that there should be no game log templates. Template pages are for information which is same on multiple articles, this is not the case here. Blackngold29 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I know some people were upset that I moved the game logs to templates but I did so only after reading the page detailing the policy for game logs. If you guys want to change the policy then go ahead. I am merely following what has been written. This is frustrating for me because I noticed that the team pages would often have an embedded game log and there would also be a template. I was simply trying to clear up confusion. That being said, I will go with whatever everyone agrees. I think for the sake of consistency with prior years that they should be in templates, however. As for the examples on the policy page being non-existant, they were simply pointed to the wrong location. Puerca (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What consistancy? What policy? (See my questions above) No years prior have templates. Blackngold29 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:2007_MLB_season_game_log_by_team P.S. I am done posting here, I am sick of getting crucified for trying to help. I will continue to monitor the Cubs game log but you guys can figure out the rest.Puerca (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with you (or anyone) trying to help, but I would recommend discussing before making big changes. I'm gonna move the Pirates' game log back into the season article. If there is some sort of vote or policy change here I will gladly change it back, but for now I'm gonna go with what seems to be agreed on by the majority. Blackngold29 02:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I can help make sure the rest of the pages have the game logs on their pages instead of in the templates. I know that last year we used templates for the entire season, but I found that hard to manage and I think that moving them to a template after the season would be the best option. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on the logic of user X96lee15, I suppose it makes sense to have the game log within the teams page, since the template was only used there anyway. Now that they've all been moved, are the templates going to be deleted now? That would make sense, since some users are still updating those instead of the new one. Also, the Template:2008 MLB season game log by team page should be changed to link to the game log sections of each individual team. It is much nicer to be able to jump directly to a team's gamelog section without starting at the top of the team's season page. And finally, why would it make sense to convert gamelogs back to a template after the season, as No1lakersfan suggested? It would be back to where it was before this latest switch. --Mtjaws (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Less accessible to vandals would be my guess. --Michael Greiner 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's really stupid to have this much template code in any article. That's the whole point of a template - to make it easy to insert information into an article without all the code taking up space. Whether or not it's only on one article is irrelevant, and I personally hate to navigate an article I'm editing with all that code in there.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." from Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Usage. --Michael Greiner 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MiLB rosters

Hey folks, please forgive if I'm posting in the wrong place or duplicated someone's work. I've thrown together a variant of {{MLB roster}} for minor league teams called {{MiLB roster}}. The main change is in the external roster links, and in adding a place to indicate membership in the 40-man roster of the parent team (when there is one). I've tested it in the main space with {{Toledo Mud Hens roster}} (previously hard-coded). Is this worth pursuing? Are folks in favor of this? Am I wasting my time ;)? Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, what's the difference between this and the roster on say, Rochester Red Wings? Otherwise keep up the good work and lets make the MiLB pages just as good as the MLB ones! Philatio (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look at {{Rochester Red Wings roster}}, the table is hard-coded HTML and wikitax. This template abstracts all that. Look at the source for the Mud Hens table and you'll see the difference. Otherwise, there shouldn't be a visual difference between the two. Mackensen (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well simpler is better! Philatio (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I was behind the initial creation of most (not all, but a lot) of the MiLB team rosters that mimic the style of the MLB versions. Don't let that sound like I’m asymmetrically opposed to the temp, I applaud your effort to improve coverage of the minors on Wikipedia. But, here are two ways that I think the template falls behind the hard-coded version: 1) The temp doesn't allow for a link to team specific transactions, only league-wide transactions. I know many teams don't have a transactions page on their website, but some do. 2) The temp doesn't allow for the separation of pitchers into the starting rotation and the bullpen. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 1 is, I grant, a design choice. Adding an optional transaction link is certainly possible. Point 2 is incorrect: it accepts parameters for bullpen and starters just like the majors template. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And added (via TransactionLink). Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I just looked at how it was being used for Toledo and didn't look at the coding. So, those points are resolved. I also came up with a few other small points/issues. I hope I don't seem anal; I just think they are worth mentioning. 1) MiLB.com's rosters don't use the term "bereavement", they use "reserve". Would it be best to match the term used by the source of the rosters (i.e. MiLB.com's rosters)? 2) How about swapping the positions of suspended and bereavement/reserve in the key. Since more players would be expected to be on the reserve list than the suspended list, wouldn't it be better to put the reserve icon first? 3) The icon for 40-man roster players (§) is kinda big. Maybe it and the suspended icon (*) should be swapped? That way, the roster won’t look cluttered. 4) Put an extra space in between the coach's list and the key (like the MLB roster temp). Most of these are design choices, but I think they may improve the readability/usefullness of the rosters. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and a place to include a link to the rotation (similar to the MLB roster's depth chart) would be great too. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
These all sound like good ideas to me. I was trying to stay consistent with the MLB rosters as much as possible; I have no objection to swapping * and §. I'll see about these changes shortly. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Cosmetic changes are in place. About this rotation link, can you give me an example? Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See Template:Nashville Sounds Roster. The rotation link there will take you to notes for the team's current game. The pitcher for the current game and the pitchers for the next 4 games (at bottom of first page) make up the starting rotation. This would definatly need to be an optional link as very few teams seem to have one location that lists their rotation. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's more than the starting rotation--that's what I'd expect to find in the program at the game. Hrmm. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Bringing the indent out) Well, I've only got it there in the interest of proving that that is the rotation. MiLB.com doesn't provide rotations. I don't know of anywhere else to find it. I guess it isn't necessary. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Right, I see where you're coming from. Minor league rosters are pretty fluid, and I assume it's the same for rotations. I know that's the case for the Hens, because Detroit keeps stealing pitchers. There's no reason not to include the link; pity there isn't better data available. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of fluid minor league rosters, I've been wondering about the issue of deleting and then reentering the same player over and over as he makes multiple moves on and off a given roster. I experimented on Template:Norfolk Tides roster with hiding a player inside an HTML DIV container with a style attribute of "display:none". (The player in question is sort of a worst case: Craig Anderson has been moved on and off the roster 3 times already, and not only has to be disambiguated from other Craig Andersons, but from another pitcher of the same name.) Personally I think keeping the player "on file" with the proper article title makes for simpler maintenance, as well as creating a way to archive all players who were on the roster during the season, but I have no idea if it violates any policy to do it this way.Rklear (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MILB level references

