Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wrigley Field

Before or if I take this to dispute resolution, I'd like to hear anyone's opinion on which of these two edits is better [1] - mine, which is one sentence, and the other editor's, which is two full paragraphs about a grand total of 70 box seats (or roughly 1/600th of the ballpark's capacity) and which appears to be simply advertising for the company in question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the other editor and would like to clarify that, after this gentleman brought his opinion to my attention, I removed paragraph two. I have included the content I would like included here as to prevent any further page revisions until this is resovled.

"In February of 2008 the Chicago Cubs announced plans for a new partnership with the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). The partnership will include the first-ever auction of season tickets to Cubs home games in conjunction with naming rights to approximately 70 new seats that will be placed next to the Cubs dugout on the third base line. The new seats will be called the "CBOE seats." In addition, throughout the regular season, a second auction (known as the "CBOE Front Row Auction") will give fans the chance to bid on prime seats in the stadium via the Chicago Cubs website on a single-game basis. The tickets auctioned will include front row seats located behind home plate and near the visitor's bullpen.[1] " --Lmusielak (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is blatant hype and advertising of a tiny portion of the seating area. Its sole purpose is to advertise the CBOE. Should we also have a paragraph about every other entity that owns a few box seats? What about the Chicago companies that own the seats across the streets? Should we have a paragraph about each one of them too? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The CBOE owns no box seats. Just as the bleachers are the "Bud Light Bleachers" these new seats, basically on the field, will be the "CBOE Seats." The entire corporate sponsorship section is one huge advertising section. Get rid of the whole thing or accept all major sponsors Wrigley field. Additionally, the partnership will change how season ticket have been distributed since the team began! (i.e. This is the first time season tickets have been offered on anything other then a first come first serve basis.) I urge other users to respond. I am anxious to hear your opinion.

(Additionally, I will admit to reverting my contribution multiple times, the same can be said for Mr. Bugs. However, I will apologize for my transgression. Regardless, this discussion is about the validity of the material. Let stay on topic.) --Lmusielak (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Let's count up some of the guideline violations:
    • "The partnership will change how..." - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
    • 1 or 2 paragraphs on just 70 seats out of over 41,000; the Bud Light bleachers are several thousand seats, for example, and I find just TWO sentences about it, one of which simply states that it changes the appearance of the bleacher entrance. - Undue weight, and advertising for the CBOE (such as your original post that twice made the point about the CBOE being a "registered trade mark", which is irrelevant to the article).
    • Oh, and your 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not violate the the 3-revert rule, and you did, even though you were warned. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, too much of the editor's comments, whether 1 or 2 paragraphs, are nearly word-for-word from the press release [2] and hence are copyright violation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't think copyvio flies here, Organizations send out press releases to be used and are, in fact, pleased as punch if you quote the whole damn thing verbatim. The issue is not that it might be violating the Cubs' or CBOE's copyright by over-quoting a press release, the issue is that an encyclopedia shouldn't have quotes from a press release in it masquerading as fact, because a press release is, by definition, POV and not necessarily a reliable source. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That was the main point, that it was largely sales puffery... over 70 seats yet. I think the editor in question has moved on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nashville Sounds

Congrats to those who helped get Nashville Sounds to GA status, especially User:NatureBoyMD. With all the emphasis in Wikiproject Baseball on Major League Baseball, I find it interesting that there are only two baseball team articles at GA or higher and they are both minor league teams. The only ballpark article is on a minor league ballpark. You major league fans need to get going on your team articles. From looking at them and the ballpark articles, the main issue seems to be references. How many of you can get your team's article to GA or higher before the All-Star break? This is a challenge. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to defeat the fanboy factor (and I should know). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on Ozzie Smith's Featured article Nom

I recently nominated Ozzie Smith as a Featured Article Candidate, and I'd like to have some feedback from other members of the project. Besides any comments or suggestions, I'd really like to know if other WP:Baseball members think the article meets the requirements for Featured status. The page to leave comments on is here.Thanks, Monowi (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Roster Template

So I created a team roster Template that is now being used for all 30 rosters (in order to keep them all uniform and reduce the chance of someone messing it up). I thought I had gotten the bugs fixed before implementing it - but there still seems to be spacing issues in 1 or 2 spots. If anyone is good with that sort of thing - feel free to fix it up. (Just be careful... since it is being used.)

