User talk:Spanneraol/Archive3

Uniform numbers

Thanks. It took me a few days to get back up to speed, between unpacking boxes and such, but I should be back to my previous volume of editing now :) .

I use Baseball Almanac as well. They have uniform numbers for managers, but not coaches. They're under History -> Managers. I haven't yet found a good resource for coaches, though. -Dewelar (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah No Kidding

That's why I cited espn, sports illustrated and npr bro.--Justhangin (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From the NPR, national public radio, page "Milton was a bust for the Reds, going 8-15 with a bloated 6.47 ERA" From the Sports Illustrated, Major Sports Magazine, he made the all bust team. Only ESPN mentions how he was overpaid.

Overpaid/Bust/Almost the worst season for a starter in the history of the N.L.! I don't think it's a stretch to call it a big blunder.

Did you even bother to look at these? Please do a little research before wasting my time and passing judgment. I have been here a couple days and already understand policy better than you.--Justhangin (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Many baseball sources consider him a bust" haha, don't you think that's putting it rather lightly.--Justhangin (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's more neutrally worded than how you had it and also closer to the sources. Spanneraol (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Whose to judge, it's bad writing though.--Justhangin (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

NA teams

I've been avoiding the pre-major league era by design. Stats are sparser, and there are a lot more players missing biographical data, including first names. I may get around to those at some point, but not for at least a couple months, unless there's something specific you'd like me to review. -Dewelar (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rex Rundgren

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rex Rundgren, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

A minor league baseball player who plays for a AA team, two levels short of a major league team. There is nothing significant of his career yet and isn't notable for anything else. As such, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tavix |  Talk  22:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources for uniform numbers

I have a bunch of old Baseball Digests, which published uniform numbers of all on-field personnel in the 1950s and 1960s as well as several vintage Baseball Dope Books (Sporting News) which published 40-man rosters including coaches. Also, web sites like Red Sox dieHard, YankeeNumbers.com, Kasey's Cubs Page, Mets by the Numbers, and sites that list all the numbers for the Baltimore Orioles (since 1954) and Minnesota Twins (since 1961). There was an excellent site/blog that compiled numbers for the Cardinals and old St. Louis Browns, but it was taken down in 2006.

To me, Baseball Digests and Dope Books would be the best sources, but it's hard to track down old copies.

Good luck, and I am enjoying the updating of the rosters, if that's what you have been doing. Thanks.McGill1974 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Digests now online?

Good news re. complete number sets for MLB teams! Uniwatch.com reports that the Baseball Digest archive has been put online. http://books.google.com/books?id=wC4DAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0#all_issues_anchor

That means that complete uniform numbers, including coaches, will be available for at least the mid-1950s onward. I may add a few, but I know you have been working on the rosters, so you may find this useful. Thanks. McGill1974 (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Baseball prods

Threw me for a loop on Luis Gonzalez (pitcher), prodding your own article. :)

Any objection to merging into the minor league player articles for each organization, assuming I can't find enough sources showing notability? That's been the consensus at a number of the AfDs. Let me know what you think.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a team they are currently playing for, then sure... these guys all seem to have been unemployed for a couple of seasons. If you can find reasons to keep these, then by all means remove the prod. Spanneraol (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good point about the team. I've gone through three so far, and gotten close but not quite. I'll add a prod-2 on those, and proceed through the rest as I get time. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Batting a thousand -- I've now added a prod-2 to all of them. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

GetGreat.com

I believe it had been nominated once before, and the decision was to keep.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Other batters" on the roster boxes

I believe the "other batters" section should really be used only for players who played no defensive position during the season. Otherwise they belong at the defensive spot where they played the most game (designated hitter not being a defensive position). I know you're copying a lot of this from Baseball Almanac, so I can clean this up when I get to the 1973 pages and forward, but I just figured I'd give you a heads up regarding why I'll be making those changes.

