Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players/Archive 3

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

Possible review of J. R. Richard

I just went through an expansion of J. R. Richard, and I've brought it from 5KB in length to nearly 54KB in length. This should pass GA fairly quickly, and after that I'm going for FA. Can I get any other Wikipedians to review the article, copyedit and make corrections? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Selected statistics standardization

I'm wondering if we could discuss the "Selected Statistics" in the infoboxes. I think it is a good idea to have some there, but I'm not sure that great standardization is an improvement. We've all agreed, I'm sure that pitchers and non-pitchers don't get the same statistics listed there. I'm just wondering if we could tailor the selected statistics to be the most suitable three or so statistics for that player. This situation comes up more for the greats than for the run of the mill players. Some editors have suggested that for all batters the three statistics should be batting average, RBIs, and HRs. But I think that for a player like Rickey Henderson, having stolen bases is much more important than RBIs. (I would even argue that walks and runs scored would be more important than batting average for him). I also do not believe that for a closer such as Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera wins and losses are the most important quick stat, and that putting W-L record above saves, ERA, and strikeouts is an odd choice. I am mostly arguing against standardization which goes against displaying prominently whatever it is that players are best known for. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never knew people were urging for standardization on infoboxes, but I definitely agree with you. It's a bad idea, since the proposed standardized statistics do not completely represent what this player was known for. I don't think it would be appropriate to have HRs and RBIs for a leadoff hitter like Ichiro Suzuki who just tries to get on base on score runs; having SBs and runs would be much more appropriate. It's best to highlight the statistics that are most pertinent to the particular player, and not generalize on all batters or all pitchers, since they have varying levels of each statistic. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arghhh! Advice please?

Two issues: (1) User:Kinston eagle has been undoing all the edits I made to the infoboxes in the Indians' player articles. I've left a message on this user's talk page asking him/her to stop. But now if I revert the edits, I'll be in violation of WP:3RR, right? I'd prefer to avoid breaking the rules (and the consequent potential block). What is supposed to be done in a situation like this?

(2) User:Soxrock is updating selected players' statistics with current numbers. Isn't this kind of thing against guidelines (something about WP not being a news source)? It seems to me to be a bad idea to make these updates unless we're going to do so for each and every player's stats on a somewhat regular basis. Otherwise, we end up with an uneven mixture (mess?) of data on the player pages. Furthermore, this user doesn't bother to change the "as of" date, so, in reality, what they're doing is posting inaccurate information. How is this type of thing supposed to be handled here?

Thanks in advance for any and all feedback. --Sanfranman59 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) I left a message also asking not to revert articles that are correct as they stand, but I don't think I'll revert any of his changes for now, so as not to escalate the situation since it's not an egregious state the articles are currently in.
(2) I don't know about any particular guidelines against what Soxrock is doing--it is true that updating selected players' stats might make some players look like they've done more than others, but WP isn't now (or ever will be) a finished encyclopedia. I agree thought that the "as of" date must be updated, and if one stat is updated they all need to be. Some players are approaching milestones (today John Smoltz got win 200, being the first with 200 wins and 150 saves; congrats city of Atlanta) and it would seem odd for the article not to mention this fact, or to mention it and have the statbox say something less. Bonds's home run numbers are probably relevant to a wider population even beyond baseball fans, so I think it's important that they're reasonably up to date and not left at end of 2006 numbers. I'm personally guilty of updating Trevor Hoffman's save numbers each night he gets one as he approaches 500, but I've tried to enforce the notice that strikeout numbers and career ERA (ugh to calculate nightly) numbers must also be updated.
I think the best thing to consider is that WP will never be the authoritative source for either up-to-the-minute stats or quantity of statistical information, so we should tolerate certain non-standardizations and spend most of our time on the prose. Thanks for bringing this up! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock

