Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51

Wild card standings on MLB season pages

User:Spesh531 has recently added the wild card standings to the MLB season pages (for example, [1]). My assumption was that this had not been done historically as the information was already available from the division standings tables, albeit not in readily sorted order. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What the division standing tables don't show, is the Wild Card games back. It would be one thing if WCGB were in the division standing tables, but since they aren't, the WC table provides information that is pertinent to understand why a team (4), (5), or (6) is that seed. It's simple enough to infer if you look at win percentage, but there are cases like in 2021, where to the uninformed, there can be confusion as to why the 106-win Dodgers are seed 4, while the 95-win Brewers are seed 2. I can stop at 2012 for now (especially because the wild card tables for 1995–2011 need to be created—currently working on 2011—regardless of whether they stay on the season pages) until we come to an agreement, so extra work isn't made in case the decision to remove them occurs. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 20:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The practice has been to only show wild card standings during the last month of an ongoing season. After that, we delete them & stick with the division standings. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The wild card tables don't contain the tiebreaker information, so they aren't enough to clarify. I think a more compact solution would be to add a note to the standings explaining any tiebreakers that had to be used. A brief explanation of the wild card with a link to Major League Baseball Wild Card might also be helpful. My assumption was that prior to 2012, with there only being one wild card, editors felt that showing the division races was sufficient. I know the full set of division standings aren't shown on the team season pages, but I think there's limited utility in putting wild card standings info on the team pages years after the fact. isaacl (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Personally that logic of 1 WC team vs 2 WC team making a difference doesn't make much sense to me. The template doesn't add bloat and doesn't take much space. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 05:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Two tables, with a combined 15 rows of teams and two heading rows, take up considerable vertical space. isaacl (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted the additions-in-question. Spesh531, it would save time for all, if you'd bring your proposals to this WikiProject & seek a consensus for them. Rather than boldly adding them to MLB season pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've also deleted the additions of Wild Card standings in all the 2011 MLB team season pages. Again Spesh531, seek consensus at this WikiProject for your proposed additions, first. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the Wild Card standing be on the 2011 team pages when they are for 2012 to 2023? I figured WP:BOLD in this context would make sense and wouldn't cause any harm, regardless of whether there's one or two wild card teams. I had previously assumed that pre-2012 wasn't there simply because the template had not been created (the same way NFL Conference templates pre-2005 are missing conference standings, as they have not been created). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 05:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
They are? Oh, I'll undo the reverts. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The tables predate the template by a year. isaacl (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:BOLD is a policy, and people are free to revert for good reason. It's simply unconstuctive and the antithesis of BOLD for anyone to suggest that advance consensus is required. —Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I've undone the reverts on the 2011 MLB team seasons. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's that time of year again

In what should probably be an annual organized effort around the start of the season, the various redirects to each team's minor league players list need checked to make sure that all redirects point to the correct place after any trades or free agency transactions. Sometimes alternate forms of a players name still point to the minor league players list after the player makes the majors and those redirects will need retargeted to the player's individual article. Some redirects will also need pruned if the player is out of baseball and did not leave enough of a mark anywhere for an appropriate redirect target. Starting with the AL West and the Mariners, I've sent one redirect to RFD where the player has not been in the Mariners system since 2016 and has nothing on B-Ref since 2018, and I've retargeted another to the White Sox page (player had been traded). I think this would be best done as an organized process. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I do that from time to time when I go through those pages.. sometimes I've had issues at RFD where people don't understand the point of the minor league player pages. Spanneraol (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
It's a good idea to go through them. Special:WhatLinksHere, enter the page name, click "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" and you get the list. Like so. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sweet Spot (sports)

Given the particular importance of hitting a baseball in the "sweet spot", I wanted to bring to your attention the following AfD -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet spot (sports). If anyone knows anything on the subject, your improvements or perspective on the article would be greatly appreciated. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

UL Washington's autograph

FYI

You are invited to establish consensus at Talk:U. L. Washington#Autograph about inclusion of information about his signature's style. —Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Potential Major League Baseball expansion moved to Expansion of Major League Baseball

Last month, the article "Potential Major League Baseball expansion" was moved to Expansion of Major League Baseball. Feedback is welcome at Talk:Expansion of Major League Baseball#Progression of MLB expansion. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Coaching stints in infobox

I see that @Yankees10: removed a couple of players' coaching stints from Dave Parker and Dante Bichette, saying "random coaching stints don't go in the infobox", and I have a couple of questions. First, what makes a coaching stint "random"? It would seem to me that batting coaches (both) and 1st/3rd base coaches (Parker) are fairly prominent roles and not "random". Second, I am looking for the guidelines or discussion that supports these removals. The most significant discussion I can find is from 2010 and there's no consensus there anyway, so unless there's a newer thread I can't find it would seem a new discussion is warranted. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I remember that previous discussion, and the rough consensus back then was to include it for current coaches and people with long histories of coaching.. not so much for people that just coached for a season or two. Was this really 14 years ago? I've spent way too many years here.. lol Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I think it's time we have a full-blown project consensus on this. What I mean by "random" is pretty much what Spanneraol is saying. Long time coaches or ones that are very well known for being coaches (Dave Duncan, Mike Maddux, Mel Stottlemyre). Not random stints like Bichette's that just make the infobox unnecessarily larger.-- Yankees10 18:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that infoboxes should contain key characteristics of a subject that are essential for a concise overview. Historically, many coaching jobs were sinecures, and in those cases, are arguably not an essential part of a concise overview (though that argument could be counterbalanced by a lengthy coaching career). Today, coaching roles are a lot more specialized and performance-oriented. Thus I think the nature of the coaching role for a given subject, taking into consideration the increasing amount of responsibility and accountability that have been placed on the coaching staff, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

One idea would be to align it with MOS:ROLEBIO:

Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

So far, the suggestions above are somewhat subjective. We have stringent criteria for what awards go in the infobox detailed at WP:BASESTYLEPL, I would think it is possible to come up with something more precise than whether or not a coaching tenure is "random" or "not integral" to their notability, or on a case-by-case basis. (and it should probably get updated at WP:BASESTYLEPL, or else Template:Infobox baseball biography. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think something like a hard number of seasons would be useful, though. Even a table of numbers based on era would be subjectively chosen, and I don't think it would end the discussion, as it would always be subject to case-by-case investigation to determine if an exception should be made, unless there was consensus for something like "after year X, always include the coaching info". I'm not sure if there is support for this, though. If you have a proposal in mind, perhaps you can take a random sampling of players barely meeting and barely missing the criteria, and see if the results seem reasonable. (Yes, as the one who wrote the style guidance, I'm aware of the desirability of keeping it up to date.) isaacl (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
How many players are we talking about? Less than 100? Or more? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we start with the major traditional roles, like 1B, 3B, pitching, and hitting coach. Is a one-time stint in these roles worthy of mention in the infobox? If not, what are some other factors?—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I was just thinking along these same lines, and came here to suggest this, thanks for beating me to it. The only role I might consider adding to these four might be bench coach, a role that has become more prominent in recent years. But yes, rather than trying to use the years of one's service as the brightline for inclusion - when after all we don't require minimum years as a player for inclusion - an easier to follow brightline for new and experienced editors alike would be the roles. Newer or less common roles like "offensive coordinator" or instructors at spring training would be easy enough to keep out. Echoedmyron (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The on-paper responsibilities for pitching and hitting coach have been relatively clear over the years, even if they may have been staffed as favours in the past. Historically, first-base and third-base coaches were more likely to have been essentially player pension sources. Today, coaches will have other identified roles beyond the in-game position. I wouldn't support making this a brightline rule where only these five coaching roles are listed in player infoboxes. Newer roles are in practice more likely to have specific responsibilities and tasks, making them have greater importance to the team than the older, undefined roles. isaacl (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, I wrote "Perhaps we start with..." as in start the discussion with. It was not meant to be an exclusive list.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Steve Hosey

Hi. Can anyone in this project help clean up Steve Hosey and added sources? DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ryan Searle#Requested move 1 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ryan Searle#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Hilst [talk] 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent maps added to MLB season articles

In January & February, maps have been added to MLB season pages. I've deleted the maps from the 1997 MLB season page to the 2024 MLB season page, as they were too large & thus intrusive to the text. PS - Was there a consensus reached somewhere to adds these maps, that I missed? GoodDay (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

