Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

MOS:GNL and Second baseman, third baseman, etc.

Do you guys think second baseman, third baseman, etc. should be moved to second base and third base per MOS:GNL? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No, second baseman is a position, second base is a part of the diamond. Spanneraol (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The use of "etc." indicates there would be multiple other positions, please clarify. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Dmoore5556: first baseman too, I believe that's it. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, per Spanneraol. Second base is the physical base, second baseman is the position. Same with third and first. Hog Farm Talk 00:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
MLB uses "baseman" in the Official Rules, see for example section 3.05 here. The NCAA also uses "baseman" in its official softball rules, see for example section 8.1 here.Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Should we use these even in female articles? I feel it would be quite insulting to call for instance June Peppas a "first baseman". Therapyisgood (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It is the name of the position in both baseball and softball.. that was the position she played so why would it be insulting? Spanneraol (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
AAGPBL Player's Association calls her a first baseman. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
"Liberty senior second baseman Amber Bishop-Riley has been voted a third-team selection on the 2021 National Fastpitch Coaches Association (NFCA) NCAA Division I All-Southeast Region Softball Team." (source) Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree with the others. These are the names of the positions, so we should not move the pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Lewis (baseball) Featured article review

I have nominated Lewis (baseball) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Venezuelan Stats Site

Hey all,

The link that most Venezuelan stats sites links to now example: John Morris (http://www.purapelota.com/lvbp/mostrar.php?id=morrjoh001) is at a website domain that is for sale. I tracked down the new site at: John Morris (https://www.pelotabinaria.com.ve/beisbol/mostrar.php?ID=morrjoh001). I would imagine that this would be a good thing for a bot to fix, but I don't know how to do that.

This is probably a low priority case, but I thought it might be a good thing to work on in case the old site gets purchased and has malware or other such bad things on it.

Cheers! DaffydAtzinger (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There are 1,092 pages linked to this site [1]. Since this site is in Spanish, I could not tell if it is a reliable source or an open wiki or what. Either way, the proper place to request this is Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thanks. I moved the request to there. From what I can tell it is the same information that was in the original site, and it is linked to some pages here already, Doug DeCinces for example. Rgrds. 01:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffydAtzinger (talk • contribs)

Featured article nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). Therapyisgood (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Closed as merge, looks like we'll need to figure out how/what to merge. Hog Farm Talk 15:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Having pitched only one game, it'd probably be WP:UNDUE to do more than just listing him on that season's roster.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
After the Jones AFD, I dumped some text & tidied it at 1885 New York Metropolitans season & a smaller summation at New York Metropolitans. That could be used as guidance here. I know the AFD was to merge to the 1890 Bisons season, but it was never really settled where to redirect the article (as the Jones article now rdrs. to List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The list may result in some better room to briefly state his disastrous pitching "career". Hog Farm Talk 02:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I went and copied the info to the season page using the format you did for Jones.. I agree that the redirect should be to the list page. Spanneraol (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Copying what I wrote on the Lewis talk page: I just noticed this AfD. From looking through it, I can't really see how anyone thought the content of the biography would fit into a season article. A much better target would be to "merge" Lewis with an article for the Buffalo vs. Brooklyn game. While the player Lewis might not meet WP:GNG, the game itself certainly does. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how one particular game from that season would be notable... it would really be better to include the info on the game in the season article, and I went ahead and merged most of the info there. Spanneraol (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and boldly redirected the article to List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names#1890–1892, since Spanneraol has completed the merge. Hog Farm Talk 16:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the PL Bisons only played 1 season, would there be any support here to just merge the 1890 season article into the Bisons' article, or is there a preference for having a lone-season article, too? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The format for season articles, roster - stats - etc.. is very different for the format for franchise articles in general.. I'd prefer to keep the season article where it is for consistency with all the other season articles. if anything i'd rather redirect the franchise article to the season article than the other way around.. but there is no reason they can't both exist. Spanneraol (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Composite line scores

On every important series there is a section for composite line scores and I am failing to see the rational. I've never seen a "total linescore" like this in baseball, by any other source. Adding scores of multiple games inning by inning makes zero sense to me. Does anyone care to explain where this came from or why it is used?

Personally, it would make far more sense to list runs, errors, strikeouts, walks, etc. totals for a series. SkippyKR (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm with you.. I don't get what they are for. Spanneraol (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think they should be there, except for the rare series where sources comment on such things. I think I remember some sources showing variants of such things in '15 while discussing KC's domination of late innings in the postseason, but Wikipedia's the only place I've seen them be commonplace. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I second that. I've never seen a baseball series summarized in that type of line score. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree, they seem out of place and not really useful; adding some sort of series leaders list/table would be more insightful. That said, I don't see a need to go back and delete those that were already created in prior seasons. But this seems like a good time to discontinue these for the 2021 postseason, if consensus is reached. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it's not sufficiently significant to include in a Wikipedia article, and I think that as this applies to past series as well, it is reasonable (if anyone wishes to undertake the task) to remove the composite line scores from earlier articles. isaacl (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I can certainly take up this task, but I would be more comfortable if we had something substantial to replace it with. I think a series summary would be impactful. SkippyKR (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
In the past, consensus amongst editors interested in baseball for player articles has been to leave detailed statistics to other web sites and to focus on prose descriptions. I think the same approach can be used for series articles: find suitable sources describing the series and use them to write a text summary in the "Summary" section. isaacl (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I've always wondered who was the first to start this practice and why. --TorsodogTalk 05:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
FYI — for the ongoing 2021 ALCS, I decided to be bold and structure a series summary table in place of a composite linescore. See here. Input welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem getting rid of the composite line score. Also I think what was added was useless as well. It would be better to not have anything after the final game instead of putting up random stats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:4200:6500:2032:9751:359B:F6F2 (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Below is what a summary of a complete series could/would look like (source). Input welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
1975 World Series
Statistic Boston Cincinnati
Team statistics
Runs 30 29
Hits 60 59
Errors 6 2
Batting leaders
Runs Carl Yastrzemski, 7 Johnny Bench, 5
Hits Carl Yastrzemski, 9 Pete Rose, 10
Home runs Bernie Carbo, 2
Carlton Fisk, 2		 Tony Pérez, 3
RBIs Dwight Evans, 5
Fred Lynn, 5		 Tony Pérez, 7
Pitching leaders
Wins Luis Tiant, 2 Rawly Eastwick, 2
Saves — Rawly Eastwick, 1
Will McEnaney, 1
Strikeouts Luis Tiant, 12 Don Gullett, 15
As mentioned, I don't think having a compendium of series stats is in line with other discussions on including statistics in baseball-related articles. Personally, I think this type of summary is better done by the various external sites, with Wikipedia editors focusing on writing descriptive text. isaacl (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll remove from the 2021 ALCS page, and leave an editor note referencing this discussion. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Dmoore's statistics box seems like a good solution to me - comparable pages in other sports like 2021 NBA Finals or Super Bowl LV all include at least some sort of statistical comparison, so it seems reasonable to me to also use such for baseball, at least for the World Series. 77topaz (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This was also discussed in 2020, when the rough consensus was also to remove them—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the composite linescores from 2021 ALCS/NLCS (hadn't been populated yet) and 2021 ALDS/NLDS (had been populated). Editor note left in each article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed today that the 2018 World Series article has a "Series statistics" section (here) which is essentially a composite linescore only of total runs, hits, and errors, along with a home run listing, attendance figures, and payout figures. I like this approach and I'm in favor of using it more broadly. What do other editors think? Dmoore5556 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I have the same opinion as expressed previously. isaacl (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the 2018 box is a reasonable way of showing the statistics, comparable to those used for other sports' championships. 77topaz (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

San Francisco Giants 2021

I know that all the stats listed on the top part of the 2021 Giants page are indeed true but I did some digging and I don't recall seeing many of these stats on teams who led in some of these things in previous seasons? For example, in 2020, I don't recall seeing a statistic on any of the 15 team pages as to who led the NL in BA from the catcher position. I was hoping that at least one other person could assist me in possibly removing some of the stats that are not necessarily needed. Thanks. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

World Series in Infobox for non-WS roster players

Hi, I'm sure this is an annual/perennial issue, so I'm mostly asking for clarification. With the Braves World Series win, a WS championship is being added to the infobox of many players who were not on the Braves WS roster. Articles include Ronald Acuña Jr., who has been on the injured list since July. So, is there a written guideline about this that restricts noting WS champ players to those on the playoff or WS roster? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes.. Acuna definitely does not qualify.. It has been discussed on this page numerous times. Spanneraol (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

RM: Joe Smith (pitcher) → Joe Smith (2010s pitcher)

An editor has requested for Joe Smith (pitcher) to be moved to Joe Smith (2010s pitcher). Since you had some involvement with Joe Smith (pitcher), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Major League Baseball on Fox is too long and convoluted and should be edited

I think this pertains to this WikiProject.

Simply speaking Major League Baseball on Fox is way too long and complicated and should be shortened while other supplemental articles should be created. I suggest we model this off of ESPN Major League Baseball and their supplemental articles Monday Night Baseball, Wednesday Night Baseball and Sunday Night Baseball. I suggest adding a Major League Baseball on FS1 and a Fox Saturday Baseball article. Thoughts? Mannysoloway (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Quite large sections can be removed as Not referenced and or WP:OR. Plus goofs like the Pittsburgh skyline are unimportant trivia....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying to read that article gave me a headache. It can be half the size and nothing of any value would be lost. Wizardman 15:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

American Legion Baseball

Is a player making an American Legion Baseball All-Star team and being the MVP of the all-star game worth mentioning in his article? Therapyisgood (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians re-naming

Looks like they've set Friday as the day for it to go in effect (Guardians merchandise, changing the name on the website, social media, etc...).

