Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:01, 24 December 2008

• WT:MLB
• WT:BASEBALL

Basketball Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject BasketballTemplate:WikiProject BasketballBasketball Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Reggie Sanders

There's an edit skirmish going on there. In case anyone is interested. Baseball Bugs 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are similar ones going on at several other pages, most notably Roger Clemens and Steve Finley.

These instances bring up a good point, actually: Do we actually have guidelines regarding when someone who doesn't "officially" retire can actually be considered retired? -Dewelar (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "inactive" would be a better term for a ballplayer who hasn't played for at least a full season, but has neither announced his retirement nor croaked. Baseball Bugs 05:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And retirement is such a slippery item anyway. Consider Brett Favre and Daunte Culpepper, for example. (Apologies for staining a page about the National Pastime with a mention of some other sport. At least I didn't mention soccer. Oops, too late.) Baseball Bugs 05:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I found the other page where this is happening: José Mesa. It was also happening at Aaron Sele until I pointed out to IceFrappe that Sele was officially a coach for 2009.

As for the pertinent issue...everything you say above is absolutely correct, but at this point I'm pretty sure IceFrappe is at or near three-revert territory on all these pages, if only because he's the only one that keeps changing the pages to show active status against 3-4 people changing them back. -Dewelar (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a dilemma, because in Sanders' case (recently, at least) the reverter is also a red-link. And if it's 3 or 4 to 1, the one guy will yelp about tag-teaming or something. Baseball Bugs 05:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired. Consensus was already established. Stop the drama now.--IceFrappe (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with this. One is that no vote was taken, and thus there was no method to establish consensus attempted, much less any chance that consensus could be "established". Even if consensus could be established just through such a discussion, I saw no general agreement on anything. I saw a lot of proposals, including but not limited to:

1: Establishing a 1-2 year period of inactivity before changing the infobox

2: Changing the name of the "MLB Retired" infobox to "MLB Inactive"

3: Changing from a two-infobox system to a single, all-encompassing infobox

So, no, nothing even remotely approaching consensus was established at the link provided.

The second problem is that you, along with Yankees10 and Jackal4, are the source of the so-called "drama" here. Bugs just noted the conflict in progress, and as for me, all I did was make two observations: first, that you're coming close to, if not violating, the three-revert rule (as are the other two players), and second, that you're not contributing anything constructive (which you aren't -- all you're doing is reverting other people's edits). If I were you, I'd take the dispute to an administrator before coming over here and making yourself look foolish. -Dewelar (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what I left on IceFrappes talk on why these infoboxes should stay:

• Roger Clemens- Has said that he has no interest in playing and will most likely not again considering hes 47 next year link
• Reggie Sanders - He is 40 coming off an injury, no team has had any interest in him at all, hes done
• Jose Mesa - He is another aging pitcher who no one has show interest in, hes done
• Steve Finley - This is a no brainer, hes 44 next season and has not played since the beginning of LAST SEASON, yeah he says he still wants to play, but no team wants him, so he is done

I dont know why people dont understand that a player doesnt have to officially say: "I am retired" to be retired, sometimes the game retires them, they dont retire from it, this user just starts trouble like he has done with all other articles that he has edited--Yankees10 04:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Again I say, change the concept from "retired" to "inactive" and then there can be little or no dispute. Baseball Bugs 06:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, add Barry Bonds to that list. There's no way he's ever playing major league ball again, unless some team is extraordinarily desperate for a circus. Baseball Bugs 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I didnt change Barry Bonds or Kenny Lofton and a few others because there has been interest or at least reports of team being interested in them unlike the players above who have had no interest at all.--Yankees10 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear-cut definition for retirement; however, I believe the information is not publicly available: Is the player drawing upon his MLBPA pension? For reference, see the 1997 copy of the MLBPA Benefit Plan, available at this link:

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=25

In particular, have a look at section 6, "Retirement Date". Isaac Lin (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer reading, this is only going to be indicative of retirement for players past their 45th birthday, which is the earliest point where they can file for early retirement. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If a player hasn't actually officially retired - then isn't it WP:OR to say he is just because he's inactive or a free agent? If he's not on a team and hasn't announced his retirement - then he's a free agent... it's an official status with MLB and the players union... Sure a player can come back, but thats not relevant - since making any assumptions off of that is WP:OR.JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing it from "retired" to "inactive" would solve that ambiguity. And players do make comebacks. Sammy Sosa sat out for a season before he came back, although he's effectively done now. It's risky in any case. I have a vague recollection of a Hank Aaron baseball card stating that his brother Tommie, who had a 2-year gap in his MLB career, was a "former" major leaguer, which was funny since he was reactivated that same year, for a short while. Baseball Bugs 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Bugs' solution is the simplest one. -Dewelar (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the term "inactive" instead of "retired" is a great way to solve this debate. Monowi (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take any suggestion, as long as it ends the ridiculous debate about whether these four players are retired or not. If it'll stop these dumb little edit wars, and allow people to actually edit these articles again without fear of getting reverted, then I'll take that option. -- Transaspie (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well here's the big question... How will you differentiate between Free Agents and Inactives without it falling under WP:OR? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Develop a convention. Something like this: "A player who has publicly announced his retirement and not played a professional game since, including spring training, is considered retired. A player who has qualified for free agency at some time since the end of the most recent completed season is considered a free agent. Any other player who has not been under contract at any level since the end of the most recent completed season is considered inactive." Rklear (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rklear, I think if they are inactive they should have the retired infobox--Yankees10 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