How about if the map is smaller or placed in a different location on the articles or put on another type of MLB article? Seems a bit repetitve to add this pic to each season article
between 2000-present since there have been no team expansions or removals. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
If no objections. I'll delete them from the rest of the MLB season pages. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I am for deleting from seasons page but let's add map of expansions to Expansion of Major League Baseball and find a way to shrink image size if possible. Agree? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh no, all my work! Lol. All kidding aside, the reason I added maps to (most) of the season pages (hadn't finished 1901 through 1911 just yet) was because NFL and MLS season pages have maps for every season. I was simply taking that idea and applying it to MLB. I also had plans to do these maps for the 1920 through 1948 Negro Major Leagues for the 1920 through 1948 "year in baseball" pages. Since many of the MLB season articles had standings right below the header, the standings template and map templates couldn't co-exist at the same horizontal area. I personally think it's useful information when looking season to season, but if the majority disagree then so be it. Perhaps if the articles were slightly rearranged, there wouldn't be this obnoxious gap where the maps are. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Spesh531, Thank you for the contributions. Your logic made sense but unfortunately the horizontal clutter was an issue. Consensus can always change. If it is any consolation prize, maps have been moved to Expansion of Major League Baseball, 1961 Major League Baseball expansion, 1962 Major League Baseball expansion, 1969 Major League Baseball expansion, 1977 Major League Baseball expansion, 1993 Major League Baseball expansion, and 1998 Major League Baseball expansion. Also, all your maps can be pulled from any time in the future. Again, thank you for your contributions. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@GoodDay, the question is whether the NFL season and MLS season formats were the right way to go, and if so, should they be applied to the MLB with some proper tweaking? @Spesh531, if you show the slight rearrangement you have in mind, perhaps the people will be receptive to it. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I see no value in having any such maps in any sports season pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I think they could be valuable for MLB/NFL seasons in the past since teams moved around quite a bit. Nemov (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
So I have been playing around with the 2019 season page. I added a spring training section, but this doesn't help with a wide view (regardless, this section should probably be in each season page going forwards). In standard view, it does enough. However, this doesn't work, for example, in the 2000 page (which already has a large empty gap, due to there being no schedule section). I was looking at other older MLB season pages, such as 1989, and it appears the "Awards and honors" section (which is already above the standings section) would be one solution to not creating a large empty space, as the templates from this section can co-exist on the same horizontal as the maps. However, with a page like 1948, with the only non-template content being the header and a much smaller Awards and honors section, there would be a somewhat awkward white space regardless. It seems we are WP:BRD about this, so I don't want to make any bold changes until anything is agreed upon. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want to show in a sandbox what it could look like, and you think it could work, feel free to share that way. Otherwise, sounds like the images might not fit like NFL/MLS articles? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
For all seasons pre-1969, when there were no divisions, maps could fit side-by-side with the standings, as such. It's a bit more awkward once divisions are considered, as seen here. These are setup using the column formatting templates, setting the standings to the left, and maps to the right. My thinking is that this would only be done on the pages that do not have enough content to avoid awkward spacing. For example, the 2019 page has enough content, where the template can be inserted immediately below the infobox, seen here. I guess the only concern is that now, the standings are no longer side-by-side, except for the pages where the maps are placed below the infobox, as opposed to in a column formatting with the standings. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 14:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
GoodDay, BeFriendlyGoodSir, Nemov, Skipple see the above comment of mine. All links in the above lead to the same sandbox article of mine. As I've thought about it more, the 1901–1968 articles would be visually great. My feelings on say, 2011, where post-1960 articles have small leads... I'm still not in love with it but I think it's the best option. For seasons like 2019 where there are big leads, I think they fit nicely under the infobox. Spesh531[[User talk:Spesh531|(talk]contrib., ext.) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't think the maps are required. But, I'll leave that final decision up to others. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Season pages doesn't seem like the correct place for these types of maps. - Skipple ☎ 03:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I've deleted the maps from all the season pages. BTW @Spesh531: created & added them, earlier this year. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Great, nicely done. I added the maps to Expansion of Major League Baseball. There is also Timeline of Major League Baseball as you know but not a good fit there. Any feedback is welcomed. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not certain how to shrink the maps, but they certainly need shrinking. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I see GoodDay knows how to shrink it. Should be good now. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Reduced 1997 to present templates from 625 width to 400. Clumps the teams up a tad bit, but gives more room for readers. Besides, an editor can always click onto those maps to make them bigger. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It may be conducive to separate out the 1997 to present templates into NL and AL maps, to reduce clutter (as they are pre-1996). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that 1997 templates should be separate NL and AL maps. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Done! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Since maps are up on NFL and MLS season pages (and nobody opposed when I asked on their respective Wikiprojects), I think they should also be up on MLB season pages for the purpose of congruity. NFL/MLS have not seen more expansions over their lifetimes. If it fits in snug like the NFL/MLS season pages, I don't see why not. But I am only one person. How do others feel about this? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox advice

What type of infobox would you use on Drew Golz?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Is he even notable? Never played professionally.. a division III ballplayer? Spanneraol (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The first item at WP:NCOLLATH is "Have won a national award". He was the first baseball player to earn the overall (all-sport) Academic All-American of the Year recognition and the first person to win Academic All-American of the Year for his sport in two sports. He is not conventionally notable for his baseball, but rather for the fact that he maintained a 3.98 GPA in the Chemistry department while being all-conference in two different sports. I think he is notable, but would stand corrected if people feel otherwise. Basically he has conferred honor on his sport by being the best scholar athlete a baseball player could be.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure that "academic all-american" counts as a major national award... or having a 3.98 GPA in Chemistry.... I wonder how that distinction survived the purge at that page.. if academic all-americans are notable but major league ballplayers arent then the page has serious problems. Spanneraol (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not trying to say that All Academic All-Americans of the Year are notable. He is a special case as explained above.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Those classic loopholes like "such as XYZ league" or "any award in <insert loosely discriminate template>".—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Infobox person}} and then embed the baseball and soccer infoboxes. See Sammy Byrd for an example. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Muboshgu, I have employed the infobox setup you have suggested. Let me know if you have any feedback.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
No longer watching here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Legacy of Roberto Clemente

I would like the opinion of long-time participants of this on the article "Legacy of Roberto Clemente". I personally don't see a need for a seperate page dedicated to it since Clemente's legacy is his career which is covered in "Roberto Clemente". But should it be deleted and merged back to the main article or should it be kept and expanded? If kept, should other players have seperate "legacy" articles too? (note: this is the only legacy page dedicated to an athlete) I would appreciate some feedback. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: I did try to speedy delete, blank and redirect, and Afd this article since I don't think its necessary and its an outlier of sorts. Some editors were strongly against deleting it though. I ended up just shortening it by removing a long list of quotes (moved them to Clemente's Wikiquote page and added the link to the page) but am lost as to what I can possibly add to it that isn't already in the main article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't see the need for a separate article. We already have Roberto Clemente#Honors and legacy. --Jameboy (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a tricky area, as the topic undoubtedly meets English Wikipedia's standards for having an article, but that doesn't mean an article must exist. Editorial judgement can decide that the topic is more easily covered within another article. Thus the decision to be analyzed is whether or not it's easier to cover Clemente's legacy within his biography than in a spin-out article. For better or worse, this involves a degree of subjective judgement. Editor traffic and page watcher counts for the two articles provide some indication of the amount of maintenance support each is capable of receiving, but it's not definitive by itself. isaacl (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the subjective judgement part. My own personal opinion is that such info can easily fit into Clemente's biography because just about all well-written biographies of ballplayers (most notably Ruth and Jackie) have legacy sections that fit within the acceptable word limit.
On the same note, I would like to add that "Roberto Clemente" needs to a lot of attention and work done on it (and possibly permanent semi-protection due occasional bursts of disruptive edits by... users with strong opinions, lets say). Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Clemente's bio has 229 page watchers, while the legacy page has fewer than 30 (thus the page information won't show an exact number), so arguably the primary article has a greater capacity for resilience against vandalism. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. I brought it up mostly because I thought it, while we decide on what to do with legacy article, we can also see if we can improve and clean up the bio itself. I guess we'll figure that out as we go along. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to push this conversation along, @Muboshgu @Spanneraol, pinging you for an opinion on this. I think its an important discussion to have. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about this.. but the Legacy article seems to be primarily just a list of books about him and that doesn't need it's own article. The other stuff is easily covered in the main article. Spanneraol (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Spanneraol, it was previously a list of quotes taken from Wikiquote AND a list of books. I removed the quotes and replaced it with the wikiquote link. But I came here as a last resort, essentially, because I tried everything to delete/redirect the page to "Roberto Clemente" and am not sure where to go from here. I don't know what to add which isn't already covered in the main article - hell even the books are listed in "further reading". I hoped someone here had an idea as to what to do about it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not a fan. Looking at a couple of the Category:Legacies by person articles, Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev and Legacy of Napoleon give critical analysis of their, well, legacies. Legacy of Roberto Clemente looks more like a content fork of "in popular culture" with one banal quote from Carlos Correa that could really be considered "legacy". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Muboshgu, so what would you do here? Should we change its scope? Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Either that, or merge the content back into Clemente's article. There may be enough legit "legacy" items to justify such a page, but that ain't it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried blank and direct, as well as speedy delete and Afd, but since it meets the requirments of an article a lot of people objected to it. Changing its scope is really the only option left. If you and others on here agree, that is.
Worth noting, I did check if there was something to write which may have been missed but there isn't really more to write that isn't already covered in Clemente's article or its sister articles which there were enough of to create a template and a category to collect. I don't think we need yet another page. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I almost missed this discussion because I have been hard at work drafting Legacy of Jesse Haines. After all, Haines was a Hall of Famer and a nice chap, and if that's not deserving of two articles, I don't know what would be. I even have a head start because in the legacy section of the main article, Frankie Frisch said Haines was “a worthy, worthy man” and “a fine fellow”. If I run into any difficulty, “legacy” is vague enough that I should be able to throw in most of the things anyone has ever said about him.
In all seriousness, it sounds like we're stuck with this, but it doesn't look like the existence of this entry has inspired similar bad ideas. I do notice that Roberto Clemente was delisted from GA status years ago, and it looks like a peer review has been requested. I'm encouraged to see that it may be getting back to GA soon. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Larry Hockett, it was created by a fan to be just that: a list of random quotes about Clemente -they even said as much in the talk page of the main article. I do think a second Afd would work if people on here support its deletion/redirection. The one I started failed because two people voted 'keep', one of whom told me he votes 'keep' on everything. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

FAR for PNC Park

I have nominated PNC Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Split discussion at Baltimore Elite Giants

There is a discussion underway about possibly splitting the Baltimore Elite Giants into the Cleveland Cubs as 2 distinct teams. If interested, please join in at Talk:Baltimore Elite Giants#1931 season: Cleveland Cubs/Nashville Elite Giants. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation for managers