Now for the main discussion issue:
I don't think we need to have separate headings for people on the suspension list or on the restricted list. In both cases, they are still on the 40-man roster, and should remain there (with only a new symbol similar to what we do with the 15-day DL). The main reason why the 60-day DL people are separated is because they aren't on the 40-man. Thoughts? (at the same time... I think the legend should be moved to the bottom right side...)JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job getting the template going, I been thinking that one needed to be made for a while now, but I'm not good with those things. But to the discussion, I've got to agree with you on both points. We should just use symbols with the restricted and suspended lists and the symbols would look nicer on the right side. --Rabbethan 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
How do we change the update date on the new roster pages? Last season, I always changed it when I made an edit to the page, but it's been made a part of the template itself this season. Is it supposed to automatically update the date when I save my changes? If so, it doesn't seem to be working. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
DOH! Nevermind. I just found it. Sorry. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make it a bit more 'user friendly' JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead ESPN links

Links to player pages for players that have never played before are now dead. I had to switch Brian Barton's to his new one. --Street20 (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll help if I see any--Yankees10 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Caknuck/Naming conventions (baseball players)

I have tagged this as a proposed policy, and as such I'd like us to have a discussion and try to get this official. Disambiguation is becoming a far bigger issue than it should be, and as such we need to see if we can get this or something similar to be official. Wizardman 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "get this official"? The proposed naming convention seems like something to be covered in the Manual of Style—are you proposing adding this to the MOS? Are there similar naming conventions for other fields that are regarded as official guidelines/policies? BRMo (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing adding it to the MoS since there's really nothing about players at this point, and it's something we could use. Wizardman 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Category of players vs. all-time list

So just what is the difference between a category of X team players and a list of people who have ever played for X team? Example: Category:Arizona Diamondbacks players and Arizona Diamondbacks all-time roster. The list seems unnecessary, as the (all-time) category does what the all-time list does. -- Win777 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The list shows (as redlinks) players that do not have articles. BRMo (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Some lists also include information about the years and/or positions that each player played with the team. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

History of MLB Expansion article

I was searching for an article on the history of Major League Baseball expansion, and was surprised not to find one. Normally, I'd expect to be hit with {{sofixit}}, but what should be in this? Just a dry list of teams, and the year they entered the major leagues? A paragraph (or more) for each expansion team? (details of the bid, expansion fee etcetera)? A paragraph (or more) for each expansion year? (list of teams, list of candidates, brief explanation, etcetera?), Something else? Interested to see what the WikiProject members suggest about this. SirFozzie (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you only talking about recent decades, or about the whole history? Those topics are covered in some depth, qualitatively at least, in the league articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe there needs to be a dab page or a redirect, because what I was looking for, I couldn't find.. I mean a history of MLB Exopansion... most of the movement before 1961 was movement, and not expansion, etcetera. and then we've added 16 teams in 47 years. SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends on how you define expansion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
New Franchises in MLB, is how I would define it. SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you mean strictly modern expansion, i.e. 1961 to date, as opposed to 1882, 1901, etc. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Infobox MLB player for minor league players

Is there an opinion about using template:Infobox MLB player on articles for players with no MLB experience. Sure, the name indicates that it is for MLB players, but it can be used just fine for players who have only played in the minors. I have noticed a user removing these temps from some minor league player's pages and wanted to know if there was a consensus about this. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Independent League infobox

I have created a uniform graphic for an independent league team, but the "independent baseball team" infobox on the page (Lancaster Barnstormers) doesn't have a field for a uniform graphic and I cannot figure out how to edit the infobox template. If anyone can help, please respond on my talk page. I would greatly appreciate it. Killervogel5 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies WikiProject

I would appreciate everyone's support in getting Wikiproject:Philadelphia Phillies started. I've nominated it for a Project here, and I really think that with the length of the history, and the amount of season pages that are simply blank templates, that a group of dedicated baseball editors is needed to focus on the Phillies.Killervogel5 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can try to help you within the next couple of days. I've been pretty busy with other things but I think I can make some time.   jj137 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be great, especially if you could add your support on the WikiProject Proposal page (link above). Killervogel5 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Going to the Proposal page isn't mandatory - if you want to go ahead and create a WikiProject and bypass that page completely, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm probably going to go ahead and start working on this.   jj137 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have created the main outline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies. It still needs some work and expansion.   jj137 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MLB ballpark seating capacity