According to KFFL both Clemens and Reggie Sanders are retired: --Yankees10 03:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt fantasy sports sites would be considered reliable sources. -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not only a fantasy sports website, it is a reliable source that is where I get all of my transaction news from, ask Chrisjnelson about it, he writes for them.--Yankees10 06:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you (or me, or Chrisjnelson for that matter) to decide whether it's reliable or not. Also, I note that their news appears not to be through their own reporting, but gathered from other sources, which means that those sources are the ones that should be cited, not KFFL itself. Find the original news story that says Clemens (or whoever) is retired and cite it in the article. Then the argument is done. -Dewelar (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I have a source saying Clemens has no interest in playing--Yankees10 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it also says "I don't know if I'll ever say no", which means that by some standards we should leave the active infobox up until he's dead. -Dewelar (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe have JUST ONE INFOBOX. Ryne Sandberg retired and then made a comeback. Anyone could do so. Baseball Bugs 17:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would work for me, and if I had the programming knowledge I'd go create it myself. Of course, the infobox is only part of the problem anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Milkshake continues to use his false "consensus" citation as a basis for continuing the edit war. I reverted his latest changes and reported this point on WP:ANI. Free agent vs. actually retired? Well, it's very simple, as I see it: they are either under a contract or they're not. I could call Minnie Minoso a "free agent". He's about to turn 83 years old, but he still plays sometimes, as a one-day stunt for Mike Veeck. So is he truly "retired"? I would say NO. But he's currently "inactive" except for those occasional stunts. Baseball Bugs 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is redundant to the one earlier, in which Yankees10 agreed to cease his disruptive behavior. Certified.Gangsta and Wknight argued that Look at Hideo Nomo earlier this season. Chan Ho Park spent almost all of last year unemployed. Jeff Weaver didn't get signed until fairly recently. Frank Castillo recently resurfaced in the Atlantic League. So is Shea Hillenbrand who was signed earlier this month. Jay Gibbons was signed to minor league contract just this week. Last year feel-good story Troy Percival also took almost 2 seasons off. Salomon Torres was inactive from 1998-2002 yet resurfaced in the big league in 2003 and has been there ever since. Heck even Juan Gone got a contract this year with the Cardinals, so did Javy Lopez, Edgardo Alfonzo, Brian Anderson, and Kent Mercker who made the roster out of spring training. Yankees just took a flier on Eric Milton and I just mentioned Todd Ritchie, inactive since 2004, signing with the Rockies. Former superstars like Carl Everett, Richard Hidalgo, and Alfonzo shouldn't be considered done just because they play in Japan or independent league. Jolbert Cabrera, Robinson Cancel, D.J. Carrasco, and Vladimir Nunez recently resurfaced in the big league as well. (Nunez was designated for assignment yesterday after only 2 appearances) Nelson Figueroa with the Mets earlier this year. And don't count on guys who play overseas like Lou Pote and Mickey Callaway. I can easily go on all day about successful comeback attempts. It's not rare at all This statement more or less proved that it is extremely common for currently unsigned players to comeback after several years of inactivity. Yankees10 needs to learn that he and his unsavory friends do not own the articles. He also does not have the power to declare the end of someone's career. Bugs, refrain from referring me to anything other than my account name in the future.--IceFrappe (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop the edit war that you started, and I'll consider your demand (I didn't see a "please" in there) to stop using a midwestern synonym for your username. Baseball Bugs 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If the player comes back after being inactive for two years or whatever all you have to do is change the infobox to an active one. You dont keep it active just because the player hasn't said "I am retired". You think crappy players say I am retired, No, they don't get signed by a team and therefore it isn't there decision that they are retired or not, there is no one that wants them so they are therefore done, and all that BS about me controlling articles makes no sense, changing an infobox doesn't meen I am controlling the article, your starting trouble for one reason--Yankees10 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You also have to take in account these guys age, unlike the players you named above these guys are all over 40, Finley's 44 next season, Clemens 47 next season, and Mesa 43 but who knows how old he really is, the only one I can see possibly coming back is Sanders who is going to be 42, which I still don't see happening.--Yankees10 16:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start the edit war. Yankees10 did. There was an agreement, at least temporarily, to leave the infoboxes alone based on the thread a provided above. (in which Yankees10 was interestingly enough, a participant) Yankees10 should had open up a new discussion before unilaterally changing the infoboxes then edit war to keep his preferred version. Baseball bugs, who edit warred to keep Yankees10 preferred version, is hardly a neutral voice and should refrain from calling me anything other than my account name in the future.--IceFrappe (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you started the edit war considering you undid my revision (and basically everybody elses edit in between, because your selfish) first, and started this, and there was no agreement, the issue just died and no one payed attention to it--Yankees10 06:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Aight chill the fuck out y'all. None of you is in the right here. We all know Yankees10 has an obsession for retired infoboxes (maybe you should retired yourself?) IceFrappe, judging from his contributions, has an obsession for creating useless article redirects. (Ty Chandler? Calvin Andre Miles? Wtf?) Neither of you is doing the encyclopedia a service by engaging in this useless personal mudslinging. With no intention of biting newbies, I have to say neither of you is an asset of the project.

Yankees10 committed a personal attack, so what? IceFrappe, Grow a thicker skin. It's hard knock life on 'pedia my friend. By the way, who deleted the edit summary to cover up the evidence?

But Yankees10 is blatantly lying when he deemed the discussion IceFrappe cited as pointless. You don't go back to reverting your preferred version when everything dies down homie. Misplaced Pages doesn't work this way. What we gotta do is keep the pre-edit warred version (with the active/free agent infobox) and get more inputs to hopefully come to compromise.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Both of you are embarrassing the proeject. This episode clearly belongs to WP:LAME.--NWA.Rep (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wknight94 offered to delete it, and I told him I wanted him to. And no the discussion wasn't pointless, but nothing came out of it. I only changed them again because it was after the season and none of them were signed yet, and I remember that some users said that if a player goes un-signed for a year then they should have it changed--Yankees10 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What was the point of changing your username and saying your attitude has changed if your still going to talk like a Certified_Gansta? User:69.136.60.6 07:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And who the fuck are you? Nobody even knows you. Why don't you grow some balls and use your own account to post this instead of hiding behind your IP address?--NWA.Rep (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He's a Certified_Gansta. Whatever that is. Baseball Bugs 17:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder of WP:CIVIL for everyone. No harm, no foul. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit war continues. Baseball Bugs 10:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Has it been reported? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems to be about which baseball infobox template to use, I was hoping there would be sufficient interest here to discuss and arrive at a consensus. My optimism on that point is diminishing. Baseball Bugs 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, and have chosen to be a passive observer of this topic rather than a contributor, because I wanted to see how the issue unfolded. Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to be a lot of mudslinging and jousting with man-parts, so we may have to go to the next step. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What I can't figure out is why we need two infoboxes. Surely they could be merged into one. I hope the reason isn't something silly like team colors. Baseball Bugs 23:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What we really need to do is merge all the biographies infoboxes into one like WP:FOOTY does with Template:Infobox Football biography. The hard work would eventually pay off. —Borgarde 01:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that instead of creating a whole new infobox for inactive players, I think we should call them retired and if they do resurface like Troy Percival then we just change it back to active which takes absolutely no time at all to do.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fuck! This shit is pissing me off. Stop the drama goddamnit. Iamawesome, at the same time you continue to revert war with IceFrappe? Responding dickish behaviors with more dickish behavior is unacceptable. Just because you were not part of the discussion last time does not give you the green light to revert everything you don't like. You are anything but awesome. Don't be a dick. Please read WP:DICK for own benefit. IceFrappe may be useless and belligerent (not to mention plagiarizing my quote in his argument), but he is right that Yankees was told to stop his crusade with retired userboxes and that baseball bugs should stop the milkshake bullshit. It's basic civility. Well I ain't got much to say herre. Y'all just gotta refer back to the discussion on my talkpage and the archive on this page.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well while you're dishing out commands how about you please take a read of WP:CIVIL yourself. —Borgarde 13:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The expletive was directed at no one in particular. You should grow a thicker skin or life will be very hard for you on wikipedia.--NWA.Rep (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a fine one to be lecturing others about drama, potty mouth. Baseball Bugs 14:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Potty mouth? Stop being a dick by calling people random names or you'll be blocked.--NWA.Rep (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow you are saying he is going to be blocked for saying that you are a potty mouth, meanwhile you are calling people dicks, I am sorry but I am pretty sure calling people dicks is worse than calling someone a potty mouth--Yankees10 14:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