I noticed the title Dave Roberts (baseball manager), while WP:NCBASEBALL shows an example to use the shorter Fred Thomas (manager) (which now redirects to Fred Thomas (baseball manager). A search shows that all (manager) titles for baseball redirect to (baseball manager). Should this existing practice be updated in the guideline? Initially, I thought it was longer than needed, unless there were other manager bios by that name, but if that's what we're already consistently doing... —Bagumba (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I updated the guideline to show Fred Thomas (baseball manager) instead. —Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a bundle of requested moves related to changing the titles of articles from "Major League Baseball" → "MLB". You may wish to provide your input at Talk:Major League Baseball#Requested move 14 April 2024. - Skipple ☎ 03:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"has previously played" vs "has also played"

I've been thinking about the way the current player articles are written in the lead... Player X plays for Team Y in Major Legaue Baseball (MLB). He has previously played in MLB for Team Z, Team A, etc.... Not sure using "previously" is proper ... some times its actually inaccurate in situations like Matt Carpenter who started with the Cardinals and then played for a couple of other teams and then came back to the Cards... so saying he plays for the cards and previously played for the Yankees is actually wrong.. cause he was with the Cards first. I think "has also played for" makes more sense to keep all current players consistent and avoid using previously.. Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it's still accurate to say that Matt Carpenter previously played for the Yankees and Padres, even if he also had a previous tenure with the Cardinals. I'm not a fan of dictating that there be only one form for listing a player's teams. In a case like Carpenter where most of his career is with one team, for instance, the text could be something like "After debuting with the Cardinals and playing for them from 2011 to 2021, Carpenter played for the Yankees and the Padres, before returning to the Cardinals in 2024." isaacl (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
"plays for the cards" is dealing with his current stint, so saying previously played for NYY in that context is OK. It becomes a problem when he retires, then saying "previously" w.r.t. the Yankees might be incorrect if its ambiguous which STL stint is being referred to. I agree that we're never going to get a cookie-cutter one size fits all format, but editors should be aware of the gotchas of using various wordings. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"were" vs "was" for describing former teams

we seem to have a mismatch of "was" vs "were" in describing former teams. see New York Giants (baseball), for instance (were) vs Chicago Pirates (was). I assume "were" is correct just based on the number of teams in the Players' League with this description? Therapyisgood (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Should treat team names as plural per MOS:PLURALS:

In North American English...the major exception is that when a sports team is referred to by its short name, plural verbs are commonly used, e.g. the Heat are playing the Lakers tonight.

—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ghost runner, automatic runner, etc.

Can't find almost anything about the extra inning ghost runners when, after discussing it with a friend, just assumed Wikipedia would have an article about them. Sometimes called "automatic runner", which has not page or redirect. Anybody else notice the absence of an important baseball article? As a position player the ghost runner should have a page. But even Rules of baseball has nothing about it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We do mention it at Extra innings#Major League Baseball, but it should probably be more places than it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Extra innings § Regular season (which is a subsection of Extra innings § Major League Baseball) has a description. Although "ghost runner" is used in by some, the MLB term "automatic runner" avoids confusion with the playground term, where "ghost runners" are used when just a few people are playing together and so a runner may have to go to bat. Personally, I don't think a separate article is warranted, but having a description in Baseball rules is probably worthwhile (it already contains league-specific info for games tied after nine innings). isaacl (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
"ghost runner" is inaccurate since there is an actual runner not a "ghost". I still absolutely hate the rule cause i'm a traditionalist and I really enjoy the long extra inning games... I still remember attending a Dodgers/Braves game at Dodger Stadium in 1996 that went 18 innings..[2] Ramon Martinez came in to pitch in relief on like two days rest and pitched four innings before coughing up the go-ahead run.. but it was a fun time. Spanneraol (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it sounds odd to anyone who has used ghost runners when playing a game with a few friends, as it's kind of the opposite intent: real runners are placed on base who didn't bat, versus taking runners who did bat off the bases. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps an entry at Glossary of baseball terms with a redirect for the term to there? —Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd suggest that a full article is warranted by the fact that the runner, whatever the term, is now a mandated offensive position player. And all position players have articles. "Ghost runner" seems to be one of the common names, I think because the runner just "pops in" without any physical reason to be there. Harvey Haddix is turning over on his mound. Since I don't keep track of modern baseball, and the new rules have made it into a different game, I came looking for the ghost runner Wikipedia article and found there was none. Just would put up a stub if I started it, so someone who is good at creating pages and likes the subject maybe should go for it, and then we'll see what the page looks like. When I came looking for it it was to find out (hopefully in its lead), the history of the rule, if the runner gets credit for a run scored if driven in, and does the batter get credit for an RBI? And does it count in the ERA and won-lost record of the pitcher scored against? But most of all, the question I'd ask the commissioner, who likely had final yes-no rule approval, "Why did you ignore first base?". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Could go from glossary to an article too. Depends if someone wants to create a stub or not, if they're not ready to put together a decent size article. As for 1B, 2B can only speed up games more, which is their current objective.—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
An Automatic runner stub sounds easy (too easy, some good images come to mind, and the page should probably include a criticism section). Thinking about it, the ghost seems to be only the second offensive mandated player in the game (the other one being the Batter), so a stand-alone article seems appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sign stealing#Requested move 26 April 2024

There is a RM name change discussion occurring at the Sign stealing talk page which may interest project members. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sidebar on MLB Awards article and related?

See List of NBA awards for the inspiration. It includes Template:NBA Awards as a sidebar at the top of the article. Would anyone be in favor of adding {{MLB awards}} to the top of List of Major League Baseball awards? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Sidebars are more useful on the individual awards pages, allowing navigation to the other awards. List of Major League Baseball awards already has a comprehensive list, even without a sidebar. The problem the NBA pages have, e.g. NBA Most Valuable Player Award, is that someone later went and added an infobox as well, which leaves the top of the page cluttered. I'd recommend having an infobox or a sidebar, but not both.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing debut and final fields from Infobox baseball biography

I wanted to propose removing the fields for debut game and last game played from the {{Infobox baseball biography}} template. It unnecessarily adds vertical height to the infobox with a minimum of 4 table rows (debut game label, debut game date, final game label, final game date), and for some players like Ichiro who played in multiple leagues, there can be 6 rows — all just so we have a begin date and end date to their career. Secondly, it's essentially duplicative with the teams parameter that shows the years that the player spent with each team, and in the grand scheme of things, there isn't much value added from knowing the month and day they started or ended their career. Thirdly, I don't see any sportsman infoboxes other than cricket that allow specific dates to be provided for the debut and finale of one's career (for cricket, it's only for international competition), so this would be consistent with most other sports. What do other people think? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think in baseball specific dates for these debut dates are more notable than in other sports that have less games...like football or basketball... and it tends to be mentioned a lot in reliable sources... so I would be opposed to removing that item from the infobox. Spanneraol (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I do not feel this information is essential for a concise overview of the key characteristics of a player, which is my personal rule of thumb for infobox contents, so I agree with removing it. It's not clear to me that having a longer season is a consideration in evaluating the essential nature of the info. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this, it's incredibly useful information to have in order to see the length and scope of a player's career, and baseball players more than any other sport can start or end their careers at different points of the season. It's especially useful for players who aren't necessarily all stars. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
How are you not able to determine the length or scope of someone's career from the teams played for list? It gives a sequential list of the teams the person played for and years of their tenure. If you want to know when their career started and ended, look at the first and last teams played for in the list. How is baseball any different from other pro sports in terms of when during a season someone's career may start or end? Injuries, call-ups, and signings/releases are not unique to baseball. There is no reason I need to know Joe Schmoe debuted in MLB on June 2, 1959, in the infobox. Knowing he debuted in 1959 is sufficient for an infobox, which is meant to be a high level summary of the person, and the year can already be gleaned from info elsewhere in the infobox. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
You might not, but it's good information to me, considering it shows if they were a late season call up, made the opening day roster, retired mid season, et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm undecided, but I thought it might be helpful to illustrate the difference with and without. I chose Ichiro. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Ichiro's current infobox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Ichiro Suzuki
Ichiro with the Seattle Mariners in 2011
Right fielder
Born: (1973-10-22) 22 October 1973 (age 51)
Nishikasugai-gun, Aichi, Japan
Batted: Left
Threw: Right
Professional debut
NPB: 11 July, 1992, for the Orix BlueWave
MLB: 2 April, 2001, for the Seattle Mariners
Last appearance
NPB: 13 October, 2000, for the Orix BlueWave
MLB: 21 March, 2019, for the Seattle Mariners
NPB statistics
Batting average.353
Hits1,278
Home runs118
Runs batted in529
Stolen bases199
MLB statistics
Batting average.311
Hits3,089
Home runs117
Runs batted in780
Stolen bases509
Teams
Career highlights and awards
NPB

MLB

Medals
Men's baseball
Representing  Japan
World Baseball Classic
Gold medal – first place 2006 San Diego Team
Gold medal – first place 2009 Los Angeles Team
Ichiro's infobox without debut and final dates
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Ichiro Suzuki
Ichiro with the Seattle Mariners in 2011
Right fielder
Born: (1973-10-22) 22 October 1973 (age 51)
Nishikasugai-gun, Aichi, Japan
Bats: Left
Throws: Right
NPB statistics
Batting average.353
Hits1,278
Home runs118
Runs batted in529
Stolen bases199
MLB statistics
Batting average.311
Hits3,089
Home runs117
Runs batted in780
Stolen bases509
Teams
Career highlights and awards
NPB