Assuming that's the day we'll want to officially re-name the page here, too? Canuck89 (What's up?) 00:06, November 18, 2021 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZackMeisel/status/1461062928019374085

Just remember not to rename the Indians categories, just add new Guardians categories for the players that play there next season. Spanneraol (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Updating team's infobox

How do you update the 'team' infoboxes to say Upcoming season - 2022? I asking, because right now at Cleveland Guardians, it incorrectly says "2021 Cleveland Guardians season". GoodDay (talk)

It's hard-coded into the infobox using CURRENTYEAR. Guess we'll have to wait 'n see come Jan 1. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In the progress of makng a draft article for the imminent lockout

I would love your assistance the article is currently located at Draft:2021 Major League Baseball lockout, I am using existing articles such as 1990 Major League Baseball lockout as references.

Things are gonna be really slow now... I don't expect this lockout till end till at least spring training... probably won't get any serious negotiations till February. Until then all we will have is minor league signings going on. Spanneraol (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete deals, players in limbo

FYI, these players are in limbo. Their transactions did not get completed before the lockout.

  • Jordan Lyles - The deal is pending a physical, which is expected to take place after the work stoppage. [2]
  • Justin Verlander - Jon Heyman of MLB Network notes that the deal has not yet been announced and doesn’t seem to be official. Furthermore, the official MLB page for Houston’s 40-man roster doesn’t list Verlander’s name, nor does the signing appear on Verlander’s transaction tracker. [3]
  • Players in DFA limbo - Sheldon Neuse, Adonis Medina, Sam Selman [4]

These articles should be reflecting this correctly until the lockout ends. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

As an fyi, the RfC is on capitalization of words in an article title containing a dash to separate phrases, such as "Event Y — sport X" (not a hyphen or dash related to a compound phrase). One of the proposed options is to avoid using dashes in the article title. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Variations of baseball

Hi, this is just a notification that an article entitled Variations of baseball has been created and would benefit from page watchers and contributors. JBchrch talk 20:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Sandlot Ball and Sandlot ball are two separate articles over the same topic, it looks like these will need merged together at whichever capitalization is deemed more desirable. Hog Farm Talk 20:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeesh. Lowecase "ball" is the older article by far, but was never in good shape. Capital "B" is the better article, but its capitalization is wrong and it needs considerable work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: - Would a short-term solution be for me to round-robin swap the two titles, and then redirect the much shorter and unsourced article currently at the lowercase "ball" to the other one, preserving page history? Hog Farm Talk 19:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm, sounds like a good start. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Done. Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Lee Smith (baseball)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

How fitting that this nomination stems from work done on the entry for Lee Smith, the longtime record-holder for career saves. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NBASE satisfied by Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame?

Hi, a quick question to see if there is consensus as to if inductees of the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame would be considered as meeting WP:NBASE? NBASE guidance says "Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame." (bolding added by me). Most members of the Canadian HOF are former MLB players or are otherwise notable (e.g. Calvin Griffith and Lester B. Pearson). There are a couple dozen inductees who don't have Wikipedia pages. I have no intent to create pages for all of them, but there are a couple players I have some interest to research, and could create pages. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I would think it doesn't meet the definition of a "major hall of fame". Spanneraol (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Dmoore5556, actually scratch what I said that was mistaken. Is there evidence that these individuals have sourcing? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, I just started looking at Jimmy Rattlesnake; there are about 300 hits on him in pre-WWII newspaper reports in Edmonton; he did not play professionally, so doesn't shows up in Baseball-Reference.com. He may meet GNG, but I'll have to look further. The only other players in the Canadian HOF who don't already have Wikipedia pages are Wayne Norton, Ron Stead, and Jim Ridley (who was also a coach and scout). I haven't done research on those three yet, other than confirming that their playing records are in Baseball-Reference.com. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
If the bullpen is correct, and it's a wiki so always like ours a grain of salt is required, Ron Stead was in the 1967 Pan-An Games, which should be NBASE right there. Wayne Norton looks to be a notable scout at first glance. I say draft 'em up. My concern is that one or two of the executives might not have much. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll work on the above mentioned players as time permits over the next week or so. I'll post an update when drafts are available. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd challenge the project to remove verbiage like "such as" and just enumerate the specific hall of fame and international competitions where notability can be presumed. The rest can rely on WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:NBASE wording now opened in a section added below. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NBASE wording

Following up on the suggestion by Bagumba to replace "such as" wording in WP:NBASE with specific language. There are five bullet points within WP:NBASE, two of which currently have imprecise language (bolding added):

1. Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame.
2. ... or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup, or Olympics) as a member of a national team.

Initial suggestions—for the purposes of WP:NBASE:

Input invited. As always, players who do not meet WP:NBASE may still be considered notable under WP:GNG. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Andrew Vaughn (baseball)#Requested move 25 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Andrew Vaughn (baseball)#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Is a league "disestablished" after its last season scheduled or before its 1st season not scheduled?

This is regarding all of the minor leagues effected by Minor League Baseball#Reorganization of 2021.

Most, if not all, defunct historical leagues (AA, FL, UA, all Negro leagues) are considered "disestablished" after their last scheduled season for all WP purposes ("ceased" in infobox, "disestablished" category, last year in disambiguation in article title, etc.). However, all of the effected minor leagues have "2021" as their "disestablished" date. I am proposing changing that to "2020" – as that was their last scheduled season – and would like to formalize it. This also effects a several CfDs for Southern League (1964–2020). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Support: A league's seasons of operation are more meaningful than its years of existence as an organization. In addition, listing one league as having ceased/disestablished in 2021 and its replacement league being established in the same year would be confusing to the reader. (I'm still confused by the whole reorgainization itself!) Waz8:T-C-E 18:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Support — the "disestablished" year should match the last scheduled season, which is 2020 for the minor leagues noted above. I'm sure I've been inconsistent myself about this; good idea to formalize. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Sports leagues are like Sporting events. The last year they had a game or the last year there was the event, is the year it was disestablished....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

(←) It has been one week with no objections so I will update the article accordingly. If anyone knows where this should be noted for MOS reasons, please let me know. @Waz8: I guess you can proceed with the category moves. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Mets project

If anyone is interested or has seen my edits of late, I've created several WikiProject Mets categories and the assessment page. The Mets project is in need of more members to contribute. All are welcome to join, Mets fan or not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ron Stead

In follow-up to the above discussion about the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, I've drafted an article on pitcher Ron Stead, located HERE. As Muboshgu noted, Stead played in the 1967 Pan American Games, although research uncovered an interesting twist to that story. Feedback on the article welcome, especially as to if editors feel Stead meets WP:NBASE / WP:GNG. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Update – in the absence of feedback, as I believe Stead meets WP:GNG I'll move the article from draft to mainspace later today. Contributions to the article or feedback via its Talk page are welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Wayne Norton

In follow-up to the above discussion about the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, I've drafted an article on player/coach/scout Wayne Norton, located HERE. Feedback on the article welcome, especially as to if editors feel Norton meets WP:NBASE / WP:GNG. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Update – in the absence of feedback, as I believe Norton meets WP:GNG I'll move the article from draft to mainspace later today. Contributions to the article or feedback via its Talk page are welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on eliminating NSPORTS

There is currently pending at RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS a proposal to eliminate NSPORTS, including WP:NBASEBALL. Feel free to weigh in there if you have thoughts on the issue. Cbl62 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS and NBASEBALL an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS and NCRICKET] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT).Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Working on a Fox Saturday Baseball article

I'm working on an article to split Fox Saturday Baseball into its own article. If you would like to help its at Draft:Fox Saturday Baseball. Thank you so much! Mannysoloway (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm more in agreement with the advice you were given previously: trim down the main article first. After that, the desirability of splitting content into a separate article can be examined. isaacl (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Always nine players or usually nine players?

I just made an edit to baseball because I thought the statement that teams are made of 9 players was inadequate - I changed it to "usually" because of the DH, 25-man rosters, etc. But then I saw there's actually been a discussion on the talk page about that exact issue. Not that many people took part in it, so I wanted to ask here if the old text should remain or if "usually" is acceptable. Argles Barkley (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on infobox awards

The player style guide insofar as it relates to what awards and highlights should and should not be included in infoboxes seems to be based almost completely on this discussion which was held way back in 2012. That conversation didn't mention a few different awards though which found their way into infoboxes. I was hoping we could reach a consensus as to these honors.

If a consensus is reached that a given award/highlight should not be included in an infobox, I feel that should be made explicit in the style guide, otherwise you're left to assume that no consensus was reached one way or the other and that the given award is fair game for an infobox.

Anyway, here's a few examples that I think should be addressed:

Oppose.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Spanneraol (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The World Baseball Classic ultimately amounts to a tournament of exhibition games, so we should exclude this one since we also exclude other exhibition awards/achievements such as the All-Star Game MVP and Home Run Derby champion. --Zander251 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per the reasoning above, this is essentially just an exhibition tournament. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Support.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Spanneraol (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Support Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason as my previous opposition. --Zander251 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Support. By the rationale of the opposers, all international tournaments in any sport could be considered merely exhibition events. The WBC is a major tournament and the MVP award for it a a standout achievement. (Of course I also disagree with excluding All-Star Game MVP and HR Derby titles.) oknazevad (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. This award didn't even exist until 7 years after the original consensuses were formed on which awards to include in infoboxes. It's too early to say whether or not this award will gain traction but right now the average baseball fan is not aware of or interested in this award and couldn't tell you when or whether it was awarded this year.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Support first team, oppose second team. Spanneraol (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Support first team; Oppose second team Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Support first team, oppose second team NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Support both. NFL player infoboxes include both first team and second team All-Pros, and this is basically the MLB equivalent of those, so I believe that both are worth including. --Zander251 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The All-Pro teams are very different in that they have been selected since 1940 and get attention from the press and from the fans. There also isn't an all-defense team and an all-offense team in addition to the All-Pro teams which is essentially what MLB has in the Silver Sluggers and Gold Gloves.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Support first team, oppose second team. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Support first team. No need for second team. oknazevad (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutral.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Support Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Support NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Support Spanneraol (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Support. Only two players win this award every year (one per league, just like the MVP awards), so I believe that it is significant enough to include. --Zander251 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Support - clearly a major and significant award. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Support Significant annual award for individual achievement. oknazevad (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • College Conference Player of the Year (Year)
Weak support for NCAA D-I conferences. Oppose for non-NCAA and non-D-I conferences.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose These info boxes are for MLB players, college awards.. especially conference awards are not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Since MLB player articles are primarily about players' professional careers, I am hesitant to say that infoboxes should include any pre-professional awards/achievements unless it is a very significant one (such as the Golden Spikes Award/Dick Howser Trophy), and I don't think that this one is quite on that particular level. --Zander251 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, largely per Zander251. This isn't like the Dick Howser Trophy, we have to draw the line somewhere to prevent infobox bloat. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Support.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Question — would this be for all players on all teams involved in the annual bracket tournament, or just players rostered on the winning team, or ? Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Edited to read "College World Series champion".--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Spanneraol (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Support. In contrast to the previous college award/achievement, I believe that this one is significant enough to include. --Zander251 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Spanneraol (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This award is similar to the Gold Glove Award, but it doesn't seem to receive anywhere near as much coverage in mainstream sources, which leads me to feel that it is not significant enough to include. --Zander251 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose due to lack of widespread coverage, this isn't near the prominence of the GG. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. I have never in my life heard of this award. It seems to be given out pretty arbitrarily at completely irregular intervals and selected by a committee of one.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Support; formal name is Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Support NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Support This award is pretty rare and given out for obviously significant occurances. Spanneraol (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Neutral. This is an interesting one, since it isn't guaranteed to be awarded every year, and because it isn't a player-exclusive award (or an active player-exclusive award). It is an award that can be given based on someone's actions on or off the baseball field, and I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about including an award with such criteria behind it. --Zander251 (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Support for individual players/personnel/team season article since this is infrequently awarded and directly from the commissioner, but oppose for listing on players when the whole team was awarded (our article indicates the '01 Mariners were awarded, and I don't think this should be put in the articles of the individual players on the team, as it was an award directly for the team itself). Hog Farm Talk 21:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is incredibly outdated. I also propose that statistical achievements like hitting for the cycle (a rare achievement), being leaders of certain categories like triples or doubles should also be considered in the infobox. Here are the other major MLB awards / stats that I think should also be included Vera26 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC):

Support while quirky, there is significant historical detail outlined in Hitting for the cycle, and it's already fully listed in infoboxes as well as via succession boxes. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Strongly oppose as not notable. This has long been policy and I can see no reason to disagree with it. The cycle is a very common feat, requires infinitely more luck than skill and is not something that gets more than a mention in the following day's paper.--Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose given lack of interest / traction. No apparent reason to give it more weight. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding Platinum Glove Award here as suggested by Hog Farm below. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose as this is simply a fan vote amongst Gold Glove winners. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Dmoore5556; I thought this ought to be discussed so that clearer guidance could be provided here. Hog Farm Talk 06:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Statistical leaders

I think it's generally been the consensus that if a player leads his league in, say, home runs or stolen bases, that information goes into his infobox. I've seen some inconsistency, however, as to exactly which stats are included. For instance, Kyle Tucker's infobox highlights that he is the 2020 AL triples leader but Eduardo Escobar's, who led the NL in triples in the same year, does not. Can we come up with a list of what statistical categories are significant enough for the infobox? --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's just supposed to be triple crown categories. Spanneraol (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Spanneraol is correct in that it was the triple-crown stats (hitting and pitching) that received consensus support for inclusion. Season stolen base leader did not get consensus support. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I feel we should discuss what guiding principles should be followed. In the past, I believe more (though not all) editors prefer to highlight accomplishments that are indicative of individual excellence (in the sense of being one of the best active players). Thus there are no team-level accomplishments other than World Series champion in the current guidance, and there are only two career leader stats listed (and a slightly larger number of season leader stats). A more expansive principle that some editors support is to include being a stats leader for stats of individual significance to the player. So even if leading in doubles for one season isn't necessarily indicative by itself of being one of the best players, it could be included following this principle. One thing I suggested last time is to allow one signature achievement for which a player is known, if one exists (as I recall, no one or very few people commented on this).
Regarding statistical oddities like hitting for a cycle: the only guiding principles it fits under is "rare things". Past discussion hasn't supported including rare things that aren't that significant in evaluating a player's performance, particularly when there are other more valuable events that aren't typically proposed for inclusion in an infobox (like hitting three home runs in a game). isaacl (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Consensus on infobox awards)

In the interest of encouraging discussion versus just a vote, perhaps commenters could provide some rationale underlying their views? (For example, my personal general rule of thumb for infobox contents is whether or not the info in question is essential to a concise summary of a subject, and so if I were to weigh in I'd evaluate each achievement on that basis.) If we can find some common ground on people's views, maybe we can reach a true consensus. isaacl (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Now added to the list above. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of which ones are accepted/rejected, it would be nice to limit a total amount listed in the infobox. Looking at some, like Babe Ruth, my opinion is 12 or 13 max & then link to the text for a complete list if there are more. This would also require prioritizing the awards as well. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Jim Kaat trivia - remove or keep?

I made this edit to the Jim Kaat article because I checked Google and the whole incident was over in a day. Thinking about it, I'm on the fence - should I have removed it? I'm comfortable either way, and want to get input from baseball fans. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I restored it, expanding with more sources.[6] There was enough continued coverage to quell concerns of it being trivial.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

First article where a known first name and last name-player has been deleted

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rit Harrison. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe this may have been Skinner Belfield of the 1948 Newark Eagles from last July. Penale52 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Not saying he's notable enough to keep, but it'd be interesting what the outcome would have been if NBASEBALL was established in the discussion with a reliable source. Seems that baseball-reference.com could have done that.—Bagumba (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review is------------>this way....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I think they are gloating rather than complaining. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Make of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_January_11#Pete_Vainowski as you wish.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an article for Golden Days Committee?

I notice there's an article for Golden Era Committee, a now-defunct committee for electing players to the Hall of Fame, but no article for one of its successors, the Golden Days Committee. Am I missing something? JimKaatFan (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Does it need to be a separate article? Just add it to the existing one and maybe do a rename? It's really the same thing. Spanneraol (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
That's more work than I'm probably qualified to do. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Article titles of MLB season articles

I've noticed, we've got the Year abbreviated league name season style, for three of the four major sports leagues in North America, with Major League Baseball being the lone exception. For example, we've got 2021–22 NHL season, 2021 NFL season & 2021–22 NBA season. Would there be any objections to changing to (for example) 2021 MLB season? GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with "MLB season". The league is already the primary topic for MLB, and "season" isn't really applicable with the other MLBs, so it's unambiguous.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I prefer keeping the exising names along with the existing redirects from the abbreviated league name, MLB. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Abbreviating is fine. MLB use the abbreviated form all the time themselves. The idea that we shouldn't abbreviate the name because it's not the name of a formal organization is two decades out of date. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I prefer spelling it out, per MOS:ACROTITLE & MOS:JARGON. Many Europeans are not baseball fans, so may not know "MLB." (This is without collecting any in-depth statistics, mind you.) Additionally, they usually refer to themselves as the whole name ("without express written consent of Major League Baseball"). I can't, and won't, speak of those other "sports," who are wrong. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I would think the article name could use "MLB", but its first sentence could still spell it out, such as "The 2022 Major League Baseball season is scheduled to begin ...", no? Echoedmyron (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Defunct minor league team articles

I've noticed that several articles ostensibly about specific minor league teams, especially those created by Skilgis1900, are not articles about those specific teams but about the history of baseball in that city. For example, the El Reno Railroaders article is actually about several separate minor league teams. The first is the El Reno Indians (who played in 1904), a separate El Reno Indians team (who played four years later in 1908), the El Reno Packers (which began play in 1909, not as a renamed version of the Indians but a separate team in a separate league which was created from the relocation of a team called the Joplin Miners) and finally the El Reno Railroaders (who began play 12 years later in 1922). All of the pedigree information of these teams is crammed into a single infobox as if they were a continuous operation. The titles of these articles seems to be picked somewhat arbitrarily from among the several different teams covered in the articles.

It's undisputed that these teams are related only insofar as they played in the same town (they had different ownership, different names, different uniforms, were often separated by gaps of several years, etc.) and therefore warrant separate articles. The question is how to deal with this problem which is way more widespread than I realized (Skilgis1900 alone has created 472 team articles and I would be willing to bet that at least 400 of them have the same problem). Would it be best to rename such articles as "History of baseball in [City]?" Would it be best to split them into multiple articles which would likely be stubs? Is there a third option? --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