To follow up on this, since we're continuing to use "other batters", I left Herb Washington's category as "Designated runner" on the '74 A's page (and will do so again for '75) because...well, he never batted. It's only appropriate to treat a unique player in a unique manner :) . -Dewelar (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Running tallies

We don't need running tallies. But then again, the info box stats are running tallies as well. This is notable, as its reported in the papers as such, and therefore not innappropriate to include.--Ethelh (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We really should not be including trivial data such as "On June 8" he led the league in victories... there is no purpose in this.. Wait till something really important occurs or update at the end of the season with a season recap. Otherwise it's just trivial. It's not notable at this stage. Spanneraol (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But as Wikipedia measures notability by whether it is reported in the papers, its not trivial. See, for example, (see for example [1] and[2] and [3]. As I said before, Wiki aricles have infoboxes, which reflect less notable statistics than "leading the league," and yet while more trivial those are updated. I don't see a mandate to delete this, believe its notable, and would seek your understanding. If you insist on deleting it, I suggest we seek a third party opinion from an administrator rather than have you delete it and have us edit war.--Ethelh (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The papers print box scores of every game are you suggesting we mention every single game that people played in and their stats from those games on their pages? These articles should remain in historical context... five years from now will people care who was leading the league in some category on June 8? Or will they just want to know who led the league at the end of the season? Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As to your first point, not all statistics are of equal notability. So, for example, you will see that among the citations I pointed to you above is an article entitled "Billingsley tied for wins in NL". That's simply a highly notable fact. You are unlikely to find an article entitled "Martin scores 0 runs on June 6." Or find text in an article pointing to that fact. It's simply not notable.

I have no problem with that material being deleted or replaced when it is no longer the case. Just as the infobox that reflects that he has 470 strikeouts will be updated the next time it is revised. Yet, I don't see you deleting that information now just because it will be revised in the future.

Work for you?--Ethelh (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the issue is that the information should be of historical notability... someones strikeout totals for their career is historically notable... if the information is likely to be replaced shortly.. then it is not of lasting notability. Spanneraol (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is notable now, as evidenced by the newspaper articles. You let the infobox strikeout total of 470 on 5/29/2009 stand, yet clearly it is lesser lasting notability that that was his strikeout total as of two weeks ago. No newspaper articles, etc. I think this is notable now, and that it is acceptable to reflect now that he is now leading the league in wins, for the aformentioned reasons. If you want to delete it or replace it when no longer the case, that is fine. But I think that its inclusion now is fine. If you disagree, let's get others involved.--Ethelh (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

His strikeout total is still his strikeout total even if the number changes. His leading the league in wins can change tomorrow and no longer be accurate. Spanneraol (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article reflects his strikout total as of two weeks ago. There were no articles on it as far as I am aware, let alone any articles saying "his strikeout total today is __," and there is no indication that it was notable as being league-leading. Yet you let that stand.

In contrast, his win total and his leading the league are both accurate and the subject of numerous articles and at least one article headline. Yet you delete it. That makes no sense to me. I would like to revert. I am happy for you to delete if it is no longer the case (though I note that you have not deleted his 2-week old strikout total). But at the moment, given the above, I think it is notable and accurate, and far more than his outdated strikeout total that you've left unchanged. If you would like us to bring in an administrator, that's fine, otherwise I would like to revert.--Ethelh (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would be more appropriate to bring up on the project page than to involve an anonymous administrator. If you want to update his strikeout total, go right ahead.Spanneraol (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about I invite 2 or 3 baseball project page editors who are admins or bureaucrats to give us their advice here.--Ethelh (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to drop a line here. This issue is all about context. "John Smith was the first to 12 wins on June 3 but only won three more games the rest of the season..." That seems perfectly reasonable to me (and I've probably written content like that back when I wrote content). But if John Smith was the first to 7 wins and 8 wins and 9 wins and 10 wins, etc., it would be absurd to keep an entire list like that in the article. If he finished the season third in the league with 19 wins, then it's less significant that he was first on August 20. If you want to give diffs that apply to this specific dispute, please do. In the case of current-day leaders, I can see where it would be annoying to see the content constantly change but it would also be unfortunate to lose that snapshot of history in case it does turn out to be significant down the road. Wknight94 ^talk 02:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the diff, as requested: [4]. Curiously, I note now that while my colleague Spanneroal deleted my entry, he left alone the outdated more trivial sentence that preceded it. As well, as mentioned above, as the 2-week-old infobox data. I would be happy to add to the entry the new article entitled "Billingsley tied for wins in NL", found at [5]. Tx for your input.--Ethelh (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox issue is a distraction and mostly unrelated. To the Billingsley edit, the wording is part of the issue. Something more general like "Billingsley won his first two games in June to regain a share of the N.L. win lead" sounds better to me, but I have to admit this may not be a good case for a mention. His record only went to 8-3 and he only regained a share of the lead, etc. Actually I see the win on May 20 put him at 6-1 and in sole possession of the N.L. win lead. This would be a better reference for it too since it's mentioned in the (sub)title. Linking directly to the MLB.com stats table is probably not good form (and doesn't that page change all the time?) Like I said, there are times to do and times not to do what you're advocating, and there are likewise good and bad ways to do them. Wknight94 ^talk 04:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the discussion directly preceding this one, I'm in full agreement with you. Items of fleeting notability are not to be included in articles, per WP:NTEMP. -Dewelar (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think that meets the standard, then of course neither does the indicated strikeout total of 2 weeks ago, in Billingsley's infobox, which I discussed above. That's why the paragraph that follows the one you cite to is of moment. It explains why both may be included. It says:

"Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content...

The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people.[7] Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight.

A lack of notability does not necessarily mean that reliably-sourced information should be removed from Wikipedia. Consider merging such content to a more appropriate article."--Ethelh (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As Spanner tried, patiently, to explain to you, career totals have meaning in context. They are data that will require updating, but the totals will remain. On the other hand, league leadership in a category on a particular date in the season is a different animal. It is a datum that will (likely) require deletion, because it will, barring unlikely events, no longer matter within a few days. As noted in the section to which I referred, notability is not temporary, and Wikipedia is not a news source. -Dewelar (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as career totals have meaning in context, season win totals have meaning in context. Just as career totals are data that will require updating, but the totals will remain, the same holds for season win totals, and (perhaps, though certainly not necessarily) league leadership. This is a distinction without a difference. It is more likely that his career strikeout data will have to be deleted than it is that his league leadership will be deleted. As to Wiki guidelines, I refer back to my comment above. As to Wiki not being a news source, then why do we support running updates in the infobox of how many strikeouts he has, and indeed reflect old data above (which no one has deleted, while the accurate data I input has been deleted)?--Ethelh (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

@Dewelar, what do you think of my comment above? Wouldn't you think that league leadership on a certain date could prove to be notable in some cases? There are some players whose only claim to fame is that they were extraordinarily hot in the first two months of one particular season. People make the cover of Sports Illustrated because they're leading the league in wins on a certain date. True, in some cases, such a mention will prove to be too trivial in the long run, but it is easy to remove the mention in those cases. On the flip side, it would certainly be more difficult to re-add such a mention after the season if it does turn out to warrant inclusion. Sure Wikipedia is not a news source but many articles do turn out to be collections of news highlights in the long run. If someone's mid-season league standing turns out to be one of those highlights, then so be it. Wknight94 ^talk 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at your phrasing here.. "if it turns out to be..." We don't know if it will be notable at this point and isn't it better to add the information after we know more. Adding the info after the season when we know the context makes more sense to me than constantly updating after each of his starts.. He won 8 games, then 9, then he lost one and was no longer the leader.. then he won again... etc... The previous sentence in the article (which he says is more "trivial") says he started the season by winning his fist five games including an 11 strikeout performance against San Francisco.. That is more notable than his being 8-3 on some arbitrary date in June. Spanneraol (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I pointed out above that there are too many issues going on. I don't care about the previous sentence or the infobox... In this exact example, the sentence as-is is almost certainly too trivial to ever include, esp. since he actually got a few headlines at 6-1. But in general, I always think it's safer (and easier) to leave content now and remove it later than to remove it now and expect someone to remember to re-add it later. It's highly unlikely that anyone will remember that Billingsley was 6-1 on May 20, and yet it could prove to be an interesting point. If he winds up at 8-17, then it would be good to have, "Billingsley was tops in the N.L. at 6-1 on May 20 but faltered the rest of the way and finished at 8-17". But if it's removed now, I guarantee that interesting sentence would never make its way back into the article. Wknight94 ^talk 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The inherent problem is that the only way to know if something like this is notable, or even "interesting", is in hindsight. That's not true of the career totals. The chance that it will become so is small, and thus I support Spanner's POV that it shouldn't be in the article. I don't feel it strongly enough to go around deleting stuff, mind you, but that's my feeling. -Dewelar (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Leading the league in a category 1/3 through this season is not notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Encyclopedia articles are very different from newspaper articles.