Hey guys, this guy Soxrock is going around and changing all the years from 2003 in baseball|2003, how it is listed on all players to 2003 in MLB|2003, and he is only doing it on half of the entries for a certain player, so half are the right way and half is the way he wants it, I told him repeatedly to stop, as it will create more work to go back and revert all his edits back to the original way, he will have none of it, after my reverts back to the original, he went and reverted back to his way, saying that he doesn't care. We need to do something with this guy, all this guy is doing is causing problems. MetsFan153 13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox year links

I propose for all Major League Baseball players boxes that years that there is a single Major League Baseball season (i.e. 2000 MLB season) that it replace what is currently in the links (i.e. 2000 in baseball would be replaced). It's a good idea in my mind. What about yours? Thanks Soxrock 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is better with the MLB season instead of in baseball--Yankees10 14:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

After looking I have changed my mind considering in baseball has way more information than the MLB season --Yankees10 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Yakees10

STRONG NO, first off the 2000 MLB season example, only has about 10 or so years on it, like from 1998 - 2007 only, second all retired players, current players have 2000 in baseball, changing would require a lot of work to be put in to change everything, and thirdly the 2000 in baseball has been updated and has everything from every year from 1869 on, while the MLB season only has the following years, 1985, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2000-2007. MetsFan153 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a good idea to try to change your minds. I plan to make the basic groundworks for many un-made pages (i.e. 1968 or any other year). What would you say if I made those pages and provided a good amount of information? please say yes if I do. Soxrock 14:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that proposal would have to go in front the entire Baseball Wikiproject, not just the players task force. Michael Greiner 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the first I've become aware that there are both "yyyy in baseball" and "yyyy MLB season" articles. Why is this? Shouldn't they be merged? --Sanfranman59 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
All of the yyyy MLB season articles are exact clones of the yyyy in baseball, except for the current year of 2007, other then that they are just clones of one another with the yyyy in baseball with much more info, in fact it looks like most of the info in the yyyy MLB season was copied from yyyy in baseball. MetsFan153 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, MetsFan ... and what's more, Soxrock is following through on his proposal to create other "yyyy MLB season" articles that appear to me to be almost exact duplicates of the corresponding "yyyy in baseball" articles. Why are you doing this, Sox??
The naming convention should be "xxxx in baseball" for two main reasons:
  1. To include important events in college baseball, the LLWS, Japanese baseball and international play. Baseball doesn't begin and end with the Major Leagues.
  2. WP:NC specifies "Avoid the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, in page naming...", so "xxx in MLB" is non-standard.
I think that should sum it up. I think this should go to a straw vote ASAP to get a binding consensus. Caknuck 02:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight ... the "MLB season" articles are actually named "yyyy Major League Baseball season". If you use the MLB abbreviation, you're redirected.
I'm more torn now about what to do about this issue. While 2006 Major League Baseball season and 2005 Major League Baseball season include some overlap with 2006 in baseball and 2005 in baseball (playoff results and major award winners), they also have quite a bit of additional information specific to MLB (complete standings, additional award winners, team and individual statistical leaders, milestones). I think it makes sense to keep these articles as is, although I think the 2005 article needs some expansion. That said, I don't agree with Soxrock's approach of starting new or modifying existing "yyyy MLB season" articles so that they are 95% identical to the corresponding "yyyy in baseball" (as he did, for example, with 1999 Major League Baseball season), with the intention of adding more of the other details later. I would, however, support the new articles if they are modeled on those for the 2005 and 2006 MLB seasons.
Then there's the related issue of which article should be wikilinked where seasons are referenced in player articles. I think I would prefer the links be to the "MLB season" article (for MLB players, that is) assuming we can get all of these articles up to some basic, to-be-agreed-upon standard. --Sanfranman59 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions (baseball players)

As discussed above, I have posted the draft copy of the proposed naming convention for baseball player articles here. Please feel free to discuss/propose changes at the talk page for the draft copy. I will post a notice at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Thanks, Caknuck 04:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template on HOF players

In the absence of Template:Mlbhof, I have been using Template:Mlbretired on former players who are now in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Does anyone disagree with this strategy? If so, what alternative do you suggest? //Tecmobowl 04:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Page Move for Shoeless Joe Jackson