After actually visiting the Joplin Miners article, I see that Skilgis1900 claimed therein that the 2015 Joplin Blasters were a continuation of the 1954 Joplin Cardinals. I think the absurdity of this claim speaks for itself and further serves to illustrate the urgency of the need to act here. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I think in some cases it is good to do a minor league in such and such a city article.. particularly when covering early era teams that didn't last very long. Spanneraol (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the best approach, but I agree with Dennis C. Abrams. It seems like original research to say one team is a continuation of another team just because they played in the same ballpark (even when they have the same name). Without looking (but having looked them over before), I think the creator tends to name them based on the moniker used in the most seasons. I may favor renaming to "History of baseball in [City]" versus having several very short articles about teams that played for very short periods of time. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
There are many cases like this. Take Hollywood Stars, for example. The team existed from 1926–1935, then moved to San Diego. The Mission Reds then moved to Hollywood and named themselves the Stars for the 1938 season. Should the Mission Reds article cover the franchise through the move? Are the two Stars' really "a continuation"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Denniscabrams: I have been seeing some of this work by Skilgis1900 for three plus years and even made note about it in a post[7] to this talk page. There are many problematic minor league team articles, in the case of the Fayetteville Generals I reverted back[8] to a earlier version. I fixed up a few other articles but bypassed others because of the work needed to fix things. The merging/original research that is found in this editor's work is problematic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Skilgis1900 is back creating[9] History of baseball in [City] articles, and turning[10] old articles into redirects. I reverted some of those redirects with a edit summary pointing him to this conversation. A conversation is needed, and some heavy duty changes needed to some articles based on whatever consensus forms here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the "history of" articles as it could be an interesting topic and is different from the noted above of using actual team articles to discuss unrelated teams.... and teams that existed for a short period or don't have much sourcing about them in particular can easily be redirected to those articles. Spanneraol (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Denniscabrams - if the teams are notable enough to have their own article, they shouldn't all be combined into one space when the teams are definitely unrelated. Meaning, if there's no source saying the teams are related, we can safely say they need a separate article. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Despite, four pokes from me, Skilgis1900 continues on their merry way and isn't taking any input. What's the next step, WP:ANI? @Skilgis1900: Making it five pokes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Skilgis1900 (sixth poke), communication is required. You need to respond to the concerns of other editors to establish consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
They seem to edit late at night my time (EST Florida) so let's wait till tomorrow at least or if they edit again before then before taking other action like ANI. I sincerely Skilgis responds here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to set up minor league team articles as the consensus decides. There is merit to using "History of..." if cities hosted more than three teams or monikers. Most of the minor league cities were in leagues that came and went due to WWI, WWII or the TV age of the 50's and team monikers were apt to change due to affiliations or generational changes. Skilgis1900 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I think what's key here is that the history is accurate. If all a team did was change its name, there should be one article. If a number of teams simply shared a ballpark or name with a long stretch of inactivity and no real relationship, there should be separate articles. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Just because two teams happen to share a ballpark and a name doesn't make them the same team. It's not uncommon even to this day for new franchises (either expansion or relocation) to assume the name of a historic team from that city but be otherwise unrelated. That said, it does also kinda make sense that short-lived teams may lack independent notability and are best covered in a "history of minor league baseball in X" type article instead. But if that's the tact taken, then the article needs such a title and an accurate description of the history and relationship between the teams and not one that conflates the teams as a single entity by title or historical summary. oknazevad (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that with current franchises reusing a traditional moniker (ex Kansas City Monarchs, etc.), those absolutely should be independent articles if notable and not under a "History of...." In my previous comment, I didn't clarify I was referring to cities that hosted teams of multiple monikers without a current minor league franchise.Skilgis1900 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Village pump proposals

There are several proposals located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability to either abolish or significantly rewrite WP:NSPORT which may be of interest to this project's editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific, your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
  • Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
  • Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
  • Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
  • Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
  • Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
  • Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
  • Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
  • Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Park vs. Stadium

Is there a rule of thumb on whether to describe baseball venues as "baseball park" or "baseball stadium." Back Bay Barry has made this[1] change[2] on a few venues. It's probably a good idea to remain consistent. Has this been discussed before? I couldn't find anything in the archives, but I could have missed it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the Baseball park article answers your question.
"A baseball park, also known as a ballpark or diamond, is a venue where baseball is played. Larger venues where baseball is played are usually referred to as baseball stadiums."
I believe that baseball stadium would be the best way to describe Major League venues. Skipple (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Skipple, thanks for contributing. The above definition was just added[3] to Baseball park by the same user. It previously read:
"A baseball park, also known as a ballpark or diamond, is a venue where baseball is played. A baseball park consists of the playing field and the surrounding spectator seating. While the diamond and the areas denoted by white painted lines adhere to strict rules, guidelines for the rest of the field are flexible. The term "ballpark" sometimes refers either to the entire structure, or sometimes to just the playing field."
So I'm not sure that change is that helpful. The old definition would have accommodated calling Major League venues parks. I'm comfortable with this change if that's the consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk)
FWIW, those descriptions are unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
A ballpark is a venue for baseball. A stadium is a place with tiered infrastructure to allow a large number of spectators to watch events. MLB venues are both and so both terms apply. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree, and I think that since "stadium" is more specific, calling every MLB venue a stadium in the first paragraph is the way to go. Not all ballparks are stadiums, but every MLB stadium is a "ballpark", in the sense that baseball is played on a field inside the stadium. High school ballparks, for example, would probably not be described as stadiums. Argles Barkley (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Many of these MLB venues are already called "parks." Calling Fenway Park a stadium just seems confusing. If ballpark and stadium are interchangeable calling the venues "ballparks" should be something used for baseball venues. Nemov (talk)
The terms are not interchangeable per se; they just both apply to MLB venues. Fenway Park's not an outdoor park as someone unfamiliar with baseball might think, so clarifying that it's a stadium is helpful. I think most editors would prefer not to describe a multi-purpose stadium as a ballpark, though there are only two remaining MLB teams who fit that category (three if you count whatever Tropicana Field is; it was built for baseball but has been the home venue for teams in other sports and hosted college football bowl games). isaacl (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Most of the major league baseball venues were called ballpark before this mass change. I posed this question originally because I was curious if there already was a guideline in place. If there isn't a guideline it seems like these venues were organically called ballparks by editors. I realize there are some multi-purpose stadiums in the major leagues (although less now) so those cases can be managed separately, but it seems like most people call these venues ballparks. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, you started this discussion to see what interested editors think (and thanks very much for doing so!), so we can see what they say. Through this discussion, I'm coming around to the view that "ballpark" is a description of function, while "stadium" is a description of the type of structure. Given that all MLB venues are, by definition, ballparks, having a description of the type of structure in the opening sentence may be more useful. isaacl (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think places that Major League Baseball games are held are called "stadiums" in most places (newspapers, news websites, people talking). Also, virtually no one uses the term "baseball park" - they just say "ballpark", and that's if they're trying to be quaint. It's like calling TD Garden a "Barn" - the Boston Garden wasn't a barn either, but people referred to it affectionally that way. But anyway, no one says "baseball park" and that's why I changed it. I vote that places with a baseball diamond primarily used by MLB teams should be called "Stadiums". Back Bay Barry (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  • "Ballpark" is baseball-specific and more descriptive than "stadium", which is commonly used by many sports and evokes multi-purpose use generally. And "ballpark" is specifically about facilities with permanent spectator seating, by the way. If there's no such seating it's not called a "ballpark", but simply a (base)ball field. So I vote "ballpark" as being the most specific and correct descriptor. oknazevad (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Baseball stadium FWIW, I disagree with Oknazevad here. Saying "baseball stadium" is more specific than "ballpark" - like Isaacl said above, "a stadium is a place with tiered infrastructure to allow a large number of spectators to watch events." So the articles on MLB stadiums should say "baseball stadiums". JimKaatFan (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "Ballpark" or Baseball stadium Thanks for all the feedback so far. After reading through the responses I'm not sure there's a set rule since it depends on the venue. I'll stick to Truist Park for this example since that's the venue article I know well. The article uses ballpark and stadium in the lead.
Truist Park (originally SunTrust Park) is a baseball park in the Atlanta metropolitan area, approximately 10 miles (16 km) northwest of downtown Atlanta in the unincorporated community of Cumberland, in Cobb County, Georgia. Opened in 2017, it is the home ballpark of Major League Baseball's Atlanta Braves. The stadium was constructed in a public–private partnership with a project budget of $622 million.
The use of ballpark or "baseball park" makes sense for baseball only venues. It wouldn't make sense for mixed venues or multi-purpose stadiums. This is probably best left to the editors of each venue article. Nemov (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Where do I sign up to become "the editor" of a particular venue article? Back Bay Barry (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
No need to sign up. Just open up the topic on the article you're editing. The way it's currently written on Truist Park works for me (others could disagree), but stadium may work better on other venues. I hope this helps. Nemov (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Back Bay Barry that "baseball park" is unidiomatic, and is thus confusing. Personally I would prefer calling it a baseball stadium in the first sentence, leaving the second sentence to call it the home ballpark of the Atlanta Braves. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been 11 days and there's been no new comments for 4 days. Skipple, isaacl, Argles Barkley, JimKaatFan, and myself all think that "baseball stadium" is the best way to describe Major League venues. Back Bay Barry (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I just rewrote Rakuten Seimei Park Miyagi from the ground up and I think describing it as a "baseball stadium" in the first sentence of the lead is important, but referring to it as a "park" or "ballpark" throughout the article every once in awhile is also acceptable. --TorsodogTalk 06:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
These's still not a clear consensus. Please exercise patience before making widespread changes. The goal is get this right. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Stadium seems most associated with professional baseball, where's Park seems associated with amateur baseball. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
And yet MLB calls their app for managing electronic tickets the Ballpark app. "Park" alone may mean an amateur field, but "ballpark" is synonymous with "baseball stadium" (that is, one that has permanent seating) at all levels. Even the industry coverage uses it, as seen by the name of the website Ballpark Digest. oknazevad (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The fact that you are seriously suggesting that the name of an app is the most reliable source for this argument is probably evidence that "baseball stadium" is the right term. In any case, the previous wording was "baseball park", not "ballpark". I don't even understand how the article is called baseball park. Nobody says that. "Ballpark" is used for small fields with limited seating, and it's sometimes used as a colloquial term for a stadium, but using colloquial terms in the first sentence isn't something an encyclopedia should strive for. Using the name of an app as a basis for the same is even crazier. Back Bay Barry (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
All baseball stadiums are ballparks but not all ballparks are baseball stadiums. Seems to me that it would be more informative to use baseball stadium. --TorsodogTalk 23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citi_Field&oldid=1067628049
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truist_Park&oldid=1067992703
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baseball_park&oldid=1067045620

I'd like to ask if all of the editors in this discussion (Torsodog, oknazevad, JimKaatFan, Skipple, isaacl, Argles Barkley, GoodDay) please take a look at both Truist Park and Baseball park. Nemov is very resistant to anyone changing those articles if their name isn't Nemov. Personally, I think "baseball park" is the wrong name for that article because no one says "baseball park". It's a "baseball stadium", or, colloquially, a "ballpark". Since an encyclopedia shouldn't have a colloquialism as the title, I propose that the article be renamed to "baseball stadium". Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The definition of "baseball park" in the baseball park article isn't really under discussion here. That's probably best to be left at the TALK page for that article. This was a discussion about reaching consensus about applying a standard towards all MLB venues. Reviewing this discussion there's really not a strong consensus, but there does seems to be support for "baseball stadium." I've already left my opinion about it and support whatever is decided. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
7-2 is a "strong consensus". Stop it. Back Bay Barry (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Rob Ruck

I just created a draft for baseball historian Rob Ruck. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thriley, to be an article, this would need to have more than just a list of works. When was he born? Where is he from? Where did he go to school? Is he married? Etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I just thought there may be someone here who was familiar with his books and wanted to work on the article. I have a bunch of other articles to flesh out before I get back to him. Thriley (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

History articles of re-located MLB teams.

