Talk:Expansion of Major League Baseball

Terrible idea to start this article.

Seriously, the awful NHL article wasn't enough? The one that people have been objecting to for over a decade and which needs to be gutted and deleted? The one that's been a magnet for every minor bit of nonsense, pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, politicians and civic boosters looking to make a name for themselves, and useless opinion piece speculation by columnists with nothing else to write? The one that is by its inherent nature a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation? Why would we want to replicate that terrible nonsense for Major League Baseball? Frankly, just a bad idea. This should be moved to draft space, and left alone until actual expansion teams are announced, at which point it can be used as part of the background on an article of that expansion process. But it is far too soon to have an article that contains nothing but regurgitation of every minor newspaper story speculating on the future. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oknazevad, what specifically is a CRYSTAL violation? All of the things about these groups forming and seeking expansion, the comments by Manfred and Clark, they're verified. Notability is determined by sourcing and there's plenty of it. Take this and the NHL article to AfD if you want, but I highly doubt either would be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting all together as as a clearing house of unrelated news headlines is a CRYSTALBALL violation that these ideas will actually become formal bids.

Look at the talk page of the NHL article. These aren't new criticisms of these speculative articles. This one is well sourced now, but it easily becomes a magnet for junk. For example, it's plain that the Orlando idea is worthless, and not really about expansions, but a play at getting the Rays to move over from St. Pete. Plenty of the analysis about the unsolicited proposal mentions that.

And that's the other thing. It's virtually impossible to differentiate actual legitimate proposals from the nonsense. Anyone can call a press conference, put out a press release, and get renderings made. That's why an article acting as an aggregator of news, speculation, and unsolicited proposals with little actual meat to them is a bad idea. oknazevad (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's not a "clearing house of unrelated news headlines". This is a WP:FUTUREEVENT, "almost certain" to happen. Even if expansion doesn't happen, it's been talked about to the point of being notable. I can see that some of those pages get bad. For every Potential enlargement of the European Union, there's a Potential breakup of the United Kingdom. That's why we have a talk page to discuss the specifics, like the Orlando Dreamers. There's no CRYSTAL on this page right now, but there's a lot of CRYSTAL in your saying the "Orlando idea is worthless" or what is or is not a valid proposal. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of MLB expansion

We should do what Expansion of National Basketball Association did... adding a table called progression of MLB expansion. I think it would be a good idea.

Progression of NBA expansion
Years	No. of teams
1946–1947	11
1947–1948	8
1948–1949	12
1949–1950	17
1950–1951	11
1951–1953	10
1953–1955	9
1955–1961	8
1961–1966	9
1966–1967	10
1967–1968	12
1968–1970	14
1970–1974	17
1974–1976	18
1976–1980	22
1980–1988	23
1988–1989	25
1989–1995	27
1995–2004	29
2004–present	30

- BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, similar to Potential National Hockey League expansion this article's main subject is cities that could host teams in future, and not coverage of the entire history of expansion. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page was moved without discussion. I agree that the title is now not so accurate. Should we move it back? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a sufficient level of concern about the title, then I support moving it back. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also move it back. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested at the NHL couter-part. It's likely best to split these pages into "Proposed expansion..." and "Expansion...". GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the article that exists now, I believe it should go back to the "Potential" title. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a unilateral page move reversed, would require contacting WP:RMTR, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of National Basketball Association combines potential and past expansions. Why do you guys oppose for MLB? It's not like this is a bloated article. Separate articles for past and potential expansions is fine I guess. Assumed it was non-controversial? The lead section and "Background" sections are also about past expansions BTW. Why not suggest a article split if this article gets oversized? Otherwise who is the single person who is creating this separate "Past expansions" article? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of mirroring the NBA page. While yes, every MLB expansion has its own page right now, a brief one-paragraph summary could be given for each phase of expansion. Also, an MLB version of the above template happens to be much shorter and more convenient for page placement! Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 19:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of MLB expansion
Years	No. of teams
1901–1960	16
1961	18
1962–1968	20
1969–1976	24
1977–1992	26
1993–1997	28
1998–present	30

Or better yet, since MLB has functioned more as a dual-league historically than the more unified NBA, a template could look like this. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of MLB expansion
Years	No. of AL teams	No. of NL teams
1901–1960	8	8
1961	10	8
1962–1968	10	10
1969–1976	12	12
1977–1992	14	12
1993–1997		14
1998–2012		16
2013–present	15	15