As I was re-writing the article on PNC Park I discovered a few different sources from 2001 (when PNC Park opene d) stating that only Fenway Park had a smaller seating capacity [3] [4]; fast-forward to today and I find that in the time since 2001 Fenway has increased in size, and McAfee Coliseum, Dolphin Stadium, Tropicana Field all have shrunk (Source: List of Major League Baseball stadiums). Dolphin's Stadium was renovated by the Marlins. However, within the article of Tropicana Field I can find no mention of seats being removed. Where in McAfee Coliseum, there is only mention that it could be expanded to 60,000. So which numbers do I use for the ranking? The highest possible capacity of a stadium or the normal capacity? Thanks! Also anyone who wants to help with my re-write is welcome to. Blackngold29 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The figure to use is whichever figure is verifiable. And there may be more than one number. McAfee closed off the upper deck, but if by some miracle they got into the playoffs, they could open it up. Hence they have two capacities, theoretically. And the Metrodome certainly does. The normal capacity for Twins games is around 46,000. For playoffs, they roll up the gigantic baseball card screens in the outfield upper deck which adds about 10,000 more seats. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I am concerned that the verifiable source that I am using is out-of-date. That's really what I'm questioning. I don't think I should add info, even if it is legitimately sourced; that is incorrect. Blackngold29 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I would try to find out what each team's media guide says for stadium capacity. As a side note, looking at the Tropicana Field seating chart, it looks like the Rays removed most of the seats in the left field upper deck bleachers to put in a party deck. I haven't been down there since 2002, but I don't remember a party deck. --Michael Greiner 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The tbt* Party Deck (what used to be The Beach in upper left field) is now bleacher seats. They still count toward the overall capacity, however. The reason for the loss of seats is mainly due to the permanent tarps they have over about 1/4 of the upper deck. It's about 2-3000 seats lost that way. I assume when they make the playoffs, they'll remove them for October games. Wishful thinking, I know, but one can hope! EaglesFanInTampa 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this info not on MLB.com? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If all else fails, if the sources vary, list and cite them all. Baseball America Directory should be a good source, and maybe the various guides... vary. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Russell Martin

Do you guys think it can be GA material? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It is much better than the pages of other similar young players. I would put it up for peer review to see what experienced editors thought of it. I would suspect that one of the main problems would be references. GA articles are usually referenced quite heavily. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything can be GA material of course. Right now, however, it has too much unreferenced content (more inline references are needed). For reference material, I'd do some searches on ESPN.com or on the sports sections of the major LA newspapers. Also, if you're fixing up the article, can you fix up Martin's season also? He's killing a couple of my fantasy teams.  ;-) Wickethewok (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll try and see what refs. I can find to add to the article. I'll try to source Martin's season, but I'm pretty sure I'll need help on it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My main suggestions for the article are first, expand the introduction to summarize the body of the article; aim for about two paragraphs of three sentences each. Second, I would refer to other baseball player articles that have already reached GA status, specifically Iván Rodríguez. You can get an idea about formatting, references, etc. from that article. Good luck with your future edits, Monowi (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll try to work on that. It can be that hard to summarize his career in the lead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Is it notable to include that he's the third catcher to lead his team to the playoffs? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Entrance Music?

I'd like to see each player's Entrance Music (both current and past) become a standard feature on player pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.255.115 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding a valid source for that info. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like listcruft to me. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, although it's a matter of opinion. But the likelihood of finding a usable source is virtually nill. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree as well. I personally love to keep track of my team's entrance songs, but there are no sources for these things, and it really isn't encyclopedia worthy. --Rabbethan 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that only certain well known ones like Trevor Hoffman should be noted. --Street20 (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That one apparently has a source. But those kinds of things are subject to change at any time. They could only be stated with a reasonable degree of certainty at the moment the source article was written. And it's only done for certain players in certain ballparks. I doubt that Nick Punto, for example, has any "entrance music". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kasey Kiker AFD

There is an AFD debate currently for Kasey Kiker. Branson03 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball. Which brings up a good point -- not everyone knows about that page.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's make a deal?

I see that this project has a few articles at WP:GAN. I'm from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling and we have a bunch of articles at WP:GAN right now. My proposal to you, is that if a few users from WP:PW review Baseball-related articles, will users from this project be willing to review wrestling articles? Anybody can respond here, as I will add this page to my watchlist for a few days. iMatthew 2008 00:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Frazee and No, No, Nanette

One of the interesting myths exploded some years ago was that No, No, Nanette was not produced until 1925, thus nullifying the notion that Ruth had been sold to fund that show. However, in his research for The Big Bam, Leigh Montville discovered that the money used for the sale of Ruth had been used for the original, non-musical version of the play in 1921. So the old myth turns out to have been true after all. However, many of the articles on the subject still repeat the 1925 story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting point is that the assumption that Ruth "saved" baseball after the Black Sox Scandal is only partially true. Ruth had already caught the nation's fancy, even before the scandal broke. So it was easy for the scandal to quickly become "yesterday's news" by the time it became public. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Champsionship navboxes AfD

Hey folks, there is an AfD discussion going on here regarding championship team navboxes (this one is in the context of hockey and the Stanley Cup). It seems from some of the comments that this may overflow to other sports projects (including baseball) so if you have any feelings either way on this issue, feel free to chime in. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Value of career switch-hitting rankings

I do not believe that career switch-hitting rankings (e.g. 7th best career batting average by a switch hitter) are important in summarizing the overall ability of a player. I do not thinking placing a player's offensive output in the context of other switch hitters provides any additional information in understanding the player's capabilities. (For example, I've never seen any player evaluations use the player's career switch hitting rankings as a factor.) In the Tim Raines article, I had previously moved the career switch-hitting information out of the introduction to a later section, but another editor reversed the change. I believe having the stats in the introduction clutters it and can cause readers to lose sight of the most important characteristics of Raines. Can we reach a consensus on whether or not career switch-hitting rankings are valuable enough to be placed in the introductions of player articles? Isaac Lin (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Rays: 'Mid' class yet?