I have been trying to familiarize my self with the various naming conventions of wiki. Based on everything I have read, I am not sure if Shoeless Joe Jackson is in fact, named appropriately. I am sure that this will be a hot issue, but if we focus on the information and not on personal opinion, I think we can have a solid discussion. I am having a difficult time locating articles for athletes who had a supplemental nickname (as opposed to a nickname that "replaced" their common name - ie... Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth. It would seem that Joe Jackson (baseball player) would be more appropriate? Any thoughts? //Tecmobowl 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with Shoeless Joe Jackson. Unlike Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth, who are usually referred to by their full names, Jackson has, for the most part, been written as "Shoeless Joe". I have never seen an instance in a book where his name was actually written as Joe Jackson. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the two central tenets of WP:NCP point toward keeping it at Shoeless Joe Jackson: use the name that is most generally recognisable, and use the name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles. Changing to Joe Jackson (baseball player) would run contrary to each of those ideas, wouldn't it? -- JHunterJ 23:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't really argue with that rational. I definitely agree with the second part. So there we go then! :-). In that respect, should i move an article i just created? The current article is Bill Burns (baseball player), but i would suspect it should go at Sleepy Bill Burns. // 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Definitely agree with JHunterJ that Shoeless Joe Jackson is the most commonly used name for the player. A Joe Jackson (baseball player) redirect to Shoeless Joe Jackson would also be a nice thing to have. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirect in place // Tecmobowl 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with a closely related article

I recently created the USA Today All-USA high school baseball team article. I think it can be pretty useful if done right. However, before I get to far into it, does anyone have any suggestion for how it is formated and what information is relayed? I could also use some help in figuring out which players (beyond the obvious ones like Joe Mauer), are really noteworthy and deserve their own articles. //Tecmobowl 18:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus (and elitist) opinion of those in this project is that anyone who has not achieved the status of a major leaguer (unless they happen to play in Japan) is undeserving of having their own page on Wikipedia. All those you have linked at the moment, would be beneath Wikipedia's lofty standards in their consensus opinion. Minor league teams are not even allowed in their precious infoboxes (unless they are Japanese teams of course).Kinston eagle 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree, unfortunately, when trying to get the bunk content removed, I got attacked by an admin.  :-) I don't think being the son of a famous athlete makes you famous. I am 100% behind your statement!!! People have been yelling at me for the past two weeks for tagging those player pages as CSDs. That aside, I still think the teams, in and of themselves, have some notability. Thoughts?? //Tecmobowl 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Tecmo, I agree with you that many of the minor leaguer and high schooler articles fail the notability test. Take Blake Beavan and Julio Borbon for example. Unfortunately, in this case, CSD is not the route to go. Notability concerns should be directed to AfD. If the other articles you mentioned there are half as weak as the ones as the two I linked, then they'll likely wind up deleted. Caknuck 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of HoF Template

The template has been proposed for deletion here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:MLB_HoF

Baseball Project members might like to voice an opinion. Modernist 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Colors

there has been a lot of discussion and arguement about what colors should be in Reggie Jacksons and Jeff Nelson (baseball player)s infoboxes, and in some peoples opinions the colors should be neutral in all retired players infoboxes like in retired football players infoboxes, write your opinion about what we should do, neutral or not?--Yankees10 01:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

  • Obviously, we were writing our opinions at the same time... -- Transaspie 01:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral colors for retired players