MLB

Medals
Men's baseball
Representing  Japan
World Baseball Classic
Gold medal – first place 2006 San Diego Team
Gold medal – first place 2009 Los Angeles Team
Strong oppose, no real reason for removal given, and the start/end dates are perfectly valid to have in the infobox; in Ichiro's case the infobox is hardly any smaller. It feels like everything these days is a solution in search of a problem. Wizardman 21:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a compelling reason for removal. I share Spanneraol's perception of debut dates as being more significant in baseball than in other sports. Agree that this looks like a solution in search of a problem. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I don't feel baseball to be an outliner with regards to debut dates versus debuts in leagues for other sports, such as the NHL for hockey. Midseason call ups, injury replacements, playoff pushes, and the end of college seasons, for example, are common reasons in the NHL that spread out debuts throughout the season. This information is indeed important within the article text to describe a player's career. I just don't feel it to be sufficiently key to meet my personal rule of thumb for inclusion in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
MLB.com and all baseball stat sites list the first appearance in the key info on their pages.. That is not the case for any other sport.. where it is hard to even find that info.. so yes it is more notable. Spanneraol (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Sites have game log information for NHL players, for instance, so it's not hard to find out the information. isaacl (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
It's buried under other menus.. not positioned prominently in those other sports. Spanneraol (talk)
Sure, that was just in response to your statement that it's "hard to even find that info". Stat sites put all sorts of stuff up front. For example, Baseball Reference includes nicknames, but the consensus here is not to put nicknames in the infobox. English Wikipedia can have different standards for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, Basketball Reference has the debut,[3] similarly collapsed like in Baseball Reference. —Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the above suggestions that debut dates are more significant than in other sports. It seems worth noting that the Sports Reference sites appear to agree - Baseball-Reference does include a player's debut and final games in the block of information at the top of a player's page ([4]), but the sites for pro football, basketball, and hockey don't do that: [5], [6], [7]. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I never look at the debut date section of the infobox. I would just look in the list of teams played for and that has the dates played in parenthesis [Orix BlueWave (1992–2000) ... Seattle Mariners (2018–2019)]. I've always been satisfied with just the year and not the month and day. The infobox, to me, is for an overview and the specific dates can go in the text. YMMV. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Since this is turning into more of an RfC-type !vote, I support full removal of the dates from the infobox as per the OP. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support removal per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

    The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance

    Other sites aren't overwhelmingly featuring it as key info—it's even collapsed in Baseball Reference. MLB.com isn't an independent source.—Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis of other sites I looked at the stats links at Mariano Rivera § External links:

Site analysis
Site Debut Last
MLB Yes No
ESPN No No
Baseball Reference Collapsed Collapsed
Fangraphs No No
Retrosheet Yes Yes

—Bagumba (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The baseball season is extremely long compared to other sports and just saying they debuted sometime that year is insufficient. Spanneraol (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Extremely long in games? OK. However, over a calendar year, this year's NHL season (191 days) is 6 days longer than this year's MLB season (185 days). For an infobox, I still don't see the value in knowing if someone debuted within April or September of a given year. The infobox is meant as an overview, not a list of key dates in someone's career. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Well I disagree with you.. baseball has a lot more roster churn than other sports and the date someone debuts is a key moment. And I don't see the point in removing something that has been there since the beginning and is on most other baseball sites just cause you personally are somehow offended that it adds a couple of extra lines to the info box. If someone only played a couple of weeks it would be very obvious from the first and last dates as opposed to thinking they played a whole season and someone debuting in September during expanded roster periods is certainly different than debuting in April. In Ichiro's case above he seems to have extra stats and awards that I'd remove first if the length of his box is too long for you. Spanneraol (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not that it's personally offensive to me, but it's just unnecessary to add (min.) 4 table rows in order to display (min.) 2 dates. We should be striving to simplify infoboxes and find more efficient ways to display the info. (For example, maybe we only need 1 stat table but we could change it to have the stats listed in 2 columns, one for each league. That would save a great deal of space.) All the other reasons I feel the debut and finale dates are inessential I've already covered and won't rehash. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I haven't seen a convincing argument that this an actual problem. Nemov (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Amen. This discussion is a classic example of 'solution in search of a problem.' Our baseball player infoboxes are just fine the way they are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the debut or last game played dates by themselves make it obvious how many games were played during that year. They just set an upper bound on how many might have been played. If there is a consensus that providing games played info for the debut/last year is sufficiently key to include in the infobox, then the count should be directly included. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
My first instinct was this is useful and should be kept. But the info about other sports and other baseball almanacs moves me to neutral. However, if kept I think it needs to be moved below the teams as it's a subset of that data and is just too prominent in the infobox at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Key info that shouldn't be removed and does not pose a sufficient bloating enough to run afoul of INFOBOXPURPOSE. The idea that there's no value in knowing if someone debuted in April or September of a given year shows a lack of understanding of the sport, to be blunt. oknazevad (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    Making an editorial decision doesn't mean there's "no value" in what is potentially removed. —Bagumba (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    I was responding with a close paraphrase to an above comment. I fundamentally disagree with that commenter's rationale of not seeing the value in including the date in the infobox. Whether someone debuted at the beginning of a season or as a September call-up is a very notable aspect of of their career and should be in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    The thing is that there's a lot of nuance and context that I feel is better explained in text. An opening day debut is significant, but I think that would be more clearly communicated by saying "opening day" instead of a date, since most people won't know the team's opening day date for each year by memory. A debut somewhat later in the year could have lots of reasons: it might be an injury replacement, a reset of the roster, a trade, an expected return from rehab that extended into the season, and so forth. Prior to 2020, a September debut usually signified an opportunity to play due to an expanded roster, but that's also not necessarily the case. A September debut is correlated to playoff eligibility, but not perfectly: being on the 40-player roster before September, even without having debuted, would still make a player eligible. A short phrase describing the reason for the debut would better capture the notable start of the player's career, but typically the consensus on English Wikipedia is to include more descriptive infomation in the main text. isaacl (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
more information can be found in the main text but the date itself should remain in the info box so it is easy to spot. No reason to make a change on it. Spanneraol (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I've often been curious about the debut/last date and the infobox is a great place for it. You would lose it in text, as it's closer to data than prose. SportingFlyer T·C 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Lack of understanding, my ass. I know what the difference is between playing one month at the end of the season after getting called up from the minors and playing from Opening Day. Are most other readers looking for a quick snapshot of someone's career going to care? Probably not! All these extraneous details get overly romanticized. What guarantee is there that someone started playing in April didn't get hurt after 2 games or wasn't sent down for poor performance? The body of the article is the place for all of this detail, instead of contributing to infobox bloat. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I think debut and end dates are especially useful for lesser known players, as it helps define what era they played in and who their opponents were (Did they have to face Cy Young? Etc.). The vertical height of the infobox shouldn't take precedence over the information provided in the box.Orsoni (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Major League Baseball shortened to MLB

Resolved

Per consensus at Talk:National Basketball Association#Requested move 28 February 2024 and Talk:National Football League#Requested move 3 March 2024, I think it would be appropriate for a consensus to be reached for MLB. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears it was already attempted: Talk:Major League Baseball#Requested move 14 April 2024.-- Yankees10 03:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
And snow closed. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox baseball team season

FYI regarding Template:Infobox baseball team season; I have added a new field named presbo_title, which is optional. Nothing changes with existing infoboxes. The field can be used to display text different than "President of baseball operations", such as "Chief baseball officer", when appropriate. An example of presbo_title being used is 2021 Boston Red Sox season, when Chaim Bloom held the title of Chief baseball officer. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Whenever I see that "presbo" parameter, it makes me think of Mr. Prezbo from The Wire. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Juiced (book)

Can we get some eyes at Juiced (book)? "One of Juiced's central precepts is that steroid use is not in and of itself a bad thing, as long as the person is being monitored by a physician and the dosages are small" vaguely gives me a feeling this violates something about WP:FRINGE. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be giving a fringe theory undue prominence if placed in other articles on steroids or performance-enhancing drugs. But in an article about a book, statements about key messages of the book are apt. The statements should be sourced, of course, to verify that they are indeed key messages. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Talk:Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball)

An editor has requested that Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball) be moved to Registration of players under control, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Graham (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders

Deletion discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders that may interest you. Please share your input if you would like. Thank you, - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Danville Otterbots#Requested move 20 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Danville Otterbots#Requested move 20 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

MLB officially recognizing Negro Leagues (1920 - 1948) in its stat books

Negro Leagues statistics to be officially integrated into MLB historical record Since this has been the subject of spirited debate here since 2020, as MLB said it would do this, and sources like Baseball Reference and Fangraphs followed suit, but the fact that MLB.com didn't show the Negro League stats led some to argue that the situation was ambiguous and maybe we should hold off from including these teams in our 1920 through 1948 season pages, and the various statistical tables. It looks like that argument is formally being taken away.