Inquiry, are the Montreal Expos & the Seattle Pilots the only articles that are not in the "History of team" article title form? GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yea, cause the Expos fans shot down every attempt to make their article consistent with the other ones. Spanneraol (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
As you are aware from multiple times you've asked in the past, Talk:Montreal Expos/FAQ has a collection of various articles of teams that have moved. I've updated it for a few that have changed. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there a compelling reason why those two pages aren't "History of" articles? Much of the Expos information should be rolled into the Nationals page if it's not there already. I suspect that a franchise is eventually going to move to Montreal. Even if that franchise adopts the Expos name that history belongs with the Nationals franchise. Nemov (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The FAQ summarizes the arguments that have been made from both perspectives on a number of related questions, including the name of the article. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I reviewed the FAQ that in many cases those conversations are over 10 years old. I wasn't part of the conversation all those years ago and if this keeps coming up it probably means the consensus to carve an exception to the rule could be under threat if it's reopened. These articles should be handled consistently and as the FAQ demonstrates that's not happening. I don't see a logical reason why the "history of" articles and articles like Montreal Expos exist. Pick one or the other. Nemov (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:Consensus can change. And it should. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, either go with the "History of..." style, or don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
It's been quiet for years, because no one had any new arguments to add, so there was no point in rehashing it. I was just responding to your question regarding what the arguments have been. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(←) Consistency should reign over these articles. I really don't see what the benefit of the "History of" pre-fix is other than saying the franchise abandoned your city, nyah-nyah. If the franchise is completely defunct, we make no "History of" declaration (see all of the early NL & AA teams). I believe a stock sentence in the lede for relocated franchises, & maybe an enhanced infobox, would suffice. For example, the infobox could be a slightly different background color & where the current teams have the "current season" link, the relocated teams could have a "relocated to" tag right under the team name. I really never got the whole "History of" scarlet letter. Someone open a RfC. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bison X, there are "history of" articles for the existing MLB teams: see Category:History of Major League Baseball by team. The category has one for each of the 30 existing teams (plus three more for the Cardinals, who have it split in four), plus one each for these "defunct" teams: Boston Braves, New York Giants, Philadelphia Athletics (not KC), St. Louis Browns, and Washington Senators (the future Twins only, not the future Rangers. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The one use for "History of" that could work is if one of these teams return. The first example I thought of in US sports is the Charlotte Hornets who have the same name, but are a different franchise. There's a History of the Charlotte Hornets for the original franchise. This could happen in Montreal. There's a good possibility a MLB franchise moves there and they become the Expos again. Nemov (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Thankfully, the MLB & the NHL don't treat this topic the way the CFL & NFL do. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Correct, the history of current teams do have their own articles, but they also have a stand-alone article. You have 4 "History of the St. Louis Cardinals" articles, but you also have a "St. Louis Cardinals" article. You have a "History of the St. Louis Browns" article, but where is the article "St. Louis Browns"? You don't need a "History of" article. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
{{MLBHistory}} has more of these links. We get mostly links to subsections on the "history of" pages for "relocated" teams (such as History of the Baltimore Orioles#Milwaukee Brewers, History of the New York Yankees#Background: 1901–1902 Baltimore Orioles, History of the Atlanta Braves#Milwaukee, but also some individual "history of" articles like History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, History of the Philadelphia Athletics, and "non-history" titled pages for the Montreal Expos and Seattle Pilots. Then, for defunct teams, it's all just the article itself (such as New York Mutuals, Louisville Colonels, Cleveland Spiders). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
"History of" without a regular article goes against WP:PRECISION, no? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe so. Philadelphia Athletics is more concise than History of the Philadelphia Athletics. Is there any place where a past consensus for this was formed? We should probably have an RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps too, separate articles for the Kansas City Athletics, Milwaukee Braves, etc, could be created. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The concision argument has been raised in the past (by me and others). If I recall correctly, there have been discussions in the context of the Expos and New York Giants. If any more general conversations took place, it predates my awareness of the baseball WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe in the past the decision was that those were not separate teams, but split outs from the existing team history articles. The Brooklyn Dodgers are not a separate franchise from the LA Dodgers and there is no reason to duplicate information on two different articles. I recall there being a decent size discussion on the issue along time ago. Spanneraol (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I apologize as I'm not following. Are you saying the Montreal Expos and New York Giants articles are split outs from the existing team history articles, or the History of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the History of the Philadelphia Athletics articles? When you say there was a decent size discussion on the issue, are you referring to the use of "History of..." in general? (I agree it sounds like a topic that would have been discussed in general; I just don't recall.) isaacl (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The history of the brooklyn Dodgers was split out from the history of the LA Dodgers article.. and the Athletics was split out from the Oakland article. There was a discussion that led to the creation of those history articles... I did the Brooklyn split so I remember the discussion... but can't remember exactly when it was.. it had been many years. Spanneraol (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even realize there was a History of the Atlanta Braves article until today. I've been editing the Atlanta Braves article for years and never noticed. It might make more logical sense to name articles like that "History of the Atlanta Braves Franchise" since it includes the history of Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta. I suppose these "history of" articles exist because the content would clutter the main Atlanta Braves article. In theory the franchise history in "History of the Washington Nationals Franchise" could include much of the content that's on the Montreal Expos article. Trimmed version of articles like the Expos could remain, but with the basics without all the franchise history. It's confusing right now because there doesn't appear to a standard being applied here. Nemov (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The point of the history articles is to prevent the main page from being bogged down in season by season summaries which has occurred on some of the pages... it's better to just have a general overview of the franchise on that page and then have the detailed breakdowns on the history page. Spanneraol (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Correct, I mentioned that. Nemov (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sooo, was this just a drive-by comment, or did you have a proposal in mind? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Either move the Expos & Pilots to "History of the Montreal Expos" & "History of Seattle Pilots" or change all the other "History of..." articles to team names, "Brooklyn Dodgers", "St. Louis Browns" etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, the Expos move isn't going to happen. I'd (most likely) support moving the other articles away from "history of" (in all sports), but I'm unsure as to where the best place would be to hold such an overall discussion. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
For sure, the Expos article will get special treatment, as it always has. I will note that the NHL does not use "History of..." articles, but rather regular team articles for defunct or pre-relocated teams. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
What is "pre-relocated?" Asking for a friend. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Previous locations of current franchises: Examples - Quebec Nordiques, Brookly Dodgers, San Diego Chargers, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I just cleaned up the Pilots article. Namely, I removed mention of a self-published book about the team. WP:DUE, WP:BOOKSPAM pretty much covers it. Amazon isn't here to promote people's books....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to leave the articles about "Montreal Expos" and ""Brooklyn Dodgers" but the history of those club should be the "history of" articles. Articles like "Montreal Expos" and ""Brooklyn Dodgers" shouldn't been very big. It should just the basics of there was a team with this name on these dates. Anything relating to the history of the team, retired players, uniforms, logos, etc, should be on the "history of" article. People who search for "Montreal Expos" will learn the basics and if they want a deeper history can read the franchise history. Is there a more logical way to approach it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The general approach for English Wikipedia articles is to only introduce a spinout history article when the main article's length would be too unwieldy with the history included. Team articles have followed this pattern. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
What would be your definition of unwieldy? There's 48 paragraphs of history on the Montreal Expos article and almost all of it could be at the History of the Washington Nationals article since it exists. We should apply some kind of consistent model. If "Montreal Expos" is going to stay then History of the New York Giants (baseball) will need to be updated to "New York Giants (baseball)." Once this is decided we could have a broader discussion about what is included in the aricle, but much of the history belongs on the franchise "history of" article if it's going to exist. Nemov (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the exact policy, but WP:CONTENTSPLIT seems good. It might seem good at Washington's history section, but Montreal's distinctness would justify a separate article. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I still don't think we should have separate articles for the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Boston Braves, etal.. as those are not separate franchises that are distinct enough for them to be separated like that. The teams just moved, they retained their franchise history and it would be confusing to have them separate.. it's the same team. The Expos are unique enough of a situation but these other teams are not. Spanneraol (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Why are the Expos unique? MLB history is littered with teams moving to other cites. The Washington Senators were a club for 59 years before moving to Minneapolis to become the Twins. I understand the recency bias, but logically speaking there's no difference between the Washington Senators and Montreal Expos. It doesn't make sense for one to be the former club name and one is the "history of." There does appear to be some fear of upsetting the apple cart when it comes to the Expos page. I'm failing to see a reason why. Nemov (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Because the Expos had a unique cultural connection to their Canadian fans that the US based teams don't have. Spanneraol (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The Expos article would've been moved to "History of the Montreal Expos", years ago. Except that there was enough editors (likely Canadians) who opposed its re-naming. As for the Pilots? they only had 'one season', so that's likely why it was never moved to "History of the Seattle Pilots". GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There are some people who think season articles should have brief mentions of every game and summaries of every series, and the History of the Washington Nationals article (fyi, your link went to the Giants article) is along those lines on a rolled-up per year basis. Personally I think that's too much detail—I'd roll it up into groups of seasons—but either approach could be followed. With that level of detail, spinning out season descriptions from the main article helps guide readers to the level they're interested in. The Montreal Expos article, however, is not broken down to the same fine degree. I think it remains suitable for inclusion in a team's main article. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

An RfC relating to relocated teams' article titles using "History of" has been opened and may be of interest to this Wiki Project. The RfC will add language to the WP:GUIDELINE and will affect multiple article titles. Please join the discussion at the above link. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for J. R. Richard

I have nominated J. R. Richard for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 22:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Year team season intros, messed up.