  • Hi. I have been following several articles that are undergoing disputes over the color schemes being used in the players' infoboxes. An edit war arose on Reggie Jackson's page, for example, because one faction wants to give him Athletics colors, another wants to give him Yankees colors. It's an incredibly pedantic dispute, and it's been suggested that the Template:Mlbretired template that retired players use should be given neutral colors to avoid these kind of disputes. Neutral colors will also help with 19th century baseball players...I often have no idea how an infobox SHOULD be colored so I just try and come up with something that looks good, regardless of it being correct or not. But anyway, I was wondering on behalf of those arguing on Reggie's page whether it would be okay to give the infobox neutral colors. I understand this would effect a very large amount of articles...when I counted at 01:35 UTC, there were 1,332 articles that used the template, all but a few of those are used in players' articles, and the vast majority of them have colors. But it's sensible to do something like this. What does everyone else think? -- Transaspie 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is key. Not all players have an obvious choice for colors, especially in these days of free agency. If some players have colors that cannot be agreed upon, no retired players should have them. They are not under contract with an MLB team, they don't need colors.Chris Nelson 01:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But what color would be the neutral color, it really doesnt look good when there is no color with the black words, would it be something like the LightBlueSteel (or whatever it is) like the NFL infobox, or something different--Yankees10 01:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

  • Even when we want neutral colors, we have disputes over the colors we use... -- Transaspie 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Why not use a light tan and a light grey... the traditional colors for away uniforms? Caknuck 04:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hot pink and forest green?Chris Nelson 04:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Let's do light blue and pink...that'd be perfect for me. Or, better, yet, how about we STOP the current line of conversation? In a few short hours, we have already seemed to forget the damn reason we made this post. We have stopped taking the issue seriously already...instead of a conversation about neutral colors, we have decided to focus ALL of the attention on what exactly makes up "neutral". I admittedly feel like maybe that's all we can talk about in regards to neutral colors...but somehow I already feel like we've lost our way. Nice.  :( -- Transaspie 05:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • For the record, my suggestion was legitimate; the colors are neutral and relevant to the subject matter. Sorry if I opened Pandora's Box. Caknuck 06:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If grey is chosen, #999999 corresponds well to the color used for modern away jerseys. Caknuck 06:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be a cool sweet gray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.16.153 (talk • contribs)

  • I support that retired players should have neutral colors. Can we all atleast agree on that, before trying to determine what the neutral colors are? Bjewiki 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's definitely what I wanted to do first...I wanted to get the opinions of of those who aren't immediately involved in our color conflicts to state if they approved color neutrality...I'm guessing a lot of them are going to. When there's enough support support, then we can have fun with figuring out colors. I was just finding it too early to reach that step...but then again that's just me.
  • Although if we are going to talk about colors right now, what kind of tan are we talking about, Caknuck? Like, what hex code are we going to use for tan? I'm curious because I want to see how it goes with the #999999 gray. I've never been terribly fond of it but that's probably because I never liked the fact the Angels template used it. I wanted to see how well they mixed. -- Transaspie 13:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

why cant we just use the light blue steel the NFL infoboxes have--Yankees10 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

  • Not everybody likes light blue steel. I'm among them. In the infobox's current format, I don't like the way it looks. Is getting light steel blue in the infobox the only reason you want neutrality? If it is, then you might need to check your priorities. Even so, the first thing we are supposed to do is have the people NOT OTHERWISE INVOLVED in the disputes to share their opinions to see if they support it. At least two other users make infoboxes for retired players and colorize them...we need to convince them too. (And I'll probably have to drag them into this conversation first...) Our current goal is not to decide that we want X color for the userboxes. -- Transaspie 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S., the reason I was asking Caknuck about tan was because I wanted to see how it looked. I don't particularly like tan and I was wondering what shade he was considering to see if my opinion could be swayed.
I never said I liked the light blue steel, I actually think it is also ugly, so I dont know why you are getting so pissed about it--Yankees10 21:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10
  • From as much as you kept talking about it, I wasn't able to tell. Sorry, I'm just really uptight about it. -- Transaspie 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a convention for this. My suggestion, although a bit of the cuff so excuse the poor wording, would be this:

  1. The color schemes for all infoboxes of retired players should reflect the team colors that the player appeared in the most regular season games for. The team colors should be displayed in accordance with the actual team colors during the years the player was with that team (see: this example)
  2. In the event that the player is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, then the infobox will display the colors of the franchise that the player represents. Again, defaulting to the colors in use during the players years with that team.
  3. In the event that a selection of franchise colors cannot be determined (through various research sites like this), then the generic colors of XXXXX will be used.