His interjection into this dispute, along with his over-the-top vulgarity, suggest trolling behavior. Baseball Bugs 18:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why cant we just make this easy and say that if you are a free agent for a full season, unless you are injured, then you should have the retired infobox, and if that player happens to come back all you have to do is just change it back.--Yankees10 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, your continued lack of respect for fellow editors continue to appall me. Your insistence to call others derogatory names "potty mouth" or "milkshake" are definitely violating WP:CIVIL and borderline personal attack. This, combied with your belligerent attitude and continued edit warring, will make your stay on[REDACTED] a short one. I consider you a troll and I don't use the term lightly. Yankees: No, your suggestion wouldn't work. That would be original research.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see why your request for adminship failed, as you obviously lack both the temperament and the perspective. "potty mouth" is slang for someone who uses vulgarisms. Since that's a true statement about you, it can't be construed as a "personal attack". And "milkshake" is a synonym for "frappe". And I stopped calling him that after he "asked" me not to. Baseball Bugs 00:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like a definition internal to Misplaced Pages than OR. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say again, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL still apply. Please abide. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The trolls who seek to stall the discussions and enforce their POVs have no business on this page.--NWA.Rep (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you still here? Baseball Bugs 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Yankees10 if the player has been a free agent for one full season then make them have a retired infobox. And if they comeback then change it back.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, how come me and Iamawesome800 are the only two that realize that it just takes one click to change the infobox back if the player is signed or comes out of retirement, really this discussion would be avoidable if people just used common sense.--Yankees10 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that as well, although I would not be opposed to waiting two years before treating the player as retired if that would alleviate any lingering ambiguity that may be of concern to some editors. Rlendog (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think two years is a little too long--Yankees10 23:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go with "inactive" instead of "retired", the issue disappears. A player is either with a team, or not. Baseball Bugs 00:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This is still original research. I dont understnad why Iamawesome and Yankees insist to label people as retired based on their personal opinion. It's absurd and unencyclopedic, especially when there is a discussion thread of creating new templates just below.--NWA.Rep (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What original research? There is no "research" involved, let alone "original research". Just determining a definition for WP purposes. A one year or two year period of inactivity without being signed by a professional team can be validated to many reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As there is already an MLB definition of "retired", based on the MLB Players Benefit Plan, it would be somewhat confusing for a different definition to be adopted solely for the use of Misplaced Pages. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is your source saying that they are still looking to be signed? Just because they havent said that they are retired doesnt mean they arent. Do you think crappy players wake up one day and say:"Oh I think I am going to announce my retirement today", no they just do and no one nows that they are done--Yankees10 00:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from those who don't care to try, I say that we still need achieve consensus here before we move on. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my verdict let's have 3 infoboxes, one for retired, one for inactive and one for active. I think that this will cease the issue going on. But I'm all for keeping it at two because of reasons I have previously stated.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While it doesn't seem like it should be necessary, this seems like a reasonable solution as well. How would "inactive" be defined? Surely a player like C C Sabathia right now should not be considered "inactive" just because he is an unsigned free agent. But defining "inactive" as a player who has not played or signed or been on the injured reserve list with a professional team for at least one year, has not formally announced his retirement and has not taken a coaching or other non-playing managerial position would seem to make sense. Rlendog (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Iamawesome, I think 2 infoboxes is too much trouble, 3 is pushing the limit. One infobox will do once it is refined to allow for different options, which I am currently working on. (See discussion below) —Borgarde 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tommy John surgery can easily wipe out 2 seasons. Russ Ortiz and Rodrigo Lopez are two examples. Free agents do announce retirement such as John Lynch, Troy Brown, Marcus Robinson, Mike Piazza, Hideo Nomo, Terrell Brandon, Jamal Mashburn (need I go on?).--NWA.Rep (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My definition of inactive is 1 year and THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY RETIRED it just means they have not played in one full season. And if they comeback it takes no time at all to change anything back.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant this, but inactive should mean inactive AND not signed by a team. Players who have had Tommy John surgery but are on a team's injured reserve list are still active. And since even free agents get signed when injured so that the signing team can benefit once the player recovers, those players would also be out of scope for the "inactive" designation. It would just be players who have not publicly announced retirement (or taken a position that clearly indicates their retirement) AND are unsigned by any team. Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone under a player contract at any professional level should be considered active. Rklear (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is already true. At least, this is the way I handle things. -Dewelar (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume so, too, but this line of discussion keeps focusing on injured reserve players, which gives it a top-level bent. I just thought it bore mentioning. Rklear (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the NWA guy is now on a 1-week block, in connection with an article unrelated to baseball. Baseball Bugs 21:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank god, the guys an annoyance, saying that I am a sock of Iamawesome800, with no proof at all--Yankees10 23:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He just popped in here from nowhere and started throwing his weight around, such as it is, and throwing accusations around. He was blocked for a week for edit-warring over Salma Hayek, and also had his rollback privilege taken away since he was using it to aid in his edit war. The funny thing, so to speak, is that he's nominated for the ArbCom. Hopefully today's events will put a crimp in that plan. He's already been turned down for Adminship. Kind of working his way down the ladder, yes? Baseball Bugs 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just check out this guy's edit summaries on Salma, talking about her like she was a porn queen or something. Still, it's probably good that baseball is not the only thing on his mind. Or is it? Baseball Bugs 00:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this is the only issue he cares about, he never edits anything else that has to do with baseball, so hes just here to cause more trouble and accuse people of things.--Yankees10 00:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Check out the rant on his talk page, which someone protected so that the ArbCom committee can see it easily. Baseball Bugs 11:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it why would he care about Mesa, Clemens, Finley and Sanders and not edit anything else about baseball?--Iamawesome800 15:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called "trolling". Baseball Bugs 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel like reading the whole thing, is he saying hes going to retire from Misplaced Pages?--Yankees10 16:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what he's saying, but don't you believe it. It's typical "waaaah, they blocked me!" behavior. They say they're leaving, they leave a lengthy rant with shots at everyone they can think of, then they vigorously guard their talk page. None of this matters except that he's bucking for membership in the Arbitration Committee. I'm hopeful his recent behavior and consequences will scotch that possibility, but ya never know. Baseball Bugs 17:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is what he is trying to say since in the first paragraph he says he might be addressing everyone for the last time.--Iamawesome800 17:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Might" is the operative word there. He actually posted it just to see what reactions he would get. More trolling behavior. Baseball Bugs 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

It seems apparent to me from the "Reggie Sanders" discussion above that every time this issue it either ends without a change or it turns into "jousting with man-parts" as KV so eloquently puts it. However, one thing that does happen is that it pops up again at some point. I see the situation as if we have three options: (1) Keep the current format, formulate a formula to determine when a player is "retired", and be done with it. (2) Create a new template based on a current one, likely from another sport. (3) Create an entirely new template of our own, while solving the problems that are apparent with the current design. So this discussion doesn't turn into another one similar to those in the past we're either going to set a timetable for discussion, unless there is a runaway candidate. I am going to create three subtopics, to go with my three said options. I encourage everyone to add pros and cons that they see about each proposal, along with a discussion. I would like to set a tentative timetable of one week (ending November 25, 2008) at which point we can move onto the next phase. Hopefully in that week one option will emererge as the favorite, if not we can extend phase one. Though it may help, I hesitate to say we're going to vote because it is discouraged, but after a thorough discussion it might have to be a last resort. If you have any comments about the discussion please add it below, but try to keep any discussion about a specific template in its own sub-section. Thanks! Blackngold29 04:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the below discussion, I've decided to merge options II and III. Even if we base it off a current template, we will have to have some new elements or alterations. If you would like to base your model on another sport please create a bolded heading as per below. Blackngold29 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Option I: Keep current format, set guidelines