A lot of lists and player articles have already incorporated the Negro Leagues players, but we might want to edit, for example Batting average (baseball) to explicitly mention that Tetelo Vargas holds the single season record. And there's now no reason not to include these teams and standings on the 1920 through 1948 season pages. Jhn31 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I oppose such additions to the MLB season pages. We should stick with including only the American League & National League stats. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Do Wikipedia rules allow for editors to overrule primary and secondary sources, and just go with vibes from the editors' personal axes to grind? Seems like an NPOV issue. Jhn31 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
We haven't heard from others yet. A consensus to make the changes you want, must be obtained. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That's awesome that MLB recognizes these accomplishments, but just jamming multiple leagues into seasons pages makes the information more difficult to consume. I'd oppose simply because it's less useful. Nemov (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
If every non-Wikipedia source says the 1943 MLB batting average leader was Tetelo Vargas, it is more or less useful for Wikipedia to say it was someone else? Jhn31 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The Negro Leagues were not actually part of Major League Baseball during those years. I am not sure that this is a fact that can be retroactively overturned without misrepresenting history as it occurred. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This was discussed in great detail up the page some. The favored solution was to note in the text of the article that these leagues were considered "major" starting in 2020. Jhn31 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
When was this discussion? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Top of this page and a few other times going back to 2020 in the archives. The biggest concern has always been the incompleteness of the records, but now that the MLB database is including them too (as opposed to just BR, Fangraphs, etc.), there's an extra bit of legitimacy. I think all of the arguments to recognize the Federal League would also apply to these leagues now. Jhn31 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how statistical data of dubious reliability suddenly becomes more accurate because Major League Baseball is trying to get some good PR. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
That's a personal opinion though, which we have to stay away from on Wikipedia. The secondary sources have included these leagues for years as "major" and starting tomorrow the primary sources will too. Regardless of any our our personal opinions, I think Wikipedia rules are pretty clear that the content should align to the sources. As stated, noting that these leagues weren't considered "major" until years later is probably appropriate. Jhn31 (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There's tons of sources that establish that each of these leagues is a separate entity. They all can be considered major by MLB and that can be noted, but these are historical leagues that have a unique individual history. Nemov (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The National League and American League were separate entities throughout most of the 20th century, yet we combine each of their seasons into a single article under the "Major League" umbrella for convenience. We follow convention for an additional retroactively recognized major league in 1914 and 1915. Why should 1920 through 1948 be any different? Why would we not defer to primary and secondary sources for those years when we do for every other year? Jhn31 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
That is a spurious argument. The American League was separate from the National League, but was still recognized as a Major League back in 1901. There is no retroactive element to the recognition of American League stats as Major League stats from 1901 on (and I am pretty sure that American League stats from 1900 are still not recognized as Major League stats). They were not combined under a "Major League umbrella" for convenience, they were combined because they were considered Major League stats at the time. Rlendog (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
My concerns regarding the reliability of historical information cannot be waved away as mere opinion. Neither can you so carelessly dismiss my objection that the Negro Leagues were not, in fact, functioning as a part of Major League Baseball during their years of operation. MLB, for whatever motives it may have (and I suspect we all have our own theories on that), does not have the authority to change the past, nor are we obligated to aid them in their efforts to do so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
No one is "changing the past" - you're sounding a little conspiratorial there. Any season page would include proper context about how MLB has since recognized certain 1920-1948 Negro Leagues as having "major league" status. However, Wikipedia does not need to be misaligned from both primary and major secondary sources about which leagues, players, and teams qualify as "major" due to political objections from some editors. If Baseball Reference, Fangraphs, ESPN, the Baseball Hall of Fame, etc., and MLB itself say there are leagues beyond just the National and American Leagues whose records count as "major league" records, we should not (and as I understand Wikipedia rules, cannot) overrule all of them and present history as we want it to be. Jhn31 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Several times in this discussion you have questioned the motives of the editors with whom you disagree. Can you please stop? Nemov (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you just said the quiet part out loud. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
If the issue is should we include Negro League standings and statistics on pages like the 1925 Major League Baseball season article, I don't see why not.. we list the AL and NL stats separately on that page.. what's the problem with adding additional leagues in a similar fashion? List of Major League Baseball batting champions already includes the Negro Leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I was going to ask on this page about this. We should change our statistics pages at the very least. For example, List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders needs to be changed to indicate that Josh Gibson is now recognized as the career batting average leader (.372 vs. Ty Cobb's .366). Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I made an update to the article, and I'd love to hear feedback from everyone, including the skeptics. I put both Gibson and Cobb in the photos at the top as a potential compromise. We'll probably need additional detail for Gibson once the official records are updated. Also the NYT article says that MLB will recognize Gibson as the single-season leader because Vargas in 1943 didn't have enough plate appearances, so further explanation may be necessary. Jhn31 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Nobody believes that you actually wanted to hear feedback from the so-called 'skeptics', but I think you should have waited to see how consensus develops in this thread before making a unilateral change. I'm not going to revert you, but I wouldn't object if somebody else did. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The article has included Oscar Charleston and other Negro Leaguers for over 3 years. The edit today was simply a proposal of how to address how MLB's recognized leader has now changed. Jhn31 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted your unilateral change. We must be careful about implementing revisional history on MLB related-pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
So you removed Josh Gibson out of the article by ... reverting to a version that still has Oscar Charleston and Jud Wilson (among others) and has for since 2021? How does that make any sense? Jhn31 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
GoodDay reverted a controversial edit pending further discussion. It's a perfectly sensible thing to do. You said your edit was a proposal, but proposals belong on talk pages. Now that your edit has been reverted, your best bet is to present the edit as a proposal either here or at the article talk page. This will allow us all to gauge the community's consensus, and if it goes against my position, so be it. Wouldn't be the first time, that's for sure. Also, for goodness sake, please quit arguing with everyone who disagrees with you. It's getting quite tiresome. Let us talk to each other. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, my proposal was to state that MLB recognized Josh Gibson as the career leader in batting average in May 2024, and to include his picture along Cobb's at the top. I didn't see it as "controversial" or "unilateral" because the article has included Negro Leaguers since June 2021, and didn't see any debate about it from then or since then. I saw the edit as a clarification that MLB recognizes Gibson now, when previously he wasn't included in the article because he didn't have enough plate appearances using Baseball Reference's numbers. (I don't know if that will change in the near future or not.)
As far as being "tiresome," the point of these discussion threads is to discuss and debate back and forth. I don't mind you replying multiple times to me (though I don't think questioning my character was really necessary, but whatever), and I won't stop replying multiple times to others if it's part of a natural discussion. Jhn31 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It would be great if you could stop trying to explain how Wikipedia works to people who already know. I don't recall questioning your character, but I do recall that you've made snide remarks about the motives of at least two of us in this thread. Continue to treat this discussion like a battleground if you wish, but don't be surprised if it backfires on you eventually. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, in a separate question, what source do you propose using that will not include these leagues for 1920 through 1948? Please don't dodge this question, I'm not being a smartass, I honestly want to know - if you get your way, and we strike Gibson, Charleston, Wilson, Stearnes, etc., from the article, what will we list as the source? What reference site out there doesn't include them? Jhn31 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
It's official now. Wikipedia is out of alignment with all accepted sources, primary and secondary. [https://www.mlb.com/stats/batting-average/all-time-totals Jhn31 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia will move at the speed of consensus. It might move faster without WP:BLUDGEONING. Nemov (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Having read through the 30-odd comments so far, the discussion here reignites the concerns I had in the above section. Keep in mind, the current consensus for merging non-NL & AL leagues into MLB season pages is that "Consensus is to include the Federal League records in the respective MLB season articles". 1914 & 1915 Federal League standings and stats are currently merged into the 1914 & 1915 MLB season pages, respectively.
Also, keep in mind, the Federal League (as well as the AA, UA, & PL) were only considered "major league" retroactively, in 1969, the same way MLB now considers the NNL, ECL, ANL, EWL, NSL, NNL2, & NAL "major league", retroactively as of 2020. Given this context, the seven Negro Major leagues should be treated the same as the AA, UA, PL, & FL. It should be noted that the organization known as "Major League Baseball" has only existed since 2000. Any references to the combined NL/AL previously used the lowercase descriptor of "major league baseball". In addition, the term "major league baseball" has only existed since the 1960s. One could say that the top major leagues in the US in 1969 were: the NL, AL, NFL, AFL, NBA, ABA, & NHL.
There's several ways to move forward here, though I am of two schools of thought:
  • We combine all major league baseball leagues into each season page, so that, for example, the 1925 MLB season would include the NL, AL, NNL, & ECL. This option is logically consistent with Major League Baseball retroactively intermixing non-NL/AL stats into the NL/AL stats, to have overall MLB stats. However, these pages should not be capitalized until the 2000 season (for example, the 1925 page would be "1925 major league baseball season") as Major League Baseball did not exist until 2000.
  • We have season pages dedicated to each major league entity, where for example, there would be four 1925 season pages, one each for the NL, AL, NNL, & ECL. If the internet and Wikipedia existed in 1925, this would be the only option. There would be no combined "major league baseball" page, as that exact term did not even exist yet. The first MLB season page would eventually be in 2000, since this is when "Major League Baseball" (in its proper noun, legal form) came into existence. The 1903–1999 seasons of NL & AL, with the World Series, a championship between the winners of two leagues, would be analogous to the 1966–1969 seasons of the NFL & AFL of American football, which featured the Super Bowl, initially a championship between the winners of two leagues, later two conferences once the AFL & NFL merged.
  • A theoretical third option is to have both individual and combined league season pages... but this would be, in my opinion (and probably the opinion of most), an obnoxious duplication of data and content.
I think most of anything else is honestly flimsy logic, with (what I believe is) recency bias in keeping NL & AL combined as "Major League Baseball" for 1901–1999 seasons, but keeping the 11 other leagues separate (as in the AA, UA, PL, FL, NNL, ECL, ANL, EWL, NSL, NNL2, & NAL), as "MLB", consisting of the NL & AL, is how we've all thought of American baseball for the past quarter century. One doesn't think of the National League today without thinking of the overarching Major League Baseball, but this wasn't the case 30 years ago. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 16:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Batting average tables

The discussion above was all over the place. The main thing I believe we can find a quick consensus on is updating List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders. Perhaps the discussion should take place on that article to work out the specific changes. I would recommend the table in that article be modified to include the specific major league for which the player played. For Batting_average_(baseball) it might be cleaner just to remove the table and explain how MLB counts players from multiple leagues. Nemov (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This project is the wrong place to form consensus on that article and so I have started a talk page discussion for that article for interested editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Federal League and the 7 Negro Major Leagues in the MLB seasons pages (+4 19th century leagues?)

So I've jumped the gun in separating the Federal League from the 1914 & 1915 seasons when I should have discussed it here first. When I split the pages before, I made separate Federal League 1914 & 1915 pages, so the information hasn't been lost.