I've actually started the idea of expanding this page to better mirror the NBA page, where each stage of expansion gets its own small section. For now I'm just copy/pasting from the main expansion pages, but these should probably be reduced in size. Or, "Past expansions" (or something similar) could become == level headings, with each expansion year given a === section. User:Spesh531/sandbox/Expansion of Major League Baseball Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like what I see in the sandbox. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with expanding this article to include summaries of past expansion rounds, like the NBA article. I think reverting the move would be a mistake, because, just as I said above, the NHL article which this article was originally modeled on is a terrible model, full of rumors, speculation, and COATRACK, SYNTH and CRYSTALBALL issues, right down to the title. If this article is to exist at all, it most certainly should not be modeled after that one. oknazevad (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that expansion is best covered within the context of the rest of MLB history. Thus I favour keeping the information within the Major League Baseball article, and managing the size of this content by spinning out separate history articles as needed, rather than just one aspect of league history. isaacl (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Major League Baseball#Relocation and expansion? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section covers that particular point in time. More generally, expansion is part of MLB's history, so it is best presented in the appropriate section for the corresponding time period. Tampa Bay, for instance, has a long history of trying to get a franchise, with the possibility of a move being used by existing franchises as leverage for public financing. Readers can get a better understanding of the origins of each new team with it being integrated into an account of MLB"s overall history. isaacl (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on an expansion to the page involving the past expansions. Admittedly, it's largely appropriating content from each individual expansion page, but I've cut out the fat so it isn't just a copy/paste and so it'll be worthwhile to go to each individual page. What are everyone's thoughts? Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're copying content, you have to provide attribution (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). My earlier opinion still holds regarding the proposed changes. I don't like the additional maintenance overhead of duplicated content and think the best compromise is to keep the overview within context of MLB history, with a finer level of detail within the individual MLB expansion pages and franchise articles. isaacl (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But which history where? The main article has a short history section, while History of Major League Baseball is a redirect to the general History of baseball in the United States article. Honestly, this article is a good summary article, and Spesh's work is suitable.

Just remember, Spesh, to attribute any copied text as isaacl noted, though since it's a summary, the text isn't exactly a copy and paste, so I'm not sure just how rigorous attribution needs to be. Wouldn't hurt to just drop links to the articles from which you drew in edit summaries to be safe. Also, there's a few MOS things to keep in mind. Like don't put links in section headers. That's going to need to be redone. oknazevad (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated previously, within the Major League Baseball article, integrated into each corresponding subsection covering the appropriate period in history.

Unless the content was written in a clean start fashion, then it is derivative work and so attribution is needed. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that overview is focused enough; it must carry the weight of much more than just the expansion of the majors, and too much focus on the expansions would bog down the material in the actual play of the game. Meanwhile the articles on the individual rounds are too specific for an overview, as they're about the nitty gritty details of the creation of those teams. Frankly, there's already a lot of duplicative elements of all baseball coverage. For example, the team articles and the team history articles are already somewhat duplicative of the expansion articles. And that's fine. Complex subjects are going to have overlapping elements and those elements will be intertwined.

Especially since the repurposing of this article would get it away from being a speculative crystal ball and rumor magnet. Is future expansion likely? Yes. It is assured? No, it has not been announced that MLB is accepting expansion applications. Nor is it sure that any of the cities mentioned here will be applicants if and when that does happen. The entire article, just like the NHL article it's modeled on, is not a good use of an encyclopedia. If this isn't reworked into a historical overview akin to the NBA article, then I'd just rather send it to AFD as a policy violation. oknazevad (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know to what you are referring by a short overview; there's a really long History section with subsections covering different periods of time in MLB history. Expansion is a part of the history for each period of time and should be integrated into it in a holistic manner. Yes, duplication is inevitable, but we should strive to organize the coverage of the articles to minimize it to facilitate maintenance.

On a side note, I personally agree that having an article full of speculation isn't useful, and don't really like the NHL article on potential expansion either, but for better or worse, a consensus of those who have discussed the matter haven't agreed with me. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them to see WP:CRYSTALBALL - an article entirely dedicated to speculation is against policy. The more that past expansions is discussed (which masks the potential expansion stuff that we still want in it), the better. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course that guidance has been discussed. The "potential expansion stuff that we still want in it" is up for debate (and some editors may not want any of it). Different editors have different ideas on what qualifies as a serious proposal and if it is desirable to track all serious proposals for all history, or just current ones. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes to remove links in the headers. I'll need to procure a list, since I've taken from several pages! If it any point, it feels like the content should be reduced, definitely go for it. Some of the sections feel a little long, but I can't make a judgement call at this point to reduce it anymore. (Just for my sake when I make the change to this article, I'm listing them here: Continental League, 1961 Major League Baseball expansion, 1962 Major League Baseball expansion, 1969 Major League Baseball expansion, 1977 Major League Baseball expansion, 1993 Major League Baseball expansion, 1998 Major League Baseball expansion, History of the San Diego Padres, History of the Miami Marlins, and History of the Tampa Bay Rays). Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content has been added! (I realized I didn't copy from the Marlins page, so I did not include it on my edit description. It may be worth it to trim the content for Toronto, Montreal, and Arizona, but I feel I cannot make the correct judgement to trim at this point. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 17:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many short references do not have corresponding full references

References 18 (Peterson 2003) through 43 (Toronto Blue Jays: Franchise Timeline) do not have corresponding full references, so they do not link to anything and the claims in the article are not verifiable. If you are copying text from other pages, you need to ensure that you copy full references along with short references. Please fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spesh531, I think Spesh531 added those references. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]