Is there a preferred way to refer to the level of a minor league? I have seen both "AAA" and "Triple-A" in articles and wondered if there was anyone trying for consistency here. Rklear (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I use a mixture: single-A (because a lone A might not be clear) then AA and AAA. Mackensen (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A look at the scoreboard on the left-hand side of MiLB.com indicates that the standard way is Triple-A, Double-A, Class A Advanced, Class A, Class A Short Season, and Rookie. This method is also used all over that site. The official Triple-A site uses "Triple-A" throughout. This is also the wording I use. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If that's what they use, that's what wikipedia should use. The American Automobile Association is also called "Triple-A", but is typically spelled out AAA. Also, AA can stand for American Association (which was Triple-A, ironically) and also Alcoholics Anonymous, which is probably the most widely known "AA", so "Double-A" is less ambiguous. (Unless you say "Double-A-M-C-O". Don't get me started on that.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be triple-A--Star QB (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone up for a re-write?

As I looked around for a new article to make my next project I came across Honus Wagner, which is suprisingly only "Start" class. I was a little unsure if I wanted to do a second baseball article in a row (I just got PNC Park up to GA), but I figured if I could get a few other people to help me we could go through it pretty quickly. And I also think that Honus is a worthwhile subject to improve. I also don't want to try to write an article the length of Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth by myslef; as I'd be here until Christmas. But if we work together (Team-work *stomp, stomp*) I have no doubt that we can write a GA, and hopefully a FA eventually. If you have any suggestions, comments, or something that you think should be included we can use my sandbox. So, are you ready for some writing? Blackngold29 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "by" template

This may have been discussed before - I haven't looked. Anyway, I notice that a lot of baseball articles have full dates with the year as a template, e.g. {{by|2008}}. Doing this messes up date preference settings. Shouldn't use of the "by" template follow the set rules of linking, i.e. only in context, and only when it doesn't detract? --Elliskev 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Is there a specific example you could use?   jj137 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. This version (as I write, the current version) of Gary Sheffield's article. Specifically, After 4 seasons of underperforming in Milwaukee and his numerous criticisms of coaches, the Brewers traded him to the San Diego Padres for Ricky Bones, José Valentin, and Matt Mieske on March 26, 1992.
There are several other links to baseball years that I'm not sure about. --Elliskev 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm guessing it only should be used in context, but I'm not 100% sure. I would get a few other opinions, because I don't know one way or the other.   jj137 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did some experiments, and it does mess up the formatting if the pref is for the year to come first. (Someone has removed the by in the current version of that page.). Since it messes up formatting, I !vote for it to only be used in context, and never as part of a full date.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
On that. What does everyone consider 'context'? --Elliskev 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't know about anyone else, but for me it would be the same guideline as Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates -- if the link to the year helps the reader to understand the topic, link it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Series champ navboxes

He folks, I know I chimed in on a similar TFD a while ago, but I wanted to make you aware of an ongoing TFD regarding NBA championship navboxes here. This follows the TFD discussion that resulted in Stanley Cup championship templates being deleted. It's a pretty active discussion, and seems to be one that may affect other sports projects down the line. Feel free to chime in on the discussion if you are interested. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue is currently under deletion review here. If you haven't already and are interested in this topic, please provide your input. If the deletion holds, it is likely that the World Series navboxes will be deleted. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Player images removed