AFAIK, most of the Year team season articles copy their article - Year Team season. But, I've noticed that (in last few months likely), that someone's went around many of these team articles & changed the intro to Team Year season. The result? is inconsistency across teams & with the same team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

To me, the worst part of the season article intros has been the failure to note MOS:BOLDAVOID. There should be no links in the bold text, like this random season article has. Inconsistency in wording sounds bad too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
We need consistency for these intros, no matter what format is implemented. The intros to the 1993 Cincinnati Reds season, 1994 Cincinnati Reds season & 1995 Cincinnati Reds season articles, are prime examples. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Games possible vs series canceled

I was wondering if people could weigh in on what they think is a better way to describe the after effects of yesterday's failed deadline? Should we mention the amount of games that the season was cut down to (even though it is still fluid and could change), or should we only mention the amount of series that were canceled, or a combination of the two.

I feel like the second option would be better just because we don't know how many games will actually be played this season. I also feel like it would make more sense to focus more on the amount of series canceled than the games that could still happen because the first fact is not up for debate or discussion. We know for a fact that 2 series have been canceled for each team. With the game amount, there is still quite a bit of discussion and debate about it and it is likely that teams are going to get 155-156 games in (meaning there are more cancellations on the horizon most likely) which seems like tedious work to have to make more edits. I just feel like it would be better to use set in stone facts on these team pages rather than facts that can still fluctuate. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The 155-156 is where a bunch of teams are already at. It does not mean more cancellations are likely--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Until there is confirmation on a deal or even rumors that a resolution is in sight...more cancellations are still possible. A small piece of advice...I would suggest that you change the wording in this line "As of March 1, the season has been reduced to 156 games, following the cancellation of the first two series." I think that it is correct for the most part, however not all teams are at 156 games like you eluded to. Some are at 155. So perhaps something like "As of March 1, the (enter team name) season has been reduced to 156 games, following the cancellation of the first two series." I am just trying to help you out since I see that you are newer around here than me. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This isn't about whether there's resolution in sight. Because if more games are canceled that means more series are canceled. Adding the team name to the sentence is superfluous because the team's season has already been established as the subject, therefore we don't need to keep repeating what season. But that's not even the point of the discussion you started--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we will just have to learn to agree to disagree on this. I won't be able to change your thinking on this topic and I don't think you can really change mine. To me, it's a little vague and so I changed it slightly. Clearly, you disagree and that is fine. That's your right. We each have the ability to edit pages. I am done with this discussion. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The team pages could just make a generic mention to the lockout and link to 2021–22 Major League Baseball lockout, leaving the details to that centralized page. Once the lockout is over, some expansion with high-level details can be placed in the team pages. That seems the most efficient, but some may want "their" team page to have more details now. I'm not really editing any of this though.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bagumba: That seems like a reasonable compromise especially since this situation is extremely unique and the information is already in one centralized location. If it is okay with you (Bagumba) I would like to try that out with my teams. What do you suggest that I say for the generic mention? GoWarriors151718 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s not compromise if I don’t agree. If you’re going to “try things out” use your sandbox--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not following the lockout that closely. Perhaps something roughly like the league began a lockout on Dec 2, and the start of the regular season was delayed after the league began canceling games. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Bagumba that given the changing situation, for now it would be more efficient to centralize lockout details to the main lockout page. Exactly how many games will be played later is subject to negotiation (both sides have financial incentives to squeeze in more games into the final schedule), so I think the individual team articles don't need to give prominence to this aspect right now. isaacl (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I also agree with this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: Seems to me that consensus was to not include the number of games. Your edits last week that indicated that "the season has been reduced to 156 games" were apparently not true in hindsight given that, as I stated in my edit summary to 2022 Tampa Bay Rays season that you reverted, 162 games was still on the table. For all we know, it still is. Which is my point, that none of us know what the length of the schedule will be as of right now. The source you gave from CBS Sports literally says "The number of games played ... and the schedule itself are all subject to bargaining" and does not explicitly say how many games will be played. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Not true in hindsight" is 100% false. The passage said AS OF MARCH 1, which means it was true until it wasn’t. Canceling more games doesn’t make it retroactively wrong. And there is no visible consensus here--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
'''AS OF MARCH 1''' it's evident that it was still on the table that 162 games would be played based on today's news. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I really think we should wait on messing with the schedules till we know what the actual schedule will be... they could still play an entire season... no matter what they say today. Also don't like including things like "as of" because it is not encyclopedic. Spanneraol (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree and I think there's a big difference in saying "as of X the season has been reduced to # games" which can't be verified, and saying "the maximum number of games that could be played under the originally released schedule is #". Even the latter still may not be encyclopedic but at least isn't speculatory like the former. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
While the second option is better than the first, which is unacceptable to me... I still think there is no reason for either text yet... what is the hurry? Wait till they reach a deal and then put down what the result is when it is a fact that can be verified. Spanneraol (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree entirely with that. Will it be removed or would an effort continue to get reverted until the lockout actually ends? That is the question. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Tampabay721 (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

NBASEBALL

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, NBASEBALL has now been modified such that playing in MLB no longer gives rise to a presumption of notability. Thoughts on how NBASEBALL can now be rewritten? Here are some discussion points for a new NBASEBALL:

  • Increase the number of games required to trigger a presumption of notability. Maybe 10 games? Maybe 20? Or five?
  • Limit the years (e.g., post-1900, post-World War I) as to which playing in specified leagues would trigger a presumption of notability.
  • Limit which leagues qualify a player for a presumption of notability (maybe just American and National Leagues?).
  • Shift from a "game played" standard to a "game started" standard.
  • Adopt a series of performance-based markers. Examples might include:
(1) Ranked among the leaders in a major statistical category in any given year or on a career basis
(2) Chosen for the All Star tam
(3) Inducted into relevant halls of fame
(4) Won a significant award (MVP, Cy Young, Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, or others listed at Template:MLB awards)
(5) Others?

I'm not advocating at this point for one particular approach, but this is a discussion that needs to happen. Cbl62 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the best place to hold this conversation. If so, it should be cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports).

Either way, for posterity here is what was removed from NBASE [11]:

Removed content
  1. Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic or the Baseball World Cup) as a member of a national team.
  2. Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro major leagues, Players' League, Union Association.
  3. Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues.
  4. Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff.

Here's how it now reads:

Current content

Baseball figures are presumed notable if they

  1. Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame.

Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed by this guideline to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.[1]

Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP.

References

  1. ^ Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.

Rgds. --Bison X (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think this is the correct forum to displace a potential replacement. If/when the baseball project reaches consensus on a proposal, then it can be presented to the broader audience at NSPORTS. Cbl62 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
So the result from that impossible to follow mess of a discussion was to gut the notability guidelines.. great... so now only hall of famers are notable? And every 19th century player will soon be up at afd? Spanneraol (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
That's what I thought at first, but the closure says The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article. By removing them, editors will need to demonstrate that other SNG criteria or the GNG are met. So it was removed so that consensus could be reached as to what the SNG for baseball should be, if I'm reading that correctly. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

They kept moving the goalposts and modifiying it to get exactly what a few want then leave the grunt work to the experts to figure out. This is why I don't waste my time working on articles anymore. Wizardman 22:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea, it's frustrating.. they kept adding new proposals until most of the people arguing against them got tired and stopped responding.. then they wore down the rest of them. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Don't forget the part where they threw tantrums whenever anyone tried to notify the editors who actually work on sports articles about those interminable proposals. It led to me seriously reducing the amount of time I spend on here. But hey, if they are able to delete a bunch of articles that they don't like, that will somehow make all the other articles better. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The bigger takeaway is this change:

Baseball figures are presumed notableSignificant coverage is likely to exist for baseball figures if they...

As worded, NSPORTS could be misinterpreted to no longer provide a presumption of notability. This would be a bastardized transformation from Wikipedia: Notability (emphasis added):

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Module:MLB standings

I believe Module:MLB standings needs to be update to reflect the increase in Wild Card teams in each league from 2 to 3. There is an existing module named wildCard2012 that handles two Wild Card teams; I think we need a wildCard2022 module to handle three Wild Cards teams (without breaking seasons that have already happened). Is there someone here with Module experience who could make such an enhancement? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This might not be the place to ask. But, is the new format gonna be Wild Cards #2 & #3 play each other & the winner then plays Wild Card #1? GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
per MLBtraderumors here "the top two division winners in each league receive first-round byes, while the worst division winner and the three Wild Card teams per league will play three-game sets to advance to the Division Series. The worst division winner will face the final Wild Card qualifier, while the top two Wild Card clubs will take on one another." Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Each a best-of-three, cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The season ending tie-breaker (aka 163rd Game), has been eliminated. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As documented at Template:MLB standings, there is an optional parameter called "output" that currently accepts a value of "wildCard2012" which changes the output from the default. I created the "output" parameter to allow for future format changes (which I kind of thought would take less than ten years to happen). Now that the day is here, I can work on a change to support the new format. (The "wildCard2012" value would remain to support all current uses.) I'm still considering some different options in my mind on how to do it. isaacl (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I guess we'll need a Template:12TeamBracket-MLB (with two division winners getting first-round byes) similar to how Template:12TeamBracket-NFL is set up. The 2021 playoffs will be the last to use Template:10TeamBracket-MLB.Canuck89 (Converse with me) 02:36, March 14, 2022 (UTC)
I've added support for |output=wildCard; the documentation has been updated accordingly. The module uses the |year= parameter to determine how many wild card teams per league to show, using data configured in Module:MLB standings/data. For backwards compatibility, |output=wildCard2012 is still supported. Please let me know if you see any issues with existing standings tables or new ones. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, please follow the documentation for {{MLB standings}} on how to create the standings templates. Highlighting of teams is not hardcoded within the standings templates, in order to allow each team season article to highlight its own team, and seeding information is also passed into the standings templates, so it is shown only on the relevant article pages. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
To clarify a bit more regarding seeding: when I created {{MLB standings}}, the seed information was only shown on the MLB season page, which I think is still the case. Thus there isn't a particular reason to centralize storing the seeds. isaacl (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks very much for following up, and for the above info. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Tiebreaker games format, eliminated