Previous format before my edits:

  • Major League Baseball season pages (only 1901–present) contained:
  • Major leagues not considered for season pages:

Sites such as baseball-reference.com consider the Federal League and 7 Negro Major Leagues as major league (as well as the several 1876–1900 leagues), as this is what MLB considers true. It should be noted that there is a distinction between leagues being considered major league, and the organization known as "Major League Baseball". To add to the confusion, MLB includes Federal League stats on its stat pages, but the Federal League is not listed on the standings nor schedule pages. However, (assumingly due to incomplete records), the 1920–1948 Negro Major League stats are nowhere to be found. I tend to believe that the Federal League stats are on MLB's website because many of their players were of the AL or NL before and after the Federal League's existence.

There's the fact that MLB as a North American league has a unique history compared to say, professional football or basketball. With football, the NFL and AFL were always completely separate entities until 1970, when they merged and saw the formation of the NFC and AFC, under the umbrella of NFL. The lines between Major League Baseball were always blurred to some degree from the 1903 National Agreement until the legal merger of the NL & AL into one organization in 2000.

Jhn31 and I had been talking on my talk page (thanks to Jhn31, I was made aware of previous discussion), and I'm going to copy/paste my thoughts (and expand a little) on the matter (Jhn31, I don't want to copy/paste your words, so if you want to reiterate here that'd be great!).

I'm personally of the belief that we should follow one of the two extremes:
  • MLB season pages should strictly be for the NL and AL (and in fact, the 1901 & 1902 pages should be separate NL & AL pages à la AFL & NFL 1967–1969 seasons even though Super Bowl I-III took place these seasons), as any proper cooperation between the AL and NL didn't begin until 1903 with the National Agreement. "Major League Baseball" as an organization did not exist in any sense before 1903.
  • All leagues 1876–present that are considered major league should be included on season pages à la baseball-reference.com. Granted, I'd be tempted to make a distinction where any pre-1903 seasons are "1### Major league baseball season", where only the first word is capitalized since the all-caps "Major League Baseball" refers to the proper organization.
To make things even more confusing, MLB celebrates 1869 as the inaugural Major League season (even though its website is only dedicated to go back to 1901), a year that pre-dates even the 1871–1875 NA, which has its major league status in question (though I guess this is really just referencing the Cincinnati Red Stockings as the first professional baseball team). I personally like the first extreme much more than the second, as it has season pages dedicated to leagues as they existed at the time. It feels the most proper.

Separate from the Federal League issue, all of the major leagues from 1876 to present should, in my opinion be contained in some form of season pages, instead of just being redirects to "1### in baseball" pages. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 04:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

To echo my comments from 2022, the Federal League is a definite Yes, as MLB considers it a "major" league, counts statistics as part of player's MLB career records, the Hall of Fame includes Federal League teams played on (but not minor or international leagues), and reference sites include it in the statistics. I think the Federal League standings and stats leaders umabiguously belong on the 1914 and 1915 season articles. I prefer taking it a step further and including all "major" leagues on the respective season pages, since that aligns with MLB's preferences and sites like Baseball Reference, which is going to be the source of much of the standings, awards, and statistical information found on the pages anyway. Perhaps there could be a standard paragraph on each page from 1920 to 1948 stating that MLB has only considered the Negro leagues to be "major" since 2020. Jhn31 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll add one thing to my comment by referencing something I said in the past: These MLB Hall of Fame plaques don't mention non-MLB accomplishments, but all 3 of which mention the Federal League: Eddie Plank Edd Roush Joe Tinker. Or the Baseball Reference pages for 1914 or 1915 which list the Federal League as part of the "Major Leagues." Or the ESPN pages for 1914 and 1915. Or Fangraphs. If MLB says so, the Hall of Fame says so, media sources say so, trusted references that drive so many MLB articles on Wikipedia say so... then Wikipedia should reflect that. I feel like it's outside the mission of Wikipedia for editors to decide that despite the primary and secondary source material saying one thing, that we feel like it should actually go in a different direction. Jhn31 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed as I noted in 2022 & note again, the Federal League should be excluded from the 1914 & 1915 MLB season pages, because the Federal League champion didn't participate in the World Series. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
And whether it's 2022 or 2024, that's a completely arbitrary distinction that you made up. As Wikipedia editors, we must follow the sources and not inject our own opinions about how things "should" be here. Jhn31 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have the authority to delete the FL records from the 1914 & 1915 MLB seasons pages. Merely re-stating that I support their deletion from those two pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Yet again this topic just doesn't get any real discussion here. I believe it's appropriate to go back to the pre-existing consensus and restore the 1914 and 1915 articles back to how they were, with the Federal League shown. I also think the 1920 through 1948 seasons should have the various Negro Leagues shown, as that's how MLB and the secondary references show it, but I don't think there's even been a consensus here for that, so we can hold off until we do. Jhn31 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If more input is needed, I believe that the 1914-15 MLB season pages should include the Federal League because it is widely considered to be a major league by baseball historians. Hatman31 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the lack of discussion, I'll try leaving a notice on Major League Baseball's talk page to get some eyes over here. The more I've thought about this, the more my opinion that the FL & other major-league-tier leagues should be separate strengthens (this includes separating AL & NL into their own pages for 1901 & 1902). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an unnecessary complication to split of 1901 and 1902 into separate articles. Neither MLB nor any of the secondary sources or historians do anything like that. Jhn31 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Create (if not already in existence) new season pages for the Federal League & the Negro Major Leagues. MLB season pages are for only the National League & American League. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep the FL on the 1914 & 1915 MLB pages. MLB recognizes it as a major league, as do all other reliable sources, and we have no good reason to remove it as such. The Negro Leagues are more complicated, because the records there are still incomplete, though their recognition as major league caliber should be noted. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
But the Federal League teams never competed in the World Series. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
So? Spanneraol (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
That's why I'm against re-adding FL clubs into the 1914 & 1915 MLB season pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, that's a standard that you just made up. Should Wikipedia reflect what the primary and secondary sources say, or just stuff that one random user made up? Can you point to any baseball historian or secondary reference that backs up your idea that "the Federal League actually wasn't major because its champion did not compete in the World Series" ? Jhn31 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not the decider on this matter. I merely state my position on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
And I'm asking you to back up your position. I'm willing to change my mind if you make a well-supported argument, but you're not willing to make an argument at all. Jhn31 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not trying to change your mind. If you want more input on this topic? I'd recommend mentioning this discussion at WP:SPORTS. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
There is a difference between recognizing a league to be at the major league level and being in the organization known as "Major League Baseball", no? It's easy to conflate, but I don't see MLB recognizing the Federal League as having been in "Major League Baseball", but rather a league, that while rivaling the NL & AL (members of MLB), was in fact a league of major league caliber. Simultaneously, MLB will recognize the stats of players that were a part of the FL in overall player stats in the history of MLB because the FL was of major league quality, and not including those stats are a disservice to those players.
Unless someone can point to otherwise, I haven't seen MLB recognize the Federal League, itself as an organization, as being a part of the organizational history of MLB, which is different than recognizing the FL (as well as the AA, UA, PL, NNL1, ECL, ANL, EWL, NSL, NNL2, & NAL) as being a part of the organizational history of MLB.
Maybe it's just me, but there's a conflation occurring in this discussion between being in MLB, and being a major league. There's a difference. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 00:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I think you're needlessly splitting hairs. You yourself linked to MLB.com's 1914 stats page, where the Federal League is included. If MLB itself says the Federal League should be included, reference sites like BaseballReference, ESPN, and Fangraphs say the Federal League should be included, players' Hall of Fame plaques include the Federal League, baseball historians unanimously say the Federal League should be included, then who are we as measly Wikipedia editors to say "well, actually..." ?
There was "no such thing" as "MLB" (the organization) in 1914 for the Federal League to be "part of" anyway. As detailed in the Wikipedia article here, the organization called Major League Baseball didn't actually become a thing until 2000. The entire history of MLB for the 18th and 19th centuries is based on the concept of who was and was not a "major league," not the literal membership in an organized called Major League Baseball. It's all historians looking back to decide if and when a particular league as "major" or not at the time, and I think the rules of Wikipedia would strongly support aligning the articles to match the consensus of the historians, references, and the primary source itself (which you yourself linked for us). Jhn31 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes

MLB is not saying that. MLB as the primary source itself isn't even consistent. It has player stats for FL players, but if I try to lookup the standings for FL teams in 1914 & 1915, they're nowhere to be found on MLB's website. It shows the AL & NL standings from 1901–present. It doesn't show the NL standings 1876–1900 (or any other 19th century league), and well, the AL didn't exist as a major league before 1901. There was a degree of cooperation between the AL & NL from 1903 with the National Agreement. There was never any sense of cooperation between the FL and AL/NL apparatus under the National Agreement. If we’re to use the primary source (MLB.com), it would tell us that the teams that were in MLB number to 31 franchises (with the 1901–1902 Baltimore Orioles being the only inactive franchise).
Wikipedia itself plays a bit hard and loose with facts as well. National Association of Professional Base Ball Players has in its lead “…to form Major League Baseball (MLB) in 1903.” Major League Baseball has in its own page in the Organizational structure section, “There were several challenges to MLB's primacy in the sport, with notable attempts to establish competing leagues occurring during the late 1800s, from 1913 to 1915 with the short-lived Federal League, and in 1960 with the aborted Continental League.” This certainly implies they are separate, no? (Obviously, we cannot source Wikipedia for anything to put on Wikipedia, but this is emblematic that the consistency on Wikipedia regarding the aforementioned needs to be addressed).
Could I be splitting hairs? Perhaps. The more research I’ve done looking into the history, the more I’m for one of two schools of thought. If I were creating these articles from scratch, I’d do the following:
  • Have unified MLB pages, only from 2000–present (with independent NL and AL pages pre-2000), or
  • Don’t use the proper noun “Major League Baseball” until 2000 but using the improper “major league baseball” for all pre-2000 seasons.
    • A sub-option of this, inspired from Baseball-Reference, (which may be a good compromise position), would be the status quo, but for where it says “League” in the infobox, for all pre-2000 seasons, it should say “National League”, “American League” (see exampled below for infobox changes).
But “Major League Baseball” the organization (again, as you said, and which is true), did not exist pre-2000. Baseball-reference, in my opinion, gets this partially right. There is the 2000 season page titled 2000 Major League Baseball Team Statistics. If you click “previous season”, the 1999 page is titled 1999 Major League Team Statistics, where “Baseball” is missing.
As an example, here's what the top of 1999 & 2000 infoboxes look like now:
Here's what the top of 1999 & 2000 infoboxes could look like with the keep-combined-but-more-factual revision. There's a case to be made whether the league's should be listed alphabetical or chronological-by-founding-date:
Following that trend, the 1914 infobox could look like:
Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 03:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
If I can change sports on you, the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, and then 3 years later, a new Browns team was added as an expansion team. But instead of that, the NFL recognizes both Browns as a single franchise that was inactive for 3 seasons and returned. That's not "really" what happened, but that's how the NFL records are structured, and Wikipedia defers to the NFL on that. The page List of Cleveland Browns seasons shows all of them from both iterations. List of Baltimore Ravens seasons doesn't include the years in Cleveland, even though the continuous Modell-owned franchise did play there. Wikipedia defers to what the NFL now recognizes, and not what is technically true, even though both the Browns and Ravens pages note this.
Similarly, I believe that Wikipedia should follow what MLB now recognizes, that even though technically "Major League Baseball" as a formal organization didn't exist until 2000, and before that it was more of a concept of a league being "major," MLB now recognizes these leagues from the 1800s and 1900s (primarily the National League and American League, but also a long list of other leagues) as part of "Major League Baseball" for the purposes of record keeping. I think it aligns with MLB's current stance and serves the readers well to have 1 article for each year from 1876 to 1999 (and also through present) for all leagues recognized as major, and for 1920 through 1948 have a note that the Negro leagues weren't recognized as "major" until 2020, but are now. Maybe there could even be a note in every article up to 1999 that the organization "Major League Baseball" didn't actually exist yet then.
I hold no strong preference on the whether "Major League Baseball" should be capitalized, but unless there is a secondary source out there that lowercases it, I lean against it because I don't think Wikipedia should be inventing conventions like that. Jhn31 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The NHL Coyotes situation could also be used with this example as well, though Arizona currently has no team (yet?)
The fact that MLB didn't exist until 2000 is why, if anything, we keep the pages as Major League Baseball, but just change the infobox to not explicitly mention "Major League Baseball", but rather list each individual league, like I have in the 1999 & 1914 infobox examples. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that back in August 2022 this community reached the consensus that the Federal League SHOULD be included in the 1914 and 1915 pages (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48#Federal League records in the 1914 & 1915 Major League Baseball season pages) and nothing here has indicated any change to that consensus, I think it would appropriate to restore those pages immediately, and redirect 1914 Federal League season and 1915 Federal League season to the MLB season articles. Since User:Spesh531 has added additional content since removing the Federal League information, I'd like to give him the opportunity to add the Federal League information back with his additional content, rather than just a straight revert. There are still two outstanding questions where I don't think we've reached a consensus yet:

  • Whether the 7 Negro Leagues that are now recognized as having "major league" status should be similarly included on the 1920 through 1948 pages. I don't think this is as clear cut as the Federal League, since for example MLB.com doesn't list those teams as "major" in the same way it does for the Federal League, but MLB's official stance is that they should count, and reference sites like Baseball Reference and Fangraphs do count them as major league teams. There was concern that stats aren't fully complete as not every game's box score is available, but I think there is enough to at least show teams, standings, and league leaders on the pages. It would be appropriate to include a note in every one of those articles that the Negro leagues were recognized by MLB as "major leagues" starting in 2020.
  • Whether there should be articles for 1876 through 1899 seasons. I also would say yes for these, as the National League is recognized as a major league going back to 1876 (not just 1901), and there would be other leagues in some of those years as well. I'm really not sure what the argument against this is, other than it's been this way for 15 years and no one has been interested enough to change it.

Does anyone have further thoughts on these two questions? Do we need a separate header? Jhn31 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the community reached a consensus in 2022. I'd say opinion was evenly split between the "FL-separate" and "FL-in-MLB-page", but the discussion died out. The status quo pre-2020 did not include any information for the FL except for the managers (which I think is due in part to the likely little traffic these season pages receive). Mid-2020 saw the FL information added, but as far as I'm aware, no discussions really happened until 2022, when the mid-2020 status quo of including the Federal League into MLB season pages was confirmed (again, only because discussions seemed to die out). I'd be willing to concede to the current format but only with what I said above, where the infobox League section should not mention "Major League Baseball" pre-2000.
I also think the capitalization discussion should be furthered. I like a Baseball-Reference-based approach, where only "Major League" is capitalized, so, for example, the 1999 page would say "1999 Major League baseball season".
If we follow the approach of combining all major leagues into one season article, if MLB's notice of major-league recognition of Negro leagues in 2020 is to be stated, it would be worth it to add notes for the AA/UA/PL/FL, dated 1969. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 05:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we create pre-1901 season pages until a firm consensus has been reached for the current pages, so extra work isn't made. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 05:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
It's labeled at the top of the box "Consensus is to include the Federal League records in the respective MLB season articles," and if you count up the number of individual names on each side of the debate, there were quite a bit more in favor of including them, just like in this box. I think Wikipedia rules would very clearly favor restoring them, because at the very least there is no consensus now in 2024 to override the consensus from 2022. I would agree with your point to add a note in the 1914 and 1915 season pages that the Federal League has been considered to be a "major" league since 1969, and also have a comment at the top of the article linking any potential editors to the 2022 discussion and this one, and telling them not to remove the Federal League from the article. Jhn31 (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Go figure, I read the entirety of that discussion except the very top mentioning User:Nableezy's consensus comment 😅. Since this discussion had no consensus I'll revert the changes and re-merge the FL into the 1914 & 1915 pages (as well as merging and organizing the 1920–1948 pages to include the seven Negro Major Leagues, as these leagues were the catalyst as to why I brought this discussion up in the first place). But two issues I see still remain:
What of the League section of the infobox and capitalization? It wouldn't be accurate to have "Major League Baseball" pre-2000 in the infobox (this is especially the case pre-1966 as the term itself had not been used until the creation of the "Major League Baseball Promotion Corporation", or pre-1969 before MLB's logo mentioning "MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL" (which should be noted, doesn't tell us anything about capitalization since the entire label is) came into being). It would be historically accurate to mention both the American League and National League separately in the infobox for all pre-2000 seasons, but keep Major League Baseball in the lead.
Regarding capitalization, I think this article at Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) is worth a read. While this part of the discussion is splitting hairs a bit, the "Major League Baseball" capitalization for any pre-1903 season and arguably the same for any pre-2000 should also be ironed out. Like I mentioned above, I think Wikipedia following Baseball-Reference's lead of keeping "Major League" capitalized and make "baseball" lowercase for all pre-2000 seasons would be a good idea. Arguably, SABR's self-imposed rules of continuing to refer to the lowercase "major leagues" for all things not post-1999 may be a better reference. "Major League baseball", as in titling the pages "19## Major League baseball season" at least to me, is a categorical or descriptive term, including all major leagues (whether they interacted with each other or not). However, "19## major league baseball season" may be more a more accurate title if we follow SABR's policy. Even the Associated Press had not used the full capitalization consistently until 2000.
I'm trying to think of this as if we hadn't lived through the legal merger yet. Let's say its 1987 and these pages are being created. The legal merger of the NL and AL had not occurred yet. How would these season articles—before said merger occurs—have been titled? This line of thinking is the (IMO) correct way to title the pre-2000 season pages. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I recommend just making 1 article in Draft form for a season between 1920 and 1948 (probably one with two Negro major leagues) before editing all of them, because there are a lot of conventions we'll have to establish. 50.86.55.67 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Definitely! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 19:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Spesh531/sandbox/1923 Major League Baseball season
Here is an attempt for the 1923 season page. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd recommend leaving the MLB season pages, as they are. Let's not crowd the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree (and would actually prefer to separate out the "MLB" season pages (which includes Federal League) but apparently, we're in the minority here (at least in regard to the Federal League, and by extension the Negro Major Leagues). Given the current consensus is to merge the Federal League into the MLB season pages, the logical conclusion is that every other league considered "major league" should be included in the "MLB" pages as well, for the sake of consistency.
Unless, of course, consensus for the Federal League changes... Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 02:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Why are you changing the dates in the infoboxes? Just leave them as they were, with one beginning & one ending date. We don't need to list separate leagues, pre-2000. You're making changes too quickly, with limited input. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Do we really need to list champions AND runners up for every league in the infobox? Why not just the champions? I also think we should streamline and standardize how we show the statistical leaders for each season page. Jhn31 (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion regarding stat leaders would need to start with the contemporary seasons, as the way they currently are has been the case for every season page since 2010 (and the ones that I have updated from 1901 to 1931).
Stat leaders: I recommend a much more compact table, such as the one found here: 1927 in baseball. We could have a discussion on whether additional stats should be included or not. Jhn31 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the league runner up, I'm inclined to agree that all runner-ups that did not involve some sort of playoff (so every NL & AL season before 1969) should be removed, as they're just a happenstance of that season's standings. However, I don't think this should be the case for say, the 1927 NNL season, since there was a championship series between Chicago and Birmingham (especially considering that these were the 1st and 2nd half leaders. The overall season would show Birmingham in 4th, so that's not immediately obvious from the standings). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree with ever putting the league runner-up in the table, even in recent years. If someone wants to know who lost the NLCS, it will be easy to find in the article, and it will keep it compact. Aren't these sufficient? Jhn31 (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Here's a proposal I made: User:Jhn31/sandbox/1923 Major League Baseball season. It's the same information, but organized a bit more compactly. Streamline infobox, managers listed with the teams rather than in a separate table, the maps are connected to the standings, the league leaders table is more small (we should discuss what stats are and aren't important to include here). I considered moving the attendance to the top box as well (is attendance more important than capacity anyway?). Any thoughts? Jhn31 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I like most of it! Especially the line breaks in the infobox, instead of a straight list (though I still think the runners up should be there for playoff seasons, or at the very least, the World Series runner up should be there, but that's just my opinion and admittedly status quo bias here), as well as the managers in the list of teams table. My only issue with managers in the table is, if we follow my idea where the maps are under the infobox, the size of the maps becomes an issue.
We could do the maps with the standings, though my idea with the maps is taken from the NFL season and MLS season pages as a means of consistency across multiple sports (the latter is also the inspiration for the list of teams and stadiums at the top of the page). Maybe we want to keep that consistency with the other US/Canada sports season pages? I'm not sure what other non-North American sports leagues have in terms of a maps on season pages.
Speaking of! I've finished making independent AL & NL map templates for all seasons, so we're not locked in using the MLB template if we decide to have horizontally-placed maps (though since the template maps are narrower than the standings, they don't look as good above the standings).
I've since added the "managerial changes" to my sandbox, as well as three different teams list sections with maps (one as yours is, one with leagues removed and teams shaded, and one with managers removed). Regarding the changes, a good amount of research will need to be done to find each reason for managerial changes, so maybe that's something that's added later.
For the stats, I followed your idea of using the 1927 in baseball format, but I have two versions, since there are twice the amount of stats on the MLB season pages as there are on the #### in baseball pages; one has batting and pitching in separate sections, one has them together, but still sectioned off within one table. I personally like the 2nd table (or something similar) where they're all in one table. It keeps the width for both batting/hitting and pitching the same. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
1923 MLB season
LeagueAmerican League, National League, Negro National League, Eastern Colored League
SportBaseball
DurationApril 17 – October 15, 1923
Number of games154 (AL, NL), 53–86 (NNL), 33–59 (ECL)
Number of teams8 (AL), 8 (NL), 8 (NNL), 6 (ECL)
Regular Season
Season MVPAL: Babe Ruth (NYY)
AL championsNew York Yankees
NL championsNew York Giants
NNL championsKansas City Monarchs
ECL championsHilldale Club
World Series
ChampionsNew York Yankees
MLB seasons
Although I will point out that including the Negro Leagues in the 1920 through 1948 articles would that the champions of the Negro World Series in the years it existed should be listed alongside the World Series winners, and I'm not sure if the infobox template can accommodate two separate championships. I'm sure we can figure it out. Jhn31 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think too much is happening too fast & changes are being implemented rather quickly. Therefore, I've sought more input from WP:SPORTS, as these proposed/implemented changes, may also affect other sports season pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