We dont need to go through the trouble of making new infoboxes just because of this issue.--Yankees10 00:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why is there such a huge problem in the discussion above? It seems to me unifying the templates would solve this issue. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont see at all how it will fix the problem, we dont need to make a new infobox just re-name and make fixes to the Template:Infobox MLB retired--Yankees10 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Heres what I personally think we should do: change the name of the infobox to Infobox MLB inactive, and have guidelines so that after one year of a player being a free agent, then we change it to this infobox.--Yankees10 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, a suggestion! Does anybody else support or oppose this solution? I don't care which option we select, but I think it's pretty evident that saying: "Wait a year, then he's inactive" is a lot less trouble than a whole re-design. Blackngold29 01:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am neutral either way; obviously the first solution is easier, but maybe not the best solution over the long term. I believe that Option II/III below is the best long-term solution, but it requires a lot of work. So I will support whichever motion passes. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Both are viable solutions; that's why we're discussing it. This isn't a pissing match. We're not seeing whose is the biggest. No one is "right" or "wrong" while trying to arrive at consensus, unless they are breaking rules, which no one is right now. So explain, please, what you think is better about that particular solution. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just think it is much easier and better if we keep this infobox and just make the minor improvements, I personally like it and think that it is the best option.--Yankees10 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yankees10 obsession with retired userboxes is well-documented. One year is not a realistic threshold given that Tommy John surgery can easily wipe out 2 seasons (Rodrigo Lopez, Russ Ortiz, Vance Wilson). They are obviously still active.--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop saying that it is an obsession, its not obsession its common sense. Notice that I said that if a player is injured than they should still have the active one.--Yankees10 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I say we go with Yankees10's idea of changing the name from retired to inactive.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Iamawesome is a sockpuppet of Yankees10.--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No actually he is not, look into things before accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet--Yankees10 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As evidenced by the Reggie Sanders discussion, an attempt to keep the status quo and set guidelines will be futile, because I don't see how any definitive guideline could be created considering the nature of the "retirement/inactive" topic. I do not favor this option. Monowi (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Option II/III: New template

I don't understand the exact difference between 2 and 3, but option 1, the status quo, certainly is not acceptable in any way.--NWA.Rep (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused, does Option II mean that one template will be created for players in all statuses? I think this would be the best option, with a status field which could be active, retired or inactive (based on above discussion of what retired versus inactive means). Hardnfast (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Option I is not the status quo, because there is no current formula to determine who is retired when, so that's the addition. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

With Option II, I meant it would be like "adopt this sport's template" with Option III we make are own original one. Now that you point it out they are pretty much the same option, perhaps we should eliminate II or III? Blackngold29 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

One template, using "inactive" in place of "retired", or just simply stating "current team = none". Baseball Bugs 14:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Will this one template just cover playing careers, or will it include info on a player who goes on to be a manager, executive or umpire? I'm not thinking of a sports model here, but of something more like Template:Infobox Officeholder, which follows a politician around through multiple jobs in his/her career, essentially stacking one box on top of another. Rklear (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to take that into consideration, good idea! Blackngold29 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I like this particular idea immensely, and would put strong support behind a hybrid of the two ideas here; merge the morphable concepts and elements of the Officeholder template with the style and sports-appropriateness of the Ice Hockey template to create a single infobox that I think would be immensely helpful to this project. Now, who's going to make the bot to replace all of the other boxes...? Anyone...? *sigh*... KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You won't need a bot, the templates are so similar with input it's not funny! You only need to change the infobox MLB player (like i propose below) to allow for a couple of different options in the input. Which means a redirect of MLB retired to MLB player will work fine instead of a bot replacing the templates. —Borgarde 01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to base model on Ice Hockey (blackngold29)

My personal favorite other sport is Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player it is simple and doesn't have all the Achievements that make some people's infobox gigantic. It is the same for current and retired players. Blackngold29 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Propose a merger of MLB retired and player

Note: Example shown of a merged template at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball/Infobox test, with the merged template code located at Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox.

I propose a MERGER of the MLB retired and MLB player. It would be located at Template:Infobox MLB player, and the retired template would simply redirect to the player template. It would require a little updating to the code which I cannot since I am not an admin. But I had a go (this is far from finished) at Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox where i have added an MLB final game field - which is the only field different in the retired template! The only thing if someone could please take a look at the code is that I need a way for the current team field to go away when nothing is selected. Also, I need someone to take a look and make the option "awards" also allow for the option "highlights" instead, since this is what the retired template used for the same thing.

Now I think the priority should be merging, and if required a cosmetic change can come later! So please no arguments that is looks too ugly or something, that can all be fixed once the merger is complete. An example of the two shown next to each other is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball/Infobox test. —Borgarde 01:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one other field different on the Retired template, which is "deathdate". -Dewelar (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good option to me, like my proposal it would not change once the player retires; we will have to have a criteria for how long to wait after adding the "last game" date, because that basically declares the player as retired. It woul obviously be easier to remove that if they come out of retirement since it keeps the same template. The deathdate should be a pretty simple fix. Blackngold29 02:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If we were to do this than I think we would have to change the color of the free agents--Yankees10 02:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's gonna take me a bit longer than I thought to get those other fields, this code is written in a way I'm not used to. So hopefully if I can't someone else can figure it out. —Borgarde 02:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go and got deathdate in there which is working fine, I'm currently working on if Nothing is selected to remove the "team" on the bar. And in reply to Yankee, the free agency colour can be changed if this is a concern, not really a template issue. —Borgarde 05:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am not being a pain, but can we also make the jersey number an optional thing for just active players--Yankees10 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just did that, tell me what you think please. —Borgarde 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note, the "team" field should not be used at all if there is no current team. —Borgarde 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the issue of "awards" also being name "highlights" as well. So there is no problem with that now for a merge to take place. —Borgarde 05:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea. One unified template would hopefully make things easier for the editors of this project, and stem the tide of debate that is seen in places like the Reggie Sanders dicsussion. My suggestion for this proposal is that since the team colors were removed from the Retired Template, we could also remove any coloring from the new unified template, even if the player is active & playing for a particular team; my logic is that is would increase the consistency across player articles, and stem off any coloring debate if the player is a free agent. Another suggestion is that instead of a "Final Game" category, it could be called something like "Last MLB appearance" as a first step towards addressing the "retired/inactive" debate. Monowi (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the no colors, thats why I don't like the idea of merging these infoboxes. I dont like the idea of having to read the infobox to know if the player is retired or not and not having the colors would be even harder to see this. At least with the colors you can see that a player is still active. I like that when you look at the current retired infobox you can tell the player is retired just by looking at it, unfortunately with merging the templates you have to read it to see that he is retired.--Yankees10 05:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As an editor you understand that, but a simple reader who wandered to the page would have no idea just by looking at the infobox. I support the colours being removed as well, but am not going to take the colour issue further myself. If it's decided they should stay then so be it. —Borgarde 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the colours thing isn't directly related to this template and can be taken away easily. It uses Template:MLBPrimaryColor and a secondary colour one to determine them. —Borgarde 05:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From the standpoint of the infobox, is there any practical difference between "free agent", "inactive" and "retired"? I contend that there is not. You're either under contract with a team, or you're not. Saying you're a free agent amounts to self-promotion in hopes of getting a contract. Failing to announce retirement nurtures the same hope. And even retirement does not rule out a comeback. I am inactive and retired, and I could argue that I am a free agent. It's just that no one will sign me up or call my own agent. (Maybe it would help if my agent wasn't primarily an insurance agent. And maybe it would help if I had ever actually played major league ball. Whatever.) Baseball Bugs 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Main difference I think is that a "retired" player would show a "final game", an "inactive" player probably should, but a free agent who does not fall into either of the other two categories should not. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One solution would be, at the end of every season, post the most recent game the player has played in. Then you're covered. If the guy is obviously still active, or is a free agent considered likely to sign with someone (Manny Ramirez would be a good example), then just leave it blank, and it won't display, right? Baseball Bugs 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well BB, that's how the merged template (Template:Infobox MLB player/sandbox) will work. If the last game parameter is undefined then it won't show. —Borgarde 08:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to try and gain a bit of consensus here, is anyone AGAINST the proposal I have put forward? —Borgarde 08:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Im against it, not because you did a bad job, just that I dont like the idea.--Yankees10 17:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this merger. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this merger as well, at least in concept. I reserve the right to withdraw my support if I don't like how it turns out :) . -Dewelar (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am Agaisnt the merger. I dont get why they should be merged just because of this little issue. Both the NFL and NBA have there retired infoboxes based on this one and now we are just merging it and this is the only major sport that wouldnt have seperate infoboxes. I think this is a total mistake.--Yankees10 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because things are based on this doesn't mean we shouldn't change. What it means is that we as a project have been at the forefront of Wikinnovation in the past, and there is no reason that we shouldn't continue to be. Just because something is a certain way now doesn't mean it shouldn't change. Misplaced Pages is not paper, and it's not immutable, unchangeable fact. Things change; it's life. If criteria never evolved, we would be stuck in the past and nothing would ever change. That's why we have consensus, so that we can discuss and things can evolve piece by piece. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually think WP:FOOTY (soccer) are doing the best job at maintaining infoboxes, they have one infobox for all leagues, and you hardly see a football biography without an infobox. I think this is the way we should eventually go, but I'm not pushing that now, merging these infoboxes is the right step. —Borgarde 02:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that WP:HOCKEY has a single box for retired and active. -Djsasso (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the concept of a merger: as there is no functional difference between the merged infobox and the two separate ones, I prefer one template over two, which requires less maintenance (no need to swap out one infobox for another when a player's career ends). As the colour distinction is being preserved with the current proposal, I don't see any other issues in this thread regarding a merger. (I understand there may still be disagreement on terminology for a player's status, but since the merged template can cope with whatever consensus is arrived at, this does not need to hold up a merger of the infoboxes.) Isaac Lin (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger. In fact, I support the NHL template (see above) which merges active, inactive, retired, and whatever else all into one. Blackngold29 00:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger of the templates. Monowi (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So the only difference is that there is only one infobox now? Active players still have their team's colors and inactive/retired players have no colors? If that's the case, then I support this merger. Jackal4 (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is enough support to go ahead and make this change now. I'll request the templates be updated. —Borgarde 08:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There would need to be things taken care of still. I didn't realize the discussion was going on but i dunno if i like the idea. Mlb player looks nicer, but it's missing some things found in mlb retired. The two should've been streamlined before any merge. Wizardman 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What's missing? —Borgarde 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I thought was missing in the transition was something I forgot to put in the infobox in the article I was working on. You guys are fine. Wizardman 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson

Check it out and leave criticisms if you have time. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As I continue to celebrate...

...I have nominated 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season for GA. Appropriate considering the championship. Reviews from any and all project members who have not contributed significantly to the article would be appreciated. If you'd rather not participate formally in the GA nom, you can leave suggestions for me or other contributors here or at the article talk. This would also be the first GA for WP:PHILLIES since it actually started (though we inherited one upon creation). Cheers! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why in the footnotes section after d, does it have the word "tying" repeated? I've this in other articles too. 69.136.60.6 (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Expatriate players categories

I've been having a discussion with Djsasso regarding the purpose of categories such as this one. He was removing these categories from some players, with the edit summary "no longer in japan", which I thought was incorrect, not by definition, but by how these categories are being used. In current usage, they seem to be used to catch all such players who have played in Japan, ever, and that is how I have treated the category to date. However, is this the purpose for which these categories are, or were, intended? As Djsasso has pointed out, this is not the traditional definition of expatriate, so perhaps a renaming is in order. Anyone have any ideas? -Dewelar (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Category:Major League Baseball players from Japan doesn't change, the matching form would seem to be Category:Nippon Professional Baseball players from the United States. Rklear (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll propose another question pertaining to this subject. If a player (Ex. Aaron Guiel) is in the Category:Canadian expatriate baseball players in Japan, should they also be in the Category:Expatriate baseball players in Japan? Jackal4 (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, one should not be in the parent category of the sub-category they are in unless there is an extenuating circumstance. -Djsasso (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

New combined NPB - MLB infobox

After the above discussion on infoboxes and the result of them being merged I have looked at a further option of one infobox for every player. The template essentially looks identical, the colouring will still be auto, retired/inactive blank. The template is located at Template:Infobox baseball biography and I've been testing it on NPB player articles and it seems to be fitting in fine.

Examples of a joint MLB/NPB usage are on Ichiro Suzuki and Daisuke Matsuzaka. I mainly created this because I've noticed for a while the pure MLB bias in the infoboxes of Japanese players, even if they are icons in Japan. (Suzuki being part of the Meikyukai - One of the Japanese Hall of Fames, and if like me you've ever been over there, everyone loves him no matter what team they support).

A combined infobox will allow all of this information to be present and will no longer make them purely MLB biased.

This will also work for any professional league, not necessary just NPB, can be extended to all top level leagues. —Borgarde 16:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

Hi, I'm not a member of this project, BUT, I am a member of WikiProject Arena Football League, and we have a player named Aaron Boone, as do you guys. I recently created a page for Aaron Boone the Arena Football League player at Aaron Boone (American football). I would propose that we move Aaron Boone to Aaron Boone (baseball) and create a disambiguation page at currenty page, Aaron Boone. Crash Underride 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. Aaron Boone the baseball player is much more known and notable.--Yankees10 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This would be the same if, for instance, there was a minor league baseball player named Randy Moss. He'd be Randy Moss (baseball), and Randy Moss would keep his own page. -Dewelar (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at most of the disambiguation pages, most of them have one that is VERY well known, and then the rest you don't know who they are. So, that agrument doesn't carry any weight. Crash Underride 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As a counter example, we have Ryan Bowen, a basketball player, but Ryan Bowen (baseball), who is, not even a minor leaguer, but a former Major League Baseball player. No disambiguation page there, nor is one needed. There are a lot of examples like this as well. -Dewelar (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Bowen should be moved to Ryan Bowen (basketball). Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, OK, so that might not have been the best example, given that Ryan Bowen isn't that notable. A better example might be Jim Tatum vs. Jim Tatum (baseball). -Dewelar (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Tatum should be moved too Jim Tatum (Football coach) so that everyone knows WHICH guy the article talks about without havin' to wonder if they'll have to go to another article. (Would have replied sooner, was at a funeral.) Crash Underride 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, of course, Mike Tyson should also be moved to Mike Tyson (boxer). Perhaps George Washington should be moved to George Washington (politician) as well. There are baseball players by both of those names, too. Your arguments fail to convince me thus far. -Dewelar (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I know with hockey we always go to (ice hockey) unless there is a clearly superior (in terms of notability) person. ie Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux would never have the (ice hockey) tag attached unless someone else just as rare came along. Anyways what I am getting at, unless they are hands an above a superstar (in terms of notability) compared to the other people we always go the disambig route. To use the Ryan Bowen example above we would have Ryan Bowen be the disambig page and put the brackets after both of them, because both made the major leagues in their sports and neither was a hands down household name. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why I started out with the "minor leaguer" example above. Aaron Boone is a Major League Baseball player, active in 2008, who has had at least one highly notable moment on the national stage fairly recently in the 2003 ALCS. Aaron Boone (American football) is a minor league football player whose NFL career is so nondescript as to barely rate a mention on his page. From that page, I don't even know if he ever even appeared in a major league (i.e., NFL) game. Given that minor league baseball players have been ruled not to meet WP:ATHLETE unless they were particularly notable, the information presented in his article may not even qualify him as notable enough to get a page. I'd say that's a disparity in notability that would rate keeping the pages as they are. -Dewelar (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also disagree with this move, FWIW. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the Bowen move, but definitely disagree with moving Boone per the reasons above. Wizardman 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dewelar, an athelete has played at the PROFESSIONAL level. I'll have you know, the Arena Football League is not a MINOR league. They are a PROFESSIONAL league. They are NOT the "farm system" to ANY league. Besides, Aaron Boone (American football) has been in the NFL. So get that right, right now. The AFL is not an "minor league." And George Washington, WTF?!? He's the only one with that name on here, not counting George Washington Carver, so what does that have to do with anything? Crash Underride 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You realize that the baseball minor leagues are professional leagues, right? Did you also know that there are a number of baseball leagues that are independent of affiliation with any major league club? The Atlantic League of Professional Baseball is one example. Despite this, they are called "minor league" because, well, they aren't the highest professional level. In that regard, the AFL is analogous to an independent baseball "minor league" because it isn't the NFL. Perhaps it's more analogous to the Mexican League, actually, or the old CBA in basketball.