I found a couple player images removed from player articles by Dshibshm (talk · contribs) back in February. I asked him about it but unfortunately, he almost never uses edit summaries and is rarely online anymore to respond. It's probably a good time for people to go through their favorite teams' players' articles and see if any images are already in the system (either here or Commons). Dshibshm alone has made hundreds of edits with no edit summaries, so many other articles may have been left imageless by him alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] source credibility

I was wondering, does JockBios count as a credible source? They have a full out editing staff and even interns, says this. Pandacomics (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take it to mean that you meant JockBio (no "s" in URL). --Michael Greiner 02:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. But what is the WP:BASEBALL stance on it? Pandacomics (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball umpire stub category?

Looking at the baseball biography stub listings, it appears a large number of men listed are, or were, umpires. I'm wondering if that warrants a category unto itself. DandyDan2007 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The rule of thumb for stubs is 60+ warrants a new stub. How many are there? --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of players from Puerto Rico in Major League Baseball

I have been trying to improve this to nominated it at WP:FLC sometime during this summer, individually sourcing 200+ players has been quite an odyssey but the work should be nearing completion, suggestions from those more experienced in this kind of articles are welcome. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Avoid linking words in the title sentence (like "Puerto Rico" is), just link "archipelago's islands" in the second sentence to Puerto Rico.
  • You can never have too many citations. The "Historical performance and regulations" section seems a bit undersourced.
Other than that, it's a hell of a list. Good job. Blackngold29 06:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't it Puerto Ricans?►Chris NelsonHolla! 06:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm a little tired but these references are already in my "favorites" list, they will be added tommorow. Now the title isn't named "Puerto Ricans in Major League Baseball" because there are a few Nuyoricans there that have played with Puerto Rico internationally, nationality within sports doesn't always represent birth place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How come only selected names are wiki-linked? --Borgardetalk 08:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Only those that have articles are linked, the remaining ones were de-linked because they were red links, see here for an earlier version. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions and grammatical fixes, I will nominate the list shortly, further suggestions will be attended there, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current roster navbox renames?

What's the feeling of renaming all of the current roster navigation templates, such as {{Angels}}, {{Astros}}, etc. The current names don't really describe what they're referring to and in some cases, are quite ambiguous (such as {{Indians}}). I'm proposing to rename them to something like {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim roster navbox}}, {{Houston Astros roster navbox}}, {{Cleveland Indians roster navbox}}, etc. Thoughts? — X96lee15 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot longer names... I rather like them short the way they are.. if they must rename just do it as {{Angels roster}} Dont need to call it a navbox in the name. Spanneraol (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I added "navbox" to the name to differentiate them from the "more complete" rosters that are included on the teams page, not on individual player articles (i.e. {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim roster}}, {{Houston Astros roster}} and {{Cleveland Indians roster}}). — X96lee15 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer longer, more descriptive names. It's not difficult to type initially, and will rarely be changed from there. It makes the name of the template more meaningful to those seeing them on a list outside the context of a baseball article.--The Jacobin (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been over a week since anyone has responded. There's barely a consensus, but I'll move the pages later today and see if there's a backlash. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Template

Hey there, WP:MLB. I've put together a template for stadiums that have moved out of the "purposed" phase and have had physical construction started.

Template:Stadium_under_construction

--removed template - it was causing a non existent category at the bottom of the page --

Use it as necessary! Thanks! -- MeHolla! 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks nice. Thanks, but an existing tag may conflict with this one. The similar tag, which I did not place here as to prevent inaccurate categorization, can be found at Template:Future stadium. -- Win777 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Art Houtteman

Just point you guys to this FAC. Take a look at it if you have time, maybe we can get FA #16 for us! Wizardman 00:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liga Mexicana de Beisbol

I want to move this page to it's English name. Which the article says is "Mexican Baseball League", but the website, on milb.com says it's Mexican League. I don't know much about this league, which is why I'm asking what it should be named. If someone else knows better, feel free to make the move. --Borgardetalk 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I think that the page should be moved to Mexican League, and the Mexican League page is basically just a disambig page, that can be removed completely by adding relative links like 'see also'. Anyone disagree? ----Borgardetalk 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Quickly looking at the history of Mexican League, there may be some WP:CUTPASTE issues as well. Maybe a WP:RM is in order just in case. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied From WP:RM: The page Mexican League is an article with a significant history. This needs discussion first. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, so the article's title should be in English. The Spanish title can always be a redirect. And there's no harm in pointing out that (1) the Spanish name is Liga Mexicana de Beisbol and that (2) the formal name is Mexican Baseball League - just as the formal names of the American and National Leagues end in "of Professional Baseball Clubs". On MLB.com or MiLB.com, there's no reason to add "Baseball" to any of those titles, as its understood. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick but technically Liga Mexicana de Béisbol is the league's "formal" name since its based in a Latin American country, "Mexican League" would be its "English name". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Or "Mexican League of Baseball". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A grammatical point: The proper spelling is Liga Mexicana de Béisbol. Without the accent mark, the stress would fall on the second syllable. Hence, the article's current title is not even its correct Spanish name. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standings Template