Ethelh, in your view, what exactly in this particular case is notable? Kingturtle (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the above, I would like to reinsert the material that was deleted, in better form, and will happily delete when not notable. Is that reasonable?--Ethelh (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What form do you propose? It seems like the consensus was that the material was not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I read the consensus as being that while many editors might not add the info themselves (as you said at the outset, it is not "needed"), the consensus appeared to be that they would not delete it. I propose that I re-insert it (I've avoided edit warring, and discussed, without it being there all this time), along the lines of that Wknight stated. Thus, "Billingsley along with __ was the first in the NL to 8 wins on June 11." With a cite to the article entitled "Billingsley tied for wins in NL," AP Wire, June 10, 2009.[6] When that is no longer notable as he no longer has the lead, I'll be happy to change it. I'm in no way suggesting keeping it and listing for everyone who was league leader on date x. As mentioned, in some cases, such a mention will prove to be too trivial in the long run, but it is easy to remove the mention in those cases. I agree with the comment above that it's safer (and easier) to leave content now and remove it later than to remove it now and expect someone to remember to re-add it later.--Ethelh (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, but that's not accurate. He wasn't the first to 8 wins. Santana had 8 on June 9. It's probably best to let this lie and find another edit elsewhere. Wknight94 ^talk 03:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is accurate. They are the first to 8 wins.--Ethelh (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the June 11 part. Santana was June 9. I didn't check the others. You're reaching a bit. Wknight94 ^talk 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Billingsley tied __ for the NL lead with 8 wins on June 11." With a cite to the article entitled "Billingsley tied for wins in NL," AP Wire, June 10, 2009.[7] And when the lead is no longer the case, it comes out.--Ethelh (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the point in a short term entry. Spanneraol (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Ethelh may have a case of editcountitis. I hope it's not contagious :-D -Dewelar (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting (if snyde) theory, but I'm guessing not, and that projection is the explanation for the comment. Actually, the "counter" in this discussion is the one who keeps a counter on his user page, displaying to himself and to the world precisely how many days he has been on Wikipedia, his precise age to the day, and each Wikipedia page that he has created ... see [8].--Ethelh (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do either of these articles, entitled "Dodgers' Billingsley gets NL-best 9th win" [9] and "Billingsley gets NL-best 9th victory for Dodgers"[10] suggest that this is information which, if reflected for the moment, would not require deletion?--Ethelh (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's a waste of time and a bad idea... seasonal stuff like that really belongs on the season pages and not on the individual pages till it can be put in more perspective... but i'm not going to delete it. Spanneraol (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly better than the other edit... Bear in mind that my support was based on the idea that such information would get lost forever if deleted. On the other hand, if one were to accumulate references in user space or talk space, and only add content at the end of the season when all the information was in, then you would know for sure if this milestone was relevant or not. But the fact is that few people do that. As Dewelar alluded to, it's as though there were a race to get information in as quickly as possible. As a result, in my opinion, it's preferable to have the reference in an article than having the reference nowhere. Wknight94 ^talk 00:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting to Minor league pages

Can you please discuss before re-directing.--Yankees10 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was that players who had not made it to the majors yet were not notable for their own articles unless they had substantial articles in reliable sources about them... the minor league players pages exist for "top prospects", they don't need their own articles. Being a top prospect for the Yankees isn't a bigger deal than playing for some other team. I only merged articles of players in AA or below that were not on the 40 man roster. Spanneraol (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the re-directs, but guys like Jesus Montero and Lars Anderson (baseball) are two of the biggest prospects in baseball and are notable enough to have their own articles.--Yankees10 21:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)