Here's a test: how many players would still be in the AFL if they could get an NFL job? If the answer is zero, or fairly small, then it doesn't matter what you want to call it, the AFL is de facto a minor league. The fact that Boone is a small-scale star there after totally washing out of the NFL pretty much demonstrates that. Also, just because he was on an NFL roster does not mean that he played in the NFL, any more than the baseball minor leaguers who get called up in September and don't get into a game played in MLB. His page never mentions whether or not he appeared in an NFL game. If he didn't, then at this point, based on the baseball and basketball comparisons, he fails WP:ATHLETE.

As for George Washington, I'm talking about this player. Do you think, when a page is created for him, that someone will come and propose the move I mention above?

In any case, there's another solution. Create Aaron Boone (disambiguation) with links to both Aaron Boone and Aaron Boone (American football). No moving of pages necessary. -Dewelar (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Crash, the same thing can be said of others playing in Major League Soccer, or even better, how about the National Lacrosse League or the Women's Professional Football League, all of which are the "pinnacle" of their sports here in the USA. Don't they get paid to play professionally, too? Yet, there's no one trying to argue that they deserve top billing over someone in the major professional sports leagues of the United States and Canada, of which there is only four: NFL, MLB, NHL, and (unfortunately) NBA. The AFL is getting more recognizable, true, but it's still a 2nd tier sport. And as good as David Beckham is at "football", MLS is still 2nd tier as well. Sorry you have an inferiority complex about it, but it's the truth. Does it mean they don't work hard, or sometimes harder, than players on the "Big 4"? Not at all, and I actually am a fan of the Soul myself. But I realize its place in our society, and until there's a nationwide movement to change that, it will always be 2nd billing to the NFL. Dewelar meant nothing derogatory by it, but his point is right. Prove why the AFL player is better than the MLB player, and then, maybe, a dab could be discussed. EaglesFanInTampa 22:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that the wheel is being reinvented. The reason that the George Washington page is not a DAB page is because the American founding father is the primary topic. Per WP:DAB#Is there a primary topic?, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Misplaced Pages to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." Further down, it states, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". - BillCJ (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked through that section, and it's a bit murky. "Primary topic" is really a term of art here, and the whole article could use some streamlining. It reads like legalese. Anyway, I don't think "extended discussion" means "an extended period spent trying to convince one person", so my original opposition stands. -Dewelar (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IceFrappe

Can someone please assist in dealing with this user? His only purpose at this point is to revert a set of my edits and try to sound like what he is doing is valid. See Template:CurrentMLBclosers, Carlos Delgado, Template:MLBStartingCatchers, among others (he'll pick up another page each day lately to just constantly revert). All he's doing is being major ass. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He seeks out these kinds of things for just the purpose of playing this game, where he reverts just enough to annoy without technically violating WP:3RR. Every single edit he seems to have made, ever, is of this variety. See the infobox discussion above. I've got a bunch of these on my watchlist, and will do what I can to keep them in order. The Clemens page seems to be a favorite of his. -Dewelar (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get an admin to leave him a message becaue he doesn't listen to anybody and I thought maybe he would at least consider listening if an admin gave him a warning, but apparently this person didnt feel that it was necessary to get involved and ignored my post.--Yankees10 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning on his page (as an admin), I am pretty neutral to the situation cause I rarely if ever edit baseball articles other than very basic edits. -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

bad edits alert

JustSomeRandomGuy32 just doesn't get it. He has been edit warring in many baseball related articles to keep his preferred version without any reliable cites. Despite plea for calm and reason, he continue to edit war. He definatly violated 3RR on Template: CurrentMLBclosers. Can someone please stop his vandalistic pursuit? It is getting ridiculous.--IceFrappe (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry pal but you are wrong and have been wrong about every edit war you have been involved in--Yankees10 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have warned IceFrappe one last time, he continues and he will be blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at my contributions throughout the years. Carlos Delgado is a world champion. He was on the roster but did not play. I remember that explicitly. Tell JustSomeRandomGuy to find a source before randomly and unilaterally removing information. PERIOD. Djasasso is a biased admin by involving himself in reverting. How am I disruptive? He is the one who unilaterally remove information from articles. Most of the people he listed will never be starting catchers or closers. This just discredits the entire section of baseball in Misplaced Pages. Do any of you know anything about baseball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceFrappe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Issuing ultimatums just shows further that you are being disruptive. Please do not violate WP:NPA by dragging the name of a qualified and vetted administrator through the proverbial mud. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The edits he made were based on a source, your edits were not. It's really that simple, if you think Carlos Delgado is a world champion find a source saying he is one. RandomGuy is well within his rights as an editor to remove that unsourced information. As far as involving myself in reverting, I am well within my rights to revert to the original when someone is being disruptive on purpose. You blew way past WP:3RR, as such you have been blocked. Next time please discuss your disagreement on talk pages of articles instead of reverting and making comments in the edit summaries. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

IceFrappe, apart from the disagreement about whether or not Carlos Delgado should or shouldn't be listed as a World Series champion for 1993, in your reverts, you are also constantly changing the wikilink for Mike Jacobs from the correct link of Mike Jacobs (first baseman) (Mike Jacobs) to Mike Jacobs (baseball player) (Mike Jacobs). Mike Jacobs (baseball player) redirects to a disambiguation page for people named Mike Jacobs. Constantly reverting to a bad link does not help your credibility. Hardnfast (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

CC Sabathia

Please look at this History.

Vandalism happens frequently. Therefore, I think that the semi protection is necessary. --KANE SUE 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) My English may be inappropriate, because I am Japanese. If you discover a mistake, I want you to correct it

 Done Madchester jumped on it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mets Reported Trade - Help!