Per WP:DASH and the Manual of Style, en-dashes are used "[as] a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions (Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Michelson–Morley experiment, diode–transistor logic." There used to be a short caveat in this paragraph about how the hyphen is most commonly misused in sports box scores. I've been trying to make sure that the standings templates (Template:2008 NL East Standings and the like) are using these en-dashes. I know that the standings templates weren't previously sized to handle en-dashes and were breaking lines, but this should all be fixed now. I would appreciate some support from the editors here at WP:BASEBALL in following the convention set down by MOS. In particular, there is one IP user who continues to replace all en-dashes with hyphens, very likely because it is simply easier to type. I did not know if that was another editor who just didn't log in or has been editing from their IP instead of a username. However, I've warned the IP address 3 times now to no avail. In fact, the user went back through the standings articles today and replaced the en-dashes for teams who didn't play games last night with hyphens.

Just wanted to make sure everyone had a heads-up on what was going on, and thanks in advance for your support. Questions can be left here or on my talk. Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Two questions:
1) Why do you use a "—" vs a "–" in the GB column? Seems the "–" is more appropriate, but that's just my opinion.
2) I've always wondered, what's Wikipedia's stance on using a "—" vs the unicode "–"? I could never find any MOS text related to the question. I prefer the unicode character as it is more WYSIWYG-ish in an article edit text box. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
1) I personally like the em-dash for the first-place teams for two reasons; a) because the MOS describes it as "visually striking" (and I agree); and b) because I think it makes sense to use a different symbol to signify first place (or 0 games back, which I would prefer) than to separate records. Either way, it's better than the hyphen.
2) The only reason I use the HTML markup version is because that's the way I learned it. Certainly I could use the one from the symbol box at the bottom of the edit box, but strangely enough, I have run across times when that edit box just wouldn't work (it doesn't really like my Opera browser for some reason, when I am at home).
I'm open to suggestions; if we can come to an actual consensus, then it will make my life easier because I won't feel so unilateral about it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many subprojects

Hey. I've noticed a growing trend of team-specific wikiprojects being made. There are now eight team-specific projects. Which means while they may/may not be running smoothly, there is little energy and work going on on the main parent one. Spreading all the editors out is not the way to get more articles taken care of; quite the opposite in fact. Many editors focused on one project is what makes WikiProjects work. I don't know if I would propose making the eight historical just yet, but I would like a discussion opened on whether or not this is useful. Is 1 WikiProject better than 9 in this case? I'd say it is. What are your thoughts? Wizardman 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best for there to be a Wikiproject simply called Teams. It is important that all league teams (whether MLB, minor league, Japanese League) have the same format, and all international competition teams (Olympics, Pan Am Games, World Cup) have their own same format. It is going to get complicated and sloppy if the Minnesota Twins and Philadelphia Phillies team articles evolve in their own ways. Kingturtle (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Kingturtle, do you mean something like this? As for too many sub-projects I'm gonna agree. Some, ie. Red Sox task force, has quite a few users but no discussion on their talk page for about two months. It is activity, not number of members which should decide if a task-force should be implemented. I don't believe there is anything that belongs on a team's task force discussion page that could not be brought up here. As much as I support WPs, dividing one up into specific areas isn't good for this project (we're acting as individual states, instead of a whole nation, if you will). There should be some sort of requirement for task forces to (1) begin and (2) after they have begun, a certain amount of activity to remain in effect. Blackngold29 23:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree. As the coordinator of WP:PHILLIES, I have nine other users who help with Phillies articles, and it's a lot easier to find and notify those members when I need help with something, need something to get done, or need to get messages out to them. Each of them specializes in something different, so I know who to ask when I need something. If we're going to roll the team WikiProjects back into Project Baseball, then what's to stop our project from getting rolled back into Project Sports, etc., etc.? This is the point of parent projects. Nothing against task forces, but many baseball franchises have, IMO, too many articles to be just served by a task force. I think the task forces are good for things like project-wide article standardization and such. Just my two cents. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we had a list of all the teams and users could put their name under the teams they are interested in? It would not be a full blown task force, but users interested in a specific team could easily contact other users if needed for a specific task. Blackngold29 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)