Tampa Bay Rays, while it certainly does need some work (like most other team pages), has been rated "Start Class" as long as I can remember seeing the WP:Baseball infobox on its talk page. Is it good enough to be promoted to "Mid" class at least? - Sliver7 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no Mid-class, but there is a Mid-importance ;P. Do you mean B-class? --Borgardetalk 11:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced talk archive

The project talk page archive page User talk:WikiProject Baseball players/Archive 1 has found its way into the User talk: namespace rather than the Wikipedia talk: namespace. However, I couldn't figure out where to move it to: perhaps someone familiar with this project could find a home for it? (Because there is no user called "WikiProject Baseball players", it technically classes as a page for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G8, so it may be deleted as a lafrge number of such pages have been recently!) --RFBailey (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All of that is located in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Players/Archive_1. --Borgardetalk 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Decades for Category:Years in baseball

Does anything think it would be a good idea to organize Category:Years in baseball into decades and then into years? If so, someone would just need to request a bot take of it and it'll be reorganized in a flash, I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What would that do, if anything, to existing categorization under individual years? Also, where is the dividing line? For example, 1900-1909, or 1901-1910? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I would just follow Category:Sports_by_century and that structure. Individual years fall into the decades, which follow 1900-09. No need to reinvent the wheel. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That category is not set up correctly. 2000 is in the 20th century. 2001 is in the 21st century. The first decade of the 20th century is not 1900-1909, it's 1901-1910. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. However, that seems to be the consensus across the board. My main idea was that there are some articles that fit better into a decade articles (1950s in baseball, rather than each individual yearly article). This doesn't seem very popular so I'll let it go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Francisco Rodriguez Pitches

Under his biography, he has a slider listed along with a 2nd version which according to the article is listed as resembling a slurve, which infact none of these are right, in an article he is quoted saying that they are both infact Curveballs, if someone can change this i think it would be best, heres a link to the article for a reference =)

[5] 71.110.65.171 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

why no pictures of owners

why don't owners have pictures. Ramgar11 (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)may, 6, 2008

We need free images. If you have any of your own, feel free to upload. --Borgardetalk 09:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of them don't register on film. Kind of like vampires. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

can you upload pictures from team's website. and hoe do you upload. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.32.17 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. They would not be free and would need valid a fair use criteria. Easier for someone just to take a picture. --Michael Greiner 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
what about pictures from press conferences or newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.32.17 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Still no good. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Michael Greiner 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambig Issue

Hey everyone, I have been having a discussion with Djsasso regarding disambig article titles. He has been going around changing titles like Claude Elliott (baseball) to Claude Judson Elliott, saying middle names are the proper disambig. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but obviously that has a big affect on a lot of baseball biographical articles. Thoughts on this and what the poilcy is. All I could find was the biographies section ofWP:DAB#NAME. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Flat out, I think the other guy is wrong. See this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Pay particular importance to the "Middle names and abbreviated names" section that reads: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised." I hope this helps your case. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you NatureBoy, I had been looking for the WP standard for that for about 20 minutes. I think that quote pretty much ends any discussion on the subject. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I will try to engage the other editor. Feel free to check his contribs to see if there are any other articles that he has erroneously changed (I think there are a few). - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Walter O'Malley FAC

Is there somewhere to post a notice about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter O'Malley?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 MLB 2008 Game Logs

How does one edit the game logs for a major league team like on 2008 New York Yankees season?-Philatio (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit this article -> {{2008 New York Yankees season game log}}. The season page just includes (transcludes) the game log template. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I guess I could have figured that out. Thanks!Philatio (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of new Page

There is a player in Triple-A named Charlie Morton but there is already a Charlie Morton for, coincidentally, ANOTHER baseball player. What should I name the new page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philatio (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Historic moments?

Before we get too carried away, I'd like to hear some opinions about "historic moments", or possibly a safer title would be a "time line" for ballparks, especially the older ones that have had a lot of interesting events. There is such a section in Wrigley Field. An editor proposed spinning it off to a separate article. So before doing that, and before attempting something similar for Fenway Park and/or Yankee Stadium, I'd like to get some input. Thank you, all. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How do i add higlihts and awards section to Russell Martin article

under team would like to add section.Ramgar11 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC) may, 10, 2008