Reported trade - not official yet - people are updating pages - please help protect some of them. J. J. Putz, Aaron Heilman, etc. Thanks... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind.... It's official now... 12 players... 3 teams... This is going to be a mess. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Initials in player names

Well... we need to try and settle this. User:Brewcrewer has attempted to move J. J. Putz to J.J. Putz, citing the original move 18+ months ago was by a now-banned user. It seemed to be settled at some point a bit later that using a space fit with WP:NCP, but now it's hard to find something for sure. The only thing there is the use of H. G. Wells, using a space. The discussion page is a mess of many arguments for and against the space, and seemed to go nowhere. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) has a throwaway example also stating to use "H. G.", and not "H.G.". The same situation exists for players like A. J. Burnett (I'm pretty sure every current MLB player has a space in their names right now). Where do we go with this? JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of a space is grammatically correct, which should be the end of the discussion. Even if it's not, under no circumstances is "J.J. Putz" a good solution. Either there's always a space, or there never is. Thus, it's either "J. J. Putz" or "J.J.Putz". -Dewelar (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet there is CC Sabathia. Go figure. Rklear (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a completely different animal, because that's an expressed personal preference by Sabathia. In the absence of such an expressed and citable preference, the general rule wins out. -Dewelar (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As JSRG showed with the provided link, the issue has been hashed out earlier on a general basis. A perusal of the discussion shows a slight preference to non-spacing. See this discussion, for example. I guess that's why WP:NCP doesn't even provide a MOS for initials. I really don't get the whole issue. The initials are written without a space by all RS and when people are commonly writing. Indeed, throughout the very articles of initialized people they are despaced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All that shows me is that most people don't understand how grammar works. That doesn't surprise me a bit, either. -Dewelar (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

H. G. Wells

A. A. Milne

W. E. B. Du Bois

R. B. Greaves

These were the first ones I thought of off the top of my head. All are spaced. The only counterexample I found was the name of a company, L.L.Bean. Not really instructive, I'd say, although I do note that both periods are de-spaced. Hence, if not J. J. Putz, then J.J.Putz, but never J.J. Putz. -Dewelar (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A few more quick examples:

J. R. R. Tolkien

P. T. Barnum

B. B. King

-Dewelar (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is the banned user referenced in the opening here? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Moe Epsilon was trying to do that, but he's not banned, he has edits even today. However, the space between the initials is standard form, and the version without the space is typically a redirect. W.C. Fields vs. W. C. Fields, for example. Baseball Bugs 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Log of J.J.Putz moves - Koavf it seems - I should have said 'often blocked' - not banned (now that I've taken a closer look). (this came from brewcrewer's comments on my talk page. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk)

It does look like most initialized people are spaced, but it's really strange. The fundamental rule in naming conventions is that we are supposed to use the name that is most frequently used. In general writing the initials are not spaced so why should we make an exception here. The blocked editor that I was referring to was User:Koavf (block log). He apparently was the major pusher of the spaced initials. Apparently, there's no rule in MOS regarding initials so there's nothing stopping editors from reaching a consensus regarding specific articles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a misunderstanding of the fundamental purpose of the "most commonly used" rule. It's meant to differentiate using "J. J. Putz" as opposed to, say, "Joseph J. Putz". It's not meant to use a more commonly used but less correct name. Otherwise, as an example, we would have the primary article at Camilla Parker-Bowles, not where it actually is, at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. -Dewelar (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there's no consensus that spacing them is "correct." Besides, one of the fundamental rules of Misplaced Pages is that we don't care if the information if correct, only that it accurately describes what the RS said on the subject. Along the same lines, if RS commonly do not space initials we should be spacing them, whether or not it's "correct". Royal titles are a whole different story; they have their very own naming rules at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Absent consensus, one does not change how things are currently being done. As demonstrated above, the preference for actual article naming at the moment is to space initials. Whatever you think about my arguments, the spacing should remain for that reason alone. -Dewelar (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it's true that the guidelines, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people), don't explicitly address the issue, it is noteworthy that the examples shown in the guidelines of "correct" naming conventions include spaces after the periods: H. G. Wells, P. D. Q. Bach, and Annie M. G. Schmidt. I agree with Dewelar that the spaces should remain. BRMo (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that nobody wants to be WP:BOLD around here. The only reasons given for spacing initials are "well, other articles have it". Do spaced initials make sense or not?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Put me down for preferring the space. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I think this is basically a solution in search of a problem. Doing something like this after a long and inconclusive discussion about it isn't being bold, it's being disruptive. -Dewelar (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's actually something that many people have been blocked for being unilaterally bold about. It's something best left alone with the space is my opinion. This is one of the WP:Perpetual arguements and I think its basically no-consensus but its leaning slightly towards having the space. Atleast it was way back when Kvoaf went through hundreds of articles and boldly changed it and subsequently got blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I still hope one editor would explain why the name of the article should conflict how the name is used all over including in the very article. Btw, I'm not proposing that every article be changed. This is not the forum for such a discussion. All I want is that my new set-up man should have a normal article name :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see I'm not an editor any more. Thanks for that.

To reiterate: it should be left with a space for at least the following two reasons:

1. It's the grammatically correct way of writing names.
2. It's the current Misplaced Pages standard, and there's no consensus to change it.

-Dewelar (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez! Please calm the heck down. I have no idea what you are getting all insulted about. I don't even understand what you think I meant. In any case, I'm trying to have a civilized conversation and your paranoid/browbeating/condescending numbered comments aren't really helping. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a hint of why I'm insulted: "I still hope one editor would explain why the name of the article should conflict how the name is used all over including in the very article." What am I, then? A block of cheese? ;-) -Dewelar (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. There's a whole bunch of editors that commented on this thread and I'm not referring to any specific editor and I'm certainly not trying to insult anyone. But back to my point, if I may. I'm asking for a logical explanation for the separated initials. The answers provided are "its correct" and "that's just the way it is." The former is a circulus in probando and the latter is an argumentum ad antiquitatem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your case, without consensus, the latter is pretty much the way Misplaced Pages works. It's not my argument, it's the entire project's. Go argue it at WP:RULES. As for the former...are you honestly asking me to explain why the rules of punctuation are what they are? I can try to find out, I suppose. Next you'll be asking me to justify the existence of the semi-colon. -Dewelar (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, I am researching this. I haven't found a justification for why initials should have spaces, but I have found one for why this rule often gets ignored here:

No word space should be used between the initials of an abbreviation or a person’s name. U.S., J.B. White

Note: Grammatical rules regarding punctuation are often bent for the sake of visual appeal, especially in headings or display type.

So the answer appears to be "ignore the rule because it looks better if you do." If Misplaced Pages considers appearance above correctness, I can't really do anything about that, I suppose :) . -Dewelar (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your misstating when you say that "it's the entire project's" consensus to have spaced initials. Please see the links at the beginning of the discussion. There surely isn't a consensus to have spaces, if anything to the contrary. Indeed, notwithstanding article names, in the body of the articles, initials are never separated. Moreover, the link that you provide above clearly states that the grammatically correct form for initials are without spaces. In any case, I am not asking for explanations of Misplaced Pages rules. I'm quite familiar with WP:CONSENSUS. Indeed this very WP policy discourages the inhibition of discussions relating to article changes in the name of a "rule." A consensus is what I am trying to - so far unsuccessfully - achieve over here. Thus, to state that my proposal is wrong because it violates WP:CONSENSUS, turns WP:CONSENSUS on its head. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what he is getting at is that silence equals consensus on wikipedia, and the fact that most articles have the space in their names indicates that the community has agreed they should have a space there. -Djsasso (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Essentially correct.

The only thing I referred to as "the entire project's consensus" is the concept of needing WP:CONSENSUS itself to make changes to existing policy. You claimed that this was an argument from tradition, which, while technically true, is also actual policy. If you are familiar with the concept of consensus, you already know that, and yet you say it's an invalid argument. If you're not going to accept Misplaced Pages's own policy on how to handle these things, I can't really do anything about that.

Anyway, the closest thing Misplaced Pages has to a policy regarding spacing between initials is the examples used on the naming conventions pages, which show spaces being used. When you take that, together with the fact that all (or nearly all) prominent pages for persons who are known by their initials (and do not have a stated, cite-able preference otherwise) use a space, we have a de facto policy that spaces are to be used, as Djsasso has stated above.