With a heavy heart, I've made the changes to related articles concerning tie-breaker games. Starting with the 2022 season & compensating for the expanded playoffs. MLB has eliminated tiebreaker games, as a method to break ties. It's strictly statistics from here on, which will make the determination. The 2018 National League West tie-breaker game, will go down in history as the last extra regular season game/tie breaker. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh good. I always hated them. :) BilCat (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Tiebreakers made sense when just one or two teams from each league advanced to postseason play (e.g. 1948 and 1978). Now that each league will be sending six teams into the postseason... not so much. That said, I could envision something happening someday that yields an "unfair" outcome, and tiebreakers get resurrected. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist notifications

Has anyone had an issue with not getting watchlist notifications? I have this page on my watchlist ("permanently"), but more often than not, I do not get a notification about new content. Any insight, or pointers to a better place to ask, would be welcome. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

When you say "notification", are you talking about an email notification? According to Help:Email notification, once you receive an email notification for a page, you won't get another email for that page until you visit it. isaacl (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and that's probably exactly what has been happening (I don't always visit a page after a notification)... thank you! Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The links to the MLB.com rosters are not working on the roster templates.. can someone who understands how that code works take a look at that? Spanneraol (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Each team's roster template will need to have the "|MLBcomName=" field changed to thier team nickname. For example, the Milwaukee Brewers would be "brewers" (lowecase) to match usage in [12] NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Championship by year colors

In the articles for the MLB divisions, like the American League East, in the Champions by Year and Wild Card winners produced, why are the World Series wins in red and losses in green? This seems counter to the common template, precedent set earlier in the article(in the Timeline , winners are in green and appearances are in yellow), and even this projects own quality assessment grading. Is there a color guide/template that someone could point me to? Or is there a different place to discuss this, as it is something that happens in the NFL conference pages as well. PetahBread15 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the colouring is backwards. Winning should be in green & losing in red. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. That's completely bass-ackward. Heck, I don't think red should be used at all. Since the point is to highlight the years where the division-winning teams went on to win the LCS and the World Series, the LCS winners should stay green, but the World Series winners should be in gold to indicate championships. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor League Baseball historical league names are back

FYI, as this may not have gotten much publicity. I just tripped across it myself today. Story here.

  • Triple-A: International League, Pacific Coast League
  • Double-A: Eastern League, Southern League, Texas League
  • High-A: Midwest League, Northwest League, South Atlantic League
  • Low-A Single-A: California League, Carolina League, Florida State League

At least one editor has started revising articles accordingly. There's probably quite a few places that updates will be needed. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Aaaaand I see now there was an entire discussion on this topic earlier on this page. Sorry :-( Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Jim Ridley

In follow-up to a now-archived discussion about the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, I've drafted an article on player/coach/scout Jim Ridley, located HERE. Feedback on the article welcome, including Ridley meeting WP:NBASE / WP:GNG (I believe he does). Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Wild Card Series or Round, certainly no longer Game

The article Major League Baseball Wild Card Game is a tad messed up. Its title contradicts its intro & content. IMHO, we should have two articles. The historic Wild Card Game & the current Wild Card Series. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed in the recent RM. The closest equivalent I know of is NCAA basketball's First Four, which is one article. O.N.R. (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is nobody interested in this topic. The aforementioned RM was prematurely closed & since then, the article content has been changed, to reflect the wording Series over the wording Game. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Article probably should just be called Major League Baseball Wild Card... and then it can discuss the different versions including the series, the game and previously when the wild card teams just competed in the division series. Spanneraol (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There's already an article called Major League Baseball Wild Card. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Then we probably don't need this article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
A single Major League Baseball Wild Card article (with that capitalization) should suffice. It should crisply cover a) what an MLB wild card team is (and has been historically) and b) the results of all MLB wild card competitions (games and series). The two current articles include redundant content, and there is a fair amount of bloat in Major League Baseball wild card that should be removed (such as sections "Historic anomalies" and "Notable[according to whom?] wild card team achievements", both of which contain zero references). I can help with editing, if there is reasonable consensus on a single-article approach. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
"Major League Baseball Wild Card" seems like it's about the wild cards themselves, not the game/series. O.N.R. (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The two are inexorably linked, though, and there really isn't enough of a distinction to need two articles. The amount of redundancy is inevitable and already rather present. I agree with the idea of merging them. oknazevad (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Well at the moment, the article (due to content change) has the wrong title. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an established method to fix that: WP:RM. But as you were told there, several times, we were waiting on an official announcement from the MLB as to the name they'll use when the previous RM was closed. There's also a proposal on the table to keep the Game article separate from the new article on the series, whatever it's title. Now we have a separate proposal here to merge two articles, which just confuses the whole issue. BilCat (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to open an RM or a Split request. Was hoping someone else here did. Anyways, I don't seem to be getting anywheres here, so not gonna bother with it anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
You can always ask for help in making a move or split request. Perhaps that's what your comments here were intended to be, but if so, I missed it. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor leagues, or, what is old is new again

