Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A list of players who aren't notable, an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information; no encyclopedic value. Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise it's very crufty.

(Ni!) 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

See
wat's sup 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Well, if it's a copyright violation, then it gets deleted even if we all vote to keep. And I see your point that this is lifted directly from baseball-reference.com. To be strictly technical, I'm not sure that the website's information is copyrighted. However, I abwhore plagiarism, and it is clear that someone else's work has been pirated here. Thus, you have actually persuaded me. I change my vote. Mandsford 21:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, it is not a copy violation as the information is free.. It is not indiscriminate information as it is about a particular topic... and it is notable.. and the fact that other sites have similar pages proves that. Spanneraol 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Information as a bare state is free. Information in the same style and format as something else is not. If you tell Baseball-reference that it isn't copyvio when it's exactly the same as Baseball-reference's page, you won't be able to convince them that you didn't take it directly from Baseball-reference, which is the basis of copyvio. Ksy92003(talk) 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Being similar to something else is not a copyright violation. It is NOT exactly the same.. I did not copy and paste their pages.. I took the information, which is free and available to everyone, made my own chart, and typed everything in myself, making my own links for the names... It was a lot of work.. just copying their page as you suggest would be much easier but that is not what happened no matter what you keep repeating. Spanneraol 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • God, you just fail to understand. I don't know if you'll ever understand. Jaranda and I have provided at least 4 reasons, and you deny them all. I don't know how you can possibly deny the fact that the article is similar enough to Baseball-reference's page to sue you for plagirism if they wanted to. The information is free; getting the information from Baseball-reference and using the exact same format as they do without their permission is something completely different and illegal, not just by Wikipedia policy, but by law. Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted. Without permission from Baseball-reference, you can't use their information and replicate it in the exact same format as they do, whether you left out extraneous information or not. Ksy92003(talk) 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
        • Again, it is NOT exactly the same format and on a recent discussion on the WP:Baseball boards someone posted a conversation with B-Rs guy where he said * <<<Forman: Thank you. You are welcome to use stats in a manner such as hand entertng data, but I would be opposed to machine-aided copying of large numbers of pages.>>> These were used by hand entering data, which he has given permission for. It is not the exact same format, similar yes but not "the exact same format"... You can cite whatever things you want, it doesnt make what you are saying true... information and box scores are free in the public domain and can be used in whatever charts people come up with..
          • That comment was in response to the query about using PARTIAL stats and PARTIAL information, not an entire page's information, such as what you have done. And for some reason, you still deny the fact that the formats aren't the same. I don't have the slighest clue how you could possibly deny it, as looking at both Wikipedia's article and B-R's page, it looks exactly the same as far as the format of the table. Ksy92003(talk) 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is similar, it is not exactly the same. How many other ways can you format this data? And it did not use the entire pages information as you certainly admitted that I left out lots of the data that was on that page.
      • It doesn't matter that you didn't use all the information. It's the fact that the information that you did use was taken in its exact state as it was found. It doesn't matter if you didn't take the entire article and reproduce it, but you took a large part of another person's hard work and reproduced it exactly without making any additions on your own. Ksy92003(talk) 00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats complete hogwash... I made the table and started entering data before finding that page.. it simply made it easier. I had to type everything in myself... I did not copy and paste their charts.. their chart and mine are different.. It is not taken "in the exact state as found" there site had links to B-R pages, used just the players last names, so in adition to typing everything myself I added links, first names, etc.. that were not on there page.. so you can not say I didnt make any additions on my own.
Comment You folks are going around in circles on something that isn't even germane to this page. Let's decide first whether there should be a page like this. If the answer is no, then the copyvio question is moot. If the answer is yes, then the question can be brought to a more suitable venue. Matchups 01:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball Reference article doesn't provide the navigational functionality of the WP page. And just because there is another website about it where somebody can get the information doesn't mean we're justified in deleting it here.