Thoughts? //Tecmobowl 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • (Ahh, some constructive conversation...) Thanks for joining this thread, Tec. There is a part of me that wouldn't mind some standardization with colors since I've felt it would help. There's still going to be a lot of people who are going to argue against them...and as evidenced with a current flap involving Mark McGwire, there are people doing that just now. The first rule has a flaw in regards to pitchers, however. We'll use Mike Morgan as the example. Under these rules, Morgan would have Diamondbacks colors. He played in more games because he was a relief pitcher there and started elsewhere. He played the second most games with the Los Angeles Dodgers, and he split between starting and relieving (and made his only All-Star appearance with them). He played the third-most games with the Chicago Cubs where he started exclusively. What the hell colors are you supposed to give a player like that? If you decide that you base it on innings pitched, then it results in some very unpopular choices. For example, Rich Gossage would have White Sox colors under these rules because he started for two years there, and the only way he'll get other colors is when he's elected to the Hall. And you can't base it on games started since many of them aren't going to start games, of course. You run into nasty loopholes with pitchers and it becomes very difficult to standardize without making people angry and causing edit wars. And you can't make special rules for certain players because then we're just doing the same things that we were doing before.
  • But simply to avoid any more pedantic disputes, and effectively to standardize with other sports' infoboxes, I've wanted neutral colors, and others are interested in neutral colors for similar reasons. I admit, I've loved colorizing infoboxes, even though it's not fun when you don't know what way you're supposed to go. But as soon as the war over Reggie Jackson started, I stopped enjoying the colors...and the fact is that there could even be NPOV issues if one user tries to push a certain color scheme into a infobox...and it gets really messy when that happens.
  • Going neutral is the only sound idea that...while it won't satisfy everyone...it will eventually appease everyone. And that way, we can focus our energies on much more important things in articles...like the ARTICLES! That's my...20 cents, at least. -- Transaspie 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should watch a freekin awesome comedy, instead of argueing -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.16.153 (talk • contribs)

  • I do love content related discussions. While i personally love colors in the infoboxes, my personal opinion shouldn't cloud the issue. I myself am not tied to one side of the issue or the other in that respect. I am simply trying to provide a logical conclusion. In regards to the "Mike Morgan Mistake", I meant to say years with a team not games with a team. Does that change your position? That being said, I can see real reasons for both sides. Even teams as far back as the Red Stockings had uniforms. Some of the early clubs did not, but some did. That's why i was thinkin we set up a layered contingency plan where if circumstance A doesn't apply, you have two more to fall back on, with C being the "catch all". I spent some time looking over non-sports related infoboxes, but then i realized that they don't suffer from the same issue. While people might say a US state has colors and therefor the govenor's infobox should be colored, that's a big leap from uniforms. //Tecmobowl 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently, there's now a row over what colors should be used for Darryl Kile. That's actually rather sickening to me. It's readily apparent that he should be in Astro colors under the coloring rules (written or otherwise) but there are always going to be those stragglers out there who believe something else. Even if we use this format to say that Mike Morgan should be in Cubs colors (under the second idea, that's what he becomes), there will be others that will say otherwise. Standards or not, there are going to sadly always be people to push their own color schemes. And the fact is I don't want to see anymore color wars...not one more EVER. It's silly and annoying to have these battles. Let's just stop them before they start. Although, if we are obliged to keep colors, your idea is sensible enough to work. Games played can be used to break ties. But it's silly that we're putting all this weight over colors... -- Transaspie 03:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I officially want to close this topic and remove it from the talk page. This issue is becoming increasingly ridiculous and apparently there are users who still wish to further these color-based edit wars, even ones who support neutral colors. There are personal attacks stemming from these color wars. It is sickening. I do not want to discuss this fucking topic anymore and I wish I'd never discussed this fucking thing to begin with. -- Transaspie 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player naming conventions

Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed naming conventions for baseball players. The discussion on the guidelines can be viewed here and here. Please review the proposal here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for formal inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks, Caknuck 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) ==