This morning, MLB announced that the minor leagues are reverting back to their original names. Seems it was a trademark issue that led to the placeholder names of last year. I imagine that we should be considering these leagues to have never ceased operations? Do we, say, merge Pacific Coast League with Triple-A West and etcetera? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd support that considering the new PCL logo says "est. 1903" on it. Off the top of my head as it pertains to infoboxes and wherever else applicable... The Buffalo Bisons as an example, is it retroactively "International League (1998–present)" or "International League (1998–2020), Triple-A East (2021), International League (2022–present)"? Tampabay721 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
If leagues and the media/sources consider them the same leagues, then so should we. As to the infoboxes, I'd suggest footnotes, as the other option is too long/clunky. BilCat (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd say it looks like they are being treated as continuations. Regarding infoboxes, I'd try to stay away from footnotes as much as possible--I think our project gets carried away with their use. If anything, I guess footnotes could be used for teams that were in (for example) the IL > AAAE > IL, but keeping full leagues listed for teams that switched leagues? As such, the Buffalo Bisons would have a footnote, but the Iowa Cubs wouldn't. ... Also of note, "Low A" has been changed to "Single-A". NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I understand your point of overuse of footnotes. Also, several editors are eagerly doing their own thing with regards to the league articles, some of which are at cross-purposes. BilCat (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, that was unexpected. I remember last year people talking about the reason for the class-based names being that they didn't have the rights to the historic league names, and the announcement stated that was the case. I think treating them as continuous is probably the best, as thats how MLB and MiLB are treating them. Edit Changed my mind about that; legally these are different organizations, and the amount of realignment was substantial in terms of membership. Probably the clearest thing to do is state plainly what happened, like "the PCL was replaced by Triple-A West in 2021, which assumed the PCL name in 2022", for example, while keeping separate articles. And use similar phrasing for the individual teams, as well; for example, something along the lines of "the Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp were part of the Double-A Southern League, but as part of the 2021 MiLB reorganization they joined Triple-A East, which took the International League name in 2022". oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
PS, this of course also reinstates the issues with the PCL having only two teams actually in Pacific Coast states, and the Texas League having only half its teams actually in Texas, but I digress. oknazevad (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
To my point above about the PCL logo, it seems like they consider it a continuance otherwise it would say "est. 2021" (or not have an est. date included at all) in the logo, no? Tampabay721 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't put much stock in that; league and teams, especially at lower levels, often market themselves as continuations to give themselves prestige. Doesn't actually make them the same legal entity. As an example, a few years ago the Washington Nationals were given permission to use 1905 as an establishment date because that was the year the now-Minnesota Twins first used the name; it was laughed at and dropped quickly, but it shows that those are marketing decisions, not facts. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems obvious, based on the PCL logo (and other founding dates given in the mlb.com and milb.com articles), that it's a continuance and that the 2021 names were a one-year trademark issue. O.N.R. (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
We go with what the reliable sources state/report. To this point, it does appear that they are being considered continuations of the original league, and that's what we should go with. It may change again, but we can deal with that when it happens. BilCat (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I say merge the new league articles into the old ones but the old league articles represent two leagues with the same name. Example- I would have the Eastern League article represent both the previous Eastern League and the new Eastern League, the first section of the article would be titled “The previous Eastern League (1923-2019)” and the second section of the article titled “The current Eastern League (2020-Present)” and then state the current Eastern League was formerly known as Double-A Northeast. Granthew (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Granthew here. The easiest and least confusing approach to me seems to be to merge the Triple-A East article with the International League article, the Triple-A West article with the Pacific Coast League article, etc., for all of the leagues, and then in the history section for all the leagues have a header of something like "History of XX League as a NAPBL member (XXXX-2020)" and then "History of XX League as a MLBPDL (2021-present)" or whatever. Credit last year's champions as a champions of the leagues with their traditional names (e.g., Durham as champion of the International League for 2021) with a footnote stating "For the 2021 season, the league was known as the Triple-A East". It's going to be very confusing if there's a one-year gap in the articles for the historic leagues, while the articles for last year's leagues exist independently (and we can't say they're defunct in the infobox, since they still exist, just under different names). Lugubrious DBB (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Using the Eastern League name for example I would have the first header as “The previous Eastern League (1923-2019)” and the second header as “The current Eastern League (2020-Present)”, the leagues of the new MiLB are legally separate from the leagues of the old MiLB. Granthew (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This seems like the most reasonable approach to considering the 2021 leagues as continuations of the previous leagues. Although, I'd try to avoid using the league name in each heading. Maybe use something more like "Previous league (1923–2020)" and “Current league (2021–present)" or "Original league (1923–2020)" and "Current league (2021–present)"... if the current league is indeed the original. I'd also stress trying to avoid using footnotes where possible and instead conveying such information in the body of prose. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd suggest not using terms like "previous" and "current" since there were more than one "previous" Eastern League and the last one was not the "original" ... just refer to them by the date ranges. Spanneraol (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Previous league means what came before the current league, use “previous” instead of “original” since there are other previous leagues before the previous league. Granthew (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
My header title suggestions give more importance to the former NAPBL leagues and their history, the NAPBL leagues were each unique, they were their separate organizations from the NAPBL organization. Granthew (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am leaning towards following whatever direction that MLB is taking which, for these leagues, would be to consider them as continuations with a 1-year name change. This follows the precedents of what was done for the Eastern League, which considered itself a continuation of the New York–Pennsylvania League, and the Southern League which did not consider itself a continuation of the South Atlantic League. However, the leagues in question have the additional circumstance of their previous governing organization (Minor League Baseball, Inc.) dissolved and are now being governed by MLB. I'm not sure that we need to be bound by a new organization's decree that their leagues are continuations of the old one's organization's. Waz8:T-C-E 00:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  • From what I understand, the PBA agreement was to totally rework the MiLB structure; they scrapped the old leagues and started from scratch. If that is the case, then these leagues are not continuations and should have separate articles starting from the reorg of MiLB. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    You're suggesting, for example, the Triple-A East was the start of a new league, and its article be renamed either International League (...) with some disambiguation, or just International League with that league's current article getting a years-of-operation disambiguation? Waz8:T-C-E 02:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Have the International League article represent two leagues, have a section titled “previous International League” and another section titled “current International League”, do this for all the league articles. Granthew (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    There was no new PBA agreement. The PBA agreement was replaced by the new PDL concept. To replace the PBA agreement, the MLB had to create a new MiLB to replace the old MiLB, the new MiLB is called MLB Professional Development Leagues or MLBPDL, a division of the MLB. The old MiLB was the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues or NAPBL for short, so we have two MiLBs here. 117 teams from the NAPBL were invited to join the MLBPDL, signed the PDL agreements and joined the new MLBPDL. The MLBPDL agreements it seems defines the establishment and existence of an affiliation between an MLB team and not the establishment and existence of an MiLB franchise, so the MiLB franchises in the new MLBPDL may no longer be franchises and the term franchise is now only used in terms of marketing. The leagues under the NAPBL were their separate entities, so for example the Louisville Bats are not really a MiLB franchise but an MiLB league franchise under the old system cause the franchise can only exist in the previous IL, all MiLB franchises under the old system were MiLB league franchises. So applying the franchisee/franchisor system here which has always been applied to North American organized sports, all MiLB franchises from the old MiLB (except for the Pioneer League franchises) folded, so if you believe in the franchisee/franchisor system, you would put that the 120 organizations folded their MiLB and independent league franchises and replace them with PDLs, example- the Louisville Bats International League franchise was replaced by the new Louisville Bats Professional Development License, try using that for marketing, that would be failed MiLB marketing. Granthew (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    The more I think about this, the more I'm concluding that, technically, there should be separate articles for the old and new leagues. However, since our main sources of MiLB information are MiLB itself and Baseball Reference (original research, I confess!) -- both of which are considering the groups of leagues as continuations -- I don't believe it would be possible to do anything different and still be able to use those sites as sources. Therefore, I'll say this is our only practical option. Waz8:T-C-E 20:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    I concur. If the reliable, secondary published sources disagree, as they may well do in time, then we can revisit this. BilCat (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    This does seem a good option. Thusly, we would move the 2021 league articles to the new name with disambiguators, such as Triple-A East > International League (2021–present). NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    I don't have a preference for what should be done with the existing level/geographically-named league articles. I do believe the only practical option (like it or not) that enables us to keep using the MiLB and B-R sites as sources is to add the 2021 and all new information to the historically-named league articles. Not sure that it would be possible to have separate articles while considering the leagues operating continuously as those sites are doing. My apologies, if I wasn't clear about that. Waz8:T-C-E Waz8:T-C-E 02:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    I see what you mean now. While it may have been easier to move the 2021 leagues, restoring the pre-2021 leagues to being active will match what MLB/MiLB is saying about the leagues. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    But the articles should represent the previous leagues and the current leagues, not lump the two leagues together and have them as one league in the articles. Granthew (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    Remember, this is an encyclopedia -- not a news service -- and we must WP:CITE our sources. If we treated them as separate "previous" and "current" leagues, we'd need a source which stated this. Since MiLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com are lumping the two groups of leagues together and considering them as continuations, we must present the information this way, wherever we use either of them as a source. Waz8:T-C-E 03:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
    That is what happened, there are two MiLBs, the NAPBL and the new MLB Professional Development Leagues, news articles usually are not accurate. It wasn’t a takeover of the MiLB, it was the MLB forming a new MiLB to replace the old MiLB. Granthew (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    Given how sports leagues treat history as a tangible object that can be bought, sold, traded and left behind... I'd say they are the legal continuations. Like, using your argument as a basis, we would have to re-write the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens, so that the Ravens are the original team and the Browns the expansion, instead of the other way around as it is legally considered. Metropod (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
It's only been a day since the announcement, and there's a lot we don't know, but even if the leagues are different legal entities, it's abundantly clear that they claim the history of the old leagues. There's no reason to keep these split. O.N.R. (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This piece put out today, March 17, by Minor League Baseball on the history of the International League makes it clear that as far as MLB is concerned, the league names used in 2021 were just one-year aberrations: they state the IL was founded in 1884 and was simply known as the Triple-A East in 2021. Hence, it seems clear to me that the 2021 league articles need to be merged with the applicable historical leagues, with last year's champions credited as the most recent champions of their respective leagues.
https://www.milb.com/news/international-league-then-and-now Lugubrious DBB (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Have the International League article state that the new International League follows the tradition of the previous International League and that the current International League is considered a continuation of the previous International League by the current MiLB head organization. Granthew (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The format followed by User:Lugubrious DBB in the Southern League (1964–2020) looks like the best way to handle it. It doesn't belabor the point, but mentions it in the lead, and has a separate section under "History" for the MLB takeover years. BilCat (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Yea, except the takeover didn't happen till 2021.. he has it at 2020. Spanneraol (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
That's the heading for the section, which also covers the Covid cancellation of the minor league seasons. It can easily be tweaked. BilCat (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Right now, it’s been suggested that the Southern League was renamed Double-A South, that’s incorrect, the Double-A South league replaced the previous Southern League and is now renamed to the current Southern League. Granthew (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Again, as far as MLB is concerned based on their publicity on the minor leagues over the last few weeks, MLB is treating the "new" leagues that formed in 2021 as if they are continuations of their former leagues. We can nitpick about whether or not they're new legal entities (they are), but that doesn't change that as far as MLB is officially concerned, 2021 was a temporary renaming, nothing more. If we were to apply the legal entity standard consistently, we would have to say "Major League Baseball" didn't exist prior to 2000 when the American League and National League (formerly independent entities operating under a joint agreement) were legally dissolved and formed into the current legal entity known as Major League Baseball, even though the term "Major League Baseball" as a governing entity existed well before 2000. Lugubrious DBB (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do we stand on keeping/merging/deleting 2021 league articles and categories? I feel like the individual league articles should be merged with the 2022+ leagues and redirected. Lists of rosters and stadiums would be likewise redirected. Categories such as "Category:Triple-A East teams" should be kept since those teams did play in a league by that name. Otherwise, the categories for rosters, stadiums, etc would be deleted when empty. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging information from and redirecting the 2021 league articles (perhaps to an anchor that can provide an explanation) seems like the logical way to handle them. As for their categories, I'm in favor of deleting them all. I don't think the "teams" ones should get any special treatment, as it would just create confusion that the 2021 leagues were considered different than the traditionally-named ones.
There is another item that doesn't affect the disposition of those categories but makes use of them while they still exist. We previously had separate current (parent) and former (child) teams/stadiums/(maybe other?) categories for each traditionally-named league. Since the 2021 leagues' subcategories reflect the current states of all of those leagues, that hierarchy could be reinstated simply by moving the 2021 league subcategories and adding the proper parent category, though having child categories for the current ones. For instance, Category:Triple-A West teams could be moved to Category:Current Pacific Coast league teams, and Category:Pacific Coast League teams added as a parent. If a redirect were created in the process, it would have to be either deleted or changed. Waz8:T-C-E 04:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
That all seems reasonable. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Waz8: Following up on the categories, do you think it would be satisfactory to have (for example) Category:Current Pacific Coast League teams for the 10 active PCL teams and let Category:Pacific Coast League teams be for all former PCL teams whether defunct or playing in others leagues? Thusly, teams at Category:Defunct Pacific Coast League teams would be moved to Category:Pacific Coast League teams. I made some category edits earlier regarding teams that moved to or from the PCL and IL placing some in the "defunct" league categories. I began to dislike it partway through but continued for consistency's sake. I think what you were saying and what I've proposed here is a better way. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it is better to have a child Current category for just the current teams and the top-level category for all others, defunct or still playing in other leagues. Another option I've considered is to make the top-level category all inclusive with a non-diffusing subcategory for current teams and possibly one for defunct teams. The existing scheme of having the current teams (or stadiums) in the top-level category with former and defunct team (or stadium) subcategories did not seem optimal, but I also followed it for consistency when categorizing the 2021 reorganization. Since the vast majority of Minor League teams are affected with the return of their traditional league names, this would be the opportunity to make the switch. Waz8:T-C-E 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
What is the purpose behind having current or former team categories? Why not just have one category for the league.. the PCL Teams category and include all the teams in it? We don't have categories for former and current players... just one category for everyone who played for a team... let's keep it simple. Spanneraol (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe having a Current teams category is helpful for the reader to navigate among just those. I'm not sure a Defunct category is necessary, but I don't object to having one. The category scheme for every Major, Minor, and independent league I've seen has separate current and former team categories, though there's usually a Former subcategory for those, with just the current ones in the top-level category. Having an all-inclusive teams category with a non-diffusing subcategory for current ones is the simpler option of the two I've proposed.
As for players, I think having separate current/former categories would be too difficult to maintain. Minor league players get reassigned, released, and re-signed too often to make that practical. Waz8:T-C-E 01:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
We have navboxes that track current teams in the various leagues... that is a much easier way to navigate than through categories. Spanneraol (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I’m starting to feel like one all-inclusive league category for each league may be the way to go. I don’t know if I’ve ever browsed through a category for any purpose other than trying to organize them. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_47&oldid=1137392905"