The trade deadline argument is cute, but a straw man. As noted in the Opening Day article, it is a particular honor to be the starting pitcher on that day. Other days of the season, somebody might get a day off because they're tired. Check attendance figures for opening day versus any other day of the season, whether the trading deadline or not. I'll bet that will confirm the importance that fans place on that game. Matchups 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let Wknight94 respond to the point about opening day, but I do have something to say about that. We can agree that more people go to games on opening day than trade deadline day, but that's immaterial. Wknight brings a good point. From a baseball standpoint, the game played on opening day is no more important than the game played on July 31 (trade deadline day) or any random day, such as August 18. All these games count as either 1 win or 1 loss; there is no extra significance from opening day to any other day. The second game of the season is just as significant, or the starting pitcher for the first game of each three-game series a team plays during a season. It's not notable because there isn't anything extra gained; opening day is no more significant than any other day. The only thing significant about opening day, if anything, is the fact that after that day a team is either 0-1 or 1-0. I mean it's one game... there are 162 games in a season, and just one of those 162 games has any added significance. Ksy92003(talk) 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's symbolic significance and enhances the reputation of the starting pitcher to be selected as the Opening Day starter. Often there is media attention about who the opening day starters are going to be. They are introduced on the field before the game on opening day, they are not introduced on any other day of the season. Spanneraol 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange... they announce the starting rosters at Angel Stadium before every game. I don't know about other ballparks, but at Angel Stadium the starting lineups are announced every single game for both the Angels and thei ropponents, and I'm pretty sure that this is constant throughout the league at every single ballpark. Ksy92003(talk) 18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever actualy been to an opening day game? Yes they announce the lineups on the scoreboard.. but on opening day they players are all on the field and they run out to the baselines to take the applause with much pomp and circumstances. Spanneraol 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why yes, I have been to many opening day games. But now, Spanner, you're giving the argument that just because players are cheered for or booed at that makes them notable. The reason why they announce the entire rosters is because it's the first game of the season and some people are injured, in the minor leagues; it's to inform the fans whose on the team. They announce the starting roster the same way they announce all the other players. They say who's batting first, second, etc. and in what position like normal. They come out on to the field because the rest of the entire team is out there, which again, the bench players and coaches are only announced on the field so the fans know who's on the team and who's in the minor leagues or on the DL. Ksy92003(talk) 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I wonder if there is a consensus for the inclusion of lists of players for a given pro-sports team in a given year? If so, it would be trivial to include the information as to starting lineups, and changes through the season. FrozenPurpleCube 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Folks, let's not get so hung up above that you miss this. This is a very good suggestion. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have several problems with this list...
    1. The fact that it only includes seasons from 1958 is somewhat of an arbitrary condition. Sure the team moved, but they still had Opening Day in Brooklyn. So why separate lists (in theory)?
    2. There's no reason why this information can't be included in the articles for the Dodgers' indivdual seasons (such as 2006 Los Angeles Dodgers season).
    3. As stated above, this strays waaaay too far into
      WP:NOT
      territory.