I think this needs to be dug up and given new life. What do you think? After I sign off today, I will not be back on for at least a day or so. If you agree and have the time to get the article back into play, I will definitely join in when i return. //Tecmobowl 00:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This personally seems like the wrong place to ask about setting global guidelines for all athletes. What would baseball writers know about athletes outside of the four major American sports? We're probably not the right group of people to decide what the global standards should be. -- Transaspie 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to imply that we are the only ones that should enter into the discussion. But on a related note: as a total coincidence, it seems that the problem (at least as i see it) is not unique to baseball players. Here is the discussion on the WP bio page. I think that if some people take an interest in it, we can then look to bring in others with a related interest and get the discussion going amongst a broader group of people. //Tecmobowl 01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I only know this much for sure...I believe that players who played in the four major American sports leagues can have articles as long as they have known identities. In other words, no players known only by a last name or an initial and a last name. However, it might be cool to list players of certain sports with unknown identities on a single page. Probably the only thing that baseball writers have to try and figure out is what minor league baseball players should have articles. There's a few that writers can agree on...Dalkowski, obviously...Chilcott and Brien Taylor for their flop status. Other than that, I'm not sure. How notable does a minor leaguer have to be to warrant an article on Wikipedia? -- Transaspie 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixing the use of Template:Bbhof

Hello, everyone! I’m new to this particular page, though I’m a passionate baseball fan (specifically, I’m a die-hard Yankee fan — say what you want, but I’ve pretty much lived my entire life in and around NYC) and a constantly-contributing Wikipedian. Anyway, I thought this would be a good place to start a discussion about the template that I’ve linked to in the title of this section, Template:Bbhof. It’s a very simple external link template — with an input of the player’s HOF ID, the template creates an external link to his HOF bio page. It can be found on pretty much every single HOF member’s Wikipedia page (I haven’t actually checked all 280 members’ pages), but there’s a serious issue with it. The external link created by the template wasn’t even correct; it just redirected to the head page of the HOF’s “The Hall of Famers” section. I’ve now changed the template syntax so that it now creates a correctly-formed external link, but that doesn’t completely do the job. The HOF’s website uses six-digit numbers, starting with “110001” for Hank Aaron and ending with “124721” for Robin Yount, as member IDs. I don’t know if they recently revamped their ID system, but unfortunately, most of the Wikipedia pages that feature this template for HOF members use the template input of the member’s name, instead of their six-digit HOF ID number. (For example, before I corrected it, the template syntax on Lou Gehrig’s Wikipedia entry looked like this:

{{bbhof|id=gehrig_lou}}

I went ahead and fixed it (I happened to be making numerous other edits to the article), and it now looks like this, which is how it has to look if the template and external link are to work properly (as you can see, Gehrig’s HOF ID is 114860):

{{bbhof|id=114680}}

Clearly, fixing the template syntax was only half the job, and I presume that the sharp-minded among you can now see the momentous task that lies before us. It seems that the only way to correct the Wikipedia articles of all HOF members is to go to the HOF website, find their respective ID numbers, and then insert them into the Bbhof templates that are already in use on their Wikipedia articles. Obviously, doing this manually would take quite a long time, so I’m wondering — and this is a question for those of you who know about Wikipedia’s inner workings, specifically bots — is there any way we can automate this task? Otherwise, I’ll be stuck doing this individually, which could take months. Of course, if doing this by hand is the only way to go about it, I hope I’ll have some help. Any takers? Respond here; I’m watching this page.