As per the discussion above, no consensus could be established regarding whether spaces should be used or not, so the proper procedure is to leave things as they are. On the other hand, the consensus within this discussion seems to be on the side of spaces, with you being the only editor currently arguing against them.

Now, if you don't have another argument in favor of the change other than "that's how source does it, so we need to do it that way, too," I can't help you. -Dewelar (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help me. That's an interesting claim that you're making - the rule of WP:CONSENSUS was itself created by a consensus. I don't know why this WP history is relevant and I surely don't understand why you thought it answered my question. When I asked for an explanation for the spaced initials idea I was asking for the logical explanation, nothing to do with WP policy.

As for this "consensus", if all we had were the "facts on the ground" I would agree that there is an implicit consensus for the spaced initials. However, as the wikilinks at the beginning of the thread will attest, there clearly is no consensus. I would not make a bid deal about the fact most of the articles are spaced since most of the articles were spaced by a now-banned editor. On the other hand, most, if not all, RS's don't use spaces, and initials in article mainspace are never spaced. Thus, there surely is nothing wrong with making determinations on specific articles.

What I'm trying to say here is that if editors here want spaces in initials then clearly there is no consensus for the move. Everyone is entitled to their reason for wanting spaces. But to want spaced initials because "we have to have spaces" is frustratingly wrong. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I can't even begin to count the number of mischaracterizations of what I'm saying that you've made in this thread, but this particular post takes the cake. Try and step back from your frustration and actually follow what I'm saying. If "we have to have spaces just because we do" was ever the argument being made, I'd agree with you. On the other hand, "rules of punctuation" carries a lot more weight. If you want to equate actual rules of the English language with your straw man here, then again, that's not my problem. It's not about what anybody "wants". You apparently want the rules of the English language to be explained to be logical, but sadly, they are not. Perhaps you'd prefer we did the entirety of Misplaced Pages in Esperanto.

Quite simply, there should be spaces between initials for the same reason the word "and" should be spelled "a-n-d". That's the rule. Just because sources do it wrong doesn't mean we have to do it wrong as well. I've seen plenty of reliable sources use the construction "should of" instead of "should have". I've seen plenty of reliable sources that use "miniscule" instead of "minuscule". We should not allow other people's ignorance to become our own. -Dewelar (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You actually spent time reseraching the matter and all you were able to come up with was a reliable source that flatout contradicts your assertions. I would think you would have some sort of reason for ignoring proper grammar rules. But if you don't that's fine as well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exciting and all, but can you two either tone it down or take this somewhere else? How about WT:NCP? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already been hashed out over there multiple times and apparently there was no consensus there. I figured that if a consensus cannot be reached regarding all articles atleast it can be reached on single articles or in specific projects. Its apparently not going anywhere here either so all that's left is the residual .....whatever. It should end soon :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Some input from me: These sources , support one side, the source above and this source support the other. There truly is no consensus. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that sources related to journalism (as cite 3 above and the Clemson resource are) advise one to omit the spaces. However, as the Clemson resource noted, they are admitting to bending the actual rule so that it "looks better". In any case, I didn't realize that Brewcrewer was looking for cites of the actual rule rather than what he asked for, which was "why" it is done this way. For that, all one has to do is look at a non-journalism-related guide to rules of English punctuation. I went through a fair number before finding the Clemson source. Like I said, if the Misplaced Pages standard were to change, that's fine. I will disagree with it, but I will accept it. Until it does, however, the standard is to space it.

I promise that my next post on this subject, should there be one, will be somewhere more appropriate. I'm not sure NCP is the right place, though. Is there a forum for discussing which grammatical rules to obey and which not to obey somewhere ;-) ? -Dewelar (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Washington Nationals Wikiproject

I'm considering trying to create a Wikiproject for the Washington Nationals. Likely myself, and some other folks from WNFF.net will be helping to keep the Nationals Articles accurate and current.

just figured I'd run this past you guys, since you are are doing a decent enough job as is, we just want to help out.

plus I can't seem to figure out exactly how to make/propose the Wikiproject anyway. JMWhiteIV (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a page to propose one (I don't recall exactly where it is), but it has seemed to be that the general idea has been to keep individual baseball projects to teams with much longer histories than the Nationals. If you are going to be doing the Expos too, you really should indicate that, since for some reason, we treat them as two separate teams (NOT dredging up the past!). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposal page can be found here although you don't really need anyone's permission to start it. It would probably be a good idea to make sure that you have atleast four or five people to start. You don't have to have a project to improve articles related to the team, if you want to collaborate you can use each other's talk pages. blackngold29 01:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Y'all should just create it as a task force of the baseball project like WP:HOCKEY does with individual teams. -Djsasso (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nats in DC only have a few years of history. How about a project that discusses Washington baseball in general, which has a fairly rich history. Baseball Bugs 21:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the general Washington baseball idea. Whatever you decide to do, I'll support it.   jj137 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 Philadelphia Phillies season

We're having some contract-related issues at this page, as there were at Raul Ibanez before it was protected. User:NoseNuggets has been adding information to the page that violates WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, in particular adding non-finalized contracts and speculation about the return of free agents or injured players. Diff provided for reference. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The user refuses to use talk pages, though sections have been started for each discussion. The user also continues to revert. I can not revert any more, for fear of WP:3RR. Help necessary. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Manager, GM, owner lists

In my recent work on List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners, it was recomended that I move the GMs and owners to another list to keep all teams the same. I'm kind of split on the decision, because I think it looks fine with all three, but I agree all teams lists should look similar. I am going to nominate the list of managers for FLC regardless of the GMs or owners being listed, but if I move them to a new list I doubt that List of Pirates owners has enough to become an FL. So—as I see it—it's one FL (with everything) or one FL (managers) and one regular list (Owners and GMs). Between those two options I'm leaning toward the first, but does anyone else have any thoughts on it? Thanks. blackngold29 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would vote for consistency. Either the owners and GMs should be on all the team manager lists, or they should be on none of them. I honestly don't care which. -Dewelar (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources to reference the other facts, I say go for it. I removed the general managers from the current Orioles managers FLC because I had no reliable sources, whereas in the Phillies managers FL, I had a source. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Baseball/Game logs

I made this a while ago in hopes that a general effort might be started to work more efficiently on the game logs in the season articles. Does anyone have any interest in "revamping" it (even though it was never really started)?   jj137 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why we even need baseball game logs, which require a great deal of tedious effort, when various external links (like Retrosheet) have already done this work for us. Baseball Bugs 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

True indeed. I don't completely support the idea because of that, I was just wondering specifically if anyone liked the idea.   jj137 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care for the idea of them, just seems like too much work for too little output. On the season articles we could just put an external link to the game logs. Wizardman 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• If we do stick with them I came up with some templates to eliminate the hard coding (see 2008 Detroit Tigers season#Game log, from August on). Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to also voice my distaste for game logs in general, especially those that are within a team-season article. They're a pain to work around when editing articles, and they're often loaded with links to disambiguation pages and other badness. I'd just as soon do away with them altogether as well. -Dewelar (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lose them. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then :) I have seldom worked on them lately, so I'll just drop the idea since the consensus is that they're unneeded.   jj137 (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

Since this proposal affects your project, I think its only fair your project be notified since the proposer has not. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) -Djsasso (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Project-Class Baseball pages
• NA-importance Baseball pages
• WikiProject Baseball articles
• Project-Class Basketball pages
• WikiProject Basketball articles