    4. While not wholly related to this AfD, the same user added succession boxes to the player pages for each member of each of the Opening Day rosters. (For an example, see
      WP:WPBB in the past; this is one of the worst examples of the phenomenon yet. Caknuck 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Yes, creating pages about each season would be a lot of work, but it'd be work that'd probably be more acceptable to folks. FrozenPurpleCube 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if the info is moved to all the season pages, you would have to go to over thirty different pages to get info that is now available on one page. Spanneraol 14:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but doing it that way will maintain the same information, whilst not not putting all the information on an article which currently violates
WP:NOT#INFO. Ksy92003(talk) 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
That is your opinion, I disagree. Making it harder to find information aparently is your goalSpanneraol 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what this AfD is to debate. You don't think it violates any of those four guidelines, while I do. That's why we have AfD debates, so we can determine that. If you want to think that my goal is to make the information harder to find, then you're gravely mistaken. On the contrary, I've said numerous times that this information is already easy to find and formatted in an incredibly similar way, something you continue to deny, at Baseball-Reference's page. Ksy92003(talk) 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll note that I was the contributor who recommended listifying rather than using succession boxes; as for copvio issues, the info can obviously be found in numerous newspapers following each Opening Day game, so it's not subject to copyright. I would have no objections to including the data in articles for individual seasons, though (as noted) these generally haven't been created. As for notability, I'll note that Major League Baseball recognizes official records for most Opening Day games as a starting pitcher, so they obviously recognize that game as being of particular importance. (I concede that there's a noteworthy difference between being selected as the starting pitcher, which changes from day to day, and being the starting right fielder.) But the list does help to indicate what the team intended to be its principal lineup during the year. MisfitToys 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- Caknuck 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one has explained why this is encyclopedic and not listcruft. Why is this one day more important then the first game after the all star break? Or the first game in August? Vegaswikian 05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening day has always been regarded as significantly more important than the average game. That's why the President always takes time out of his schedule to throw the first pitch, for example (going back all the way to Taft). The appeal is primarily emotional, rooted in tradition, but since baseball is a sport that's very invested in its traditions it's a pretty big deal. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the current president, Bush, has a connection to the Texas Rangers, so that could have something to do with that tradition in the league today. No doubt that the opening day game is significant amongst baseball enthusiasts, such as myself. But although the day is notable, that doesn't necessarily make the specific game any more notable, and consequently that doesn't make the list of players who played on that day a notable list. I mean there are plenty of aspects of opening day that are more significant than other days. Just to name a few: attendance, ticket prices, parking price, beer prices, the pre-game flyover. Why not something like "List of beer prices on opening day" or "List of pilots who flew over Wrigley Field on opening day?" Ksy92003(talk) 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a Bush thing. If anything, it's the opposite; Bush was roundly criticized in the press for bypassing the opening day tradition this year, making him only the second president to miss one (the first was Nixon during Watergate). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so Opening Day is a ceremonial big deal - that's why it has its own article. None of this explains why the actual lineup on opening day is any more significant than on any other day. Other than a team will usually use it's #1 pitcher on opening day, there is no other special significance to the lineup on opening day over any other day. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In comparison, the games a team plays when they have the chance to clinch a playoff spot are much more important that opening day. But it wouldn't make sense to have a list of a team's starters when they have the chance to do this, assuming they were like the Yankees and clinch a playoff spot every year, would it? I mean opening day is just one game that isn't even the most significant game a team plays during the regular 162-game season. Ksy92003(talk) 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Opening day lineups are definitely more significant than any other game's lineups. As has been stated earlier, there is a significance to being a team's starting pitcher on opening day and the lineups are introduced much like they are at the
    League Division Series, League Championship Series and World Series serieses. I think it's fascinating to see the progression of a team's opening day lineup through the years. I'd also like to see information added to the article answering questions such as "Why did Mariano Duncan start in place of Steve Sax at 2B in 1985?". I believe that info would improve the article. I also believe that we should table the copyright violation discussions until this Afd is resolved. It's cluttering up the flow of the article. Copyvio was not listed as an original reason for deleting. X96lee15 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
For the record, I didn't notice the copyvio until after I nominated it, so I probably shouldn't have brought that into the discussion at the time I did. But first, let's determine the AfD, and then if the article is kept we can deal with the copyvio discussion. But let's not remove it from the page because those discussions could become quite important later. Ksy92003(talk) 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article can certainly be improved with extra information like X96 suggests and if it is kept I'll work on adding stuff like that... Spanneraol 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this page should be kept because it will be useful for a lot of people and will help them remember some players that they have forgotten. LightningOffense 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sports fans can find an infinite number of ways to arrange information. We must not let them use Wikipedia for this purpose. The players should be forgotten, LightningOffense, if Wikipedia is their only hope of being remembered. 75.184.84.89 13:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Los_Angeles_Dodgers_Opening_Day_Starting_Lineups&oldid=1136110470"