P.S. And of course, to my fellow Americans: Happy Independence Day! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Steve Dalkowski has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Ted Radcliffe has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor league all-time roster

I have been working on the page for the Carolina League Kinston Indians for a little while now. One area that was started before I got there, and is present on many other minor league pages, is a section which consists of a list of noted alumni. I also added a list for alumni of Kinston's earlier teams. As you can see, the lists just keep growing as I find more and more Kinston players who have wikipedia pages. There are now some 140 names on the two lists. What is your opinion of an all-time roster page for a minor league team similar to Los Angeles Dodgers all-time roster or maybe a list page like List of Chicago White Sox people that would include all notable former players, coaches and managers. I was going to be bold and go ahead and create it, but I figured I should see what the feelings of the people here were. I don't want to create it and then have it soon thereafter put up as an afd as being non-notable. A distinct possibility since there seems to be a general distaste for anything concerning the minor leagues on wikipedia. Thoughts?Kinston eagle 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see a separate roster page than a huge alumni section. A few suggestions for the roster pages -- a notation for who has gone on to the big leagues would be very useful. Also, some consistency with the Major League rosters would be nice, even though not all the ML rosters have been cleaned up yet. The standard is supposed to be name, main position played (P, C, IF, OF, DH, PH), and years played, and only players who actually played in a game to appear on the list (as opposed to those who were on the 40-man roster but never appeared in a game).
Do you have a good source for this info? I wouldn't mind doing the work for our local Triple-A team, but I'm not familiar with the sources.--Fabrictramp 16:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The Professional Baseball Players Database 5.0 is a great source (I believe there may be a newer version of the database available) as are all the old programs, roster sheets, and Spalding and Reach Guides and the local newspaper (usually available on microfilm at the local library or college). League media guides are a great help as well as is the Encyclopedia of Minor League Baseball. Most Leagues have also had league histories written.Kinston eagle 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, The Professional Baseball Players Database (PBPD) is currently in Version 6 (1922-2004), and is now being redone to include all available stats (currently for 1920 to '29, but will be out with '20 to '45 some time next year). The 1922-2004 version gives just basic stats, but does give you the full roster. - Couillaud 01:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a fine idea to me, Eagle. I don't know if you'll run into problems with the WP police. I seem to recall someone coming around and grousing about the MLB all-time and current season roster pages because they're lists and apparently it says somewhere that stand-alone lists are frowned upon. I think if you at least include a brief intro paragraph, it may pass muster. By the way, great job on the Kinston Indians page. IMHO, it could be a model for every minor league team page. --Sanfranman59 17:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. I wouldn't mind if it was used as some sort of model for future pages. I think all teams should get as much attention. Many teams have the fans, they just don't have access to materials. I've been collecting info for an update of the Myrtle Beach Pelicans page in case I ever run out of things to write about the KTribe.Kinston eagle 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think I'm going to do this, but I'm going to wait a couple days to see if anyone has a strong objection.Kinston eagle 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Player infobox colors

I am bringing this situation up because of a dispute at Talk:Reggie Jackson. The dispute is about whether Jackson's infobox template colors should be the colors of the New York Yankees. The page has been fully protected because of this. The reason I'm leaving this comment is because I feel that with everybody giving their opinions about what colors they think the infobox should be, I feel that this violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which states as follows:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

I feel that with everybody giving their own opinions, this is leading to everybody becoming biased towards either direction of the argument. It is because of this that I highly suggest removing all colors from the templates of Retired MLB players, as not all of them, such as for Reggie Jackson, can we determine one way or another. I think that removing the colors from the templates altogether would prevent any disputes about which team should be represented.

This is an encyclopedia. We are encyclopedians. It isn't up to us to determine which team a player should represent. Removing all colors from the templates for retired MLB players is the only sure way to prevent disputes and WP:NPOV. For example, retired NHL players (see Luc Robitaille for an example)... actually, all NHL players don't have any colors in their templates. The MLB templates should do the same. Ksy92003(talk) 05:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the best nPOV way is to keep infobox colors only on current players, managers, and hall of famers depicting the team represented in the hall. I hate thinking of Wade Boggs in Red Sox colors, but it's only fair - he's going down in history as a Red Sox player. Another exception would be players who spent their careers with one team. Mghabmw 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think it's fair to give a different treatment for players who were inducted in the Hall of Fame. There are some great players who played their career with two different teams equally, but aren't in the Hall of Fame. I really don't think it's fair to give a different treatment for certain retired players as opposed to other certain retired players. Ksy92003(talk) 23:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if they played for two or more without being HoF, then they should take the more accomplished tenure with a team. i.e., Paul O'Neill and the Yankees. Mghabmw 14:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the infoxbox should be neutral (i.e. grey?) for retired players. That way there are no arguments, and no POV about which team someone like Reggie, etc should be colored as. Bjewiki 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


What about coaches that gained notoriety playing for other teams more than as being coaches? I think they should get the color of the team they coach or manage for. Mghabmw 23:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


Regarding, Reggie Jackson, I don't think it is any question it should be A's colors:

Reggie's career stats:

A's: 1,346 games, 756 runs, 1,228 hits, 269 HR, 776 RBI, 145 SB

Angels: 687 games, 331 runs, 557 hits, 123 HR, 374 RBI, 14 SB

Yankees: 653 games, 380 runs, 661 hits, 144 HR, 461 RBI, 41 SB

Orioles: 134 games, 84 runs, 138 hits, 27 HR, 91 RBI, 28 SB


World Series titles:

A's: 1972, 1973, 1974

Yankees: 1977, 1978


MVP Awards:

A's: 1973 Yankees: none


Top 5 MVP Finishes:

A's: 1969, 1973, 1974, 1975

Yankees: 1980


All-Star Appearances:

A's: 6

Yankees: 4

Angels: 1


Single-Season Career Highs:

AVG: .300 (1980 Yankees)

HR: 47 (1969 A's)

RBI: 118 (1969 A's)

SB: 17 (1970 A's)

OPS: 1.018 (1969 A's)


So he played more years for the A's, he won more championships for the A's, he put up greater career stats with the A's, he had his best statistical seasons with the A's, he made more All-Star teams with the A's, he won his only MVP Award with the A's. I know he has the whole "Mr. October" thing with the Yankees, but I really don't think that those 2 weeks in October overshadow an entire career where he accomplished his greatest overall success in Oakland. If he never won any championships in Oakland, then I could understand - but he won even more championships in Oakland than he did in New York and I don't think anyone would argue that the 1977-78 Yankees were better teams than the 1972-74 A's dynasty.

As for the Hall of Fame cap, let's set the record straight. The Hall of Fame has ALWAYS maintained the ultimate decision on the cap, but they never began enforcing it until the controversy with Tampa trying to buy a D-Rays cap on Wade Boggs' plaque. After that, the Hall changed their stance and began actively enforcing their power. There is a link in the article stating that Reggie was intending to wear an A's cap on his plaque but was upset at A's management when he was fired as a coach after the 1991 season. Sensing the opportunity, George Steinbrenner then brought Reggie back into the Yankees fold and Reggie subsequently went with the NY on his cap (it has also been revealed that Hall of Famers benefit monetarily with autographs and appearances when they are recognized with the Yankees). Anyway, had the Hall actively enforced their power back then, I honestly believe they would have overruled Reggie and put an A's cap on his plaque as they were just most representative of his total career. If you take away his 5 years in New York, he probably still makes the Hall based on the rest of his career. You can not say the same if you take his A's stats out of his career totals.

Another example of this would be looking at the more recent case involving Gary Carter, who was similar to Reggie in that he is probably best remembered for his 5-year stint in New York over a greater amount of time spent elsewhere (in this case, Montreal). However, when Carter elected to wear a Mets cap on his plaque, he was overruled and given an Expos cap based on his greater overall service time and aggregate statistics. In fact, I would say that Carter's case for notoriety with the Mets over the Expos is just as strong, if not stronger than Reggie's notoriety with the Yanks over the A's when you consider that Reggie won 3 titles for a dynasty in Oakland while Carter mainly toiled for mediocre Expos teams before joining the Mets.

As a result, when looking at the aggregate compilation of Reggie's 20-year career, I think that while he is remembered well as "Mr. October" with the Yankees, he played more October games with the A's, and that is where he also achieved his greatest overall success.

He played in the '81 World Series, too. For the Yankees. That's 3 WS for each team. Mghabmw 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)