More input would be appreciated! Having not even a dozen users discussing the greater topic of the Federal League, Negro Major Leagues, etc., leads to these discussions dying out into status quo consensuses and nothing happens, which is partially why I've been so WP:BOLD with the changes I've been making. They'll bring greater discussion.
Though admittedly, my desire to improve the season pages—what was initially just increasing the quality of the MLB season pages to match the contemporary ones as much as possible (i.e. stat leaders & manager tables) as well as adding locator maps—has been slowly spiraling out since I started in mid-March. For every new concern or issue I've found (including improving the "#### in baseball" pages), I've backtracked to 1901 and made the changes... but the further along I've gotten, the more dramatic each change becomes (which as of now, is about 32 seasons).
I think for now I'll shrink the scope of what I'm changing in the immediate closer to what I had initially intended (i.e. rule changes, table of teams & their stadiums, stat tables, and increasing the quality of Negro League standings tables in the "#### in baseball") until more input occurs. I'm hoping a firm, logically consistent consensus eventually takes place regarding how Wikipedia eventually organizes these baseball pages, as it would be nice to start building out dedicated season pages for 1876–1900 seasons without many lingering questions, as well as creating season pages for the dozens of Negro League teams of 1920–1948 to match the quality of the NL & AL team season pages of those times (depending on available information, with at the very least, detailed player stats and rosters).
It would also be nice to see the #### in baseball pages expand their scope to also feature minor leagues (like in 1903 in baseball) or maybe adding standings for other international leagues, namely the Nippon league (or, perhaps removing the standings since they exist in the dedicated league pages (like in 2012 in baseball) so the scope of these articles aren't so American major league-centric). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 02:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Spesh531:, your latest proposed changes to MLB season infoboxes, makes it look like the NNL & ECL champions played in the World Series, against the NL & AL champions. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You mean in my sandbox infobox? I'm not sure what you mean. It says NY Yankees & runner-up NY Giants under "World Series". The infobox right above these immediate comments in this talk page that excludes all runner ups was created by @Jhn31. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, your sandbox infobox. BTW - I think (when you're ready) you should open up an RFC, on whether or not to implement any changes to MLB season pages infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
What would you suggest so it doesn't look like the NNL & ECL teams played in the World Series? I made a change (though I don't really like it saying "World Series AL vs. NL"). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I would exclude the NNL & the ECL from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
If we include the NNL & ECL in this page (which goes back to the "do we separate each league into their own seasons" question), they must be in the infobox. They're equally as important as the National and American Leagues. All four were major leagues with pennant winners/champions in their own right. It makes as much sense to keep the NNL and ECL and remove the AL, NL, and World Series as to excluding the NNL & ECL. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 23:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The changes you're pushing for should be brought to an RFC, as they effect multiple pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
There's too many variables right now (I think) to call an RFC. I don't want to call an RFC with many different versions from different users being thrown around. I'm not even sure which version of changes I'd like to push, specifically regarding the format of the list of teams table (I have one idea, Jhn31 has another (paired with having maps in the standings section), and the status quo) and the stats table (v.1 & v.2). Also, I've made adjustments to the infobox. While it (Colored World Series) wouldn't go into the 1923 infobox (it would for the 1924 season), how does the infobox look now? Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I have three RfC's below, each addressing specific changes to be discussed. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Does it? A user could scroll down to the Postseason section and see that that's not the case pretty easily. Jhn31 (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

2021 MiLB names in team infoboxes

I have two proposals for removing 2021 MiLB names from Template:Infobox Minor League Baseball in team articles:

1) Remove the past league entries for the level/region-based league names. Since all of the current leagues are now considered continuations by the sources (the MiLB announcement seems to be used almost universally), and the 2022 name reversion has been extensively documented in league and team article prose, there's no reason to show the 2021 league name as a separate league in each team's infobox. After removal, a team's current league entry would then contain either the year they joined their current league or "2021", if they joined it under the corresponding 2021 league name. If a team has a past league entry for their current league name terminating in 2020, it would be removed as well.

2) Remove the past class level entry for "Low-A", since it was simply renamed "Single-A" in 2022. This has also been well documented in affected team article prose. Each current Single-A team's class level would be listed as, "Single-A (2021–present)".

Whatever is decided, let's hope something like this never happens again! Waz8:T-C-E 02:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I support both proposals for the sake of brevity in the infobox. I also think that mentions of these leagues and classes in other areas (lede, prose, standings tables, player articles, etc.) should remain. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed – I will only be removing them from infoboxes and will ensure that each affected article mentions the name change(s). I'm not aware of any that currently do not, but I haven't checked all affiliated team articles. I will start this task soon and eventually change them all, though assistance is welcome. Waz8:T-C-E 03:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Japan Series sponsored name

At the 2023 Japan Series article, User:Fred Zepelin keeps removing the event's official title "SMBC Nippon Series 2023" in the lead claiming WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR, all three of which do not apply in my opinion for various reasons. COMMONNAME doesnt apply beacause we aren't discussion the articles title, UNDUE doesn't apply because thsi is a very small part of a rather large article, and OR doesn't apply because it's referenced and obvious.

While in American media, the name "2023 Japan Series" is used almost exclusively, Japanese primary and secondary sources often refer to the event by its official title, the "SMBC日本シリーズ2023 (SMBC Nippon Series 2023)". Additionally, the event's logo shows this title as well. I believe these reasons are enough to warrant mentioning this name in the lead, not only as it is undeniably the event's official title, but to also help with any confusion about the discrepancy between the English title and the logo. Below are just a few secondary Japanese sources that use the official name:

What are people's thoughts on this? --TorsodogTalk 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's no discussion at the talk page at all. It's probably a better idea to start this discussion there and ask for people to join in. Either way, maybe use similar articles as models, such as the Capital One Orange Bowl. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm okay with the discussion being here. The thing is, there are corporate sponsored names which are significant and documented in reliable secondary sources. Even then, I prefer to see that stuff mentioned in the body and not the lead, as those names shift often, they aren't useful to the reader, and the role of an encyclopedia shouldn't be providing extra advertising to a company just because they paid a league or a team a bunch of money. In this case, it's even less significant - the only source that talks about the bank sponsorship of the Japan Series is the primary source - a press release from the league. It's called the Japan Series. Almost all secondary sources call it that. Once in a while, the sponsored name shows up in a secondary source (Torsodog found all 5 of them above), but even those sources, in different article, call it just the Japan Series. That's the name, that's it. I'm okay with the mention of SMBC Bank later in the body (even though that's still just a primary source) but I cannot fathom why we should have it in the first sentence. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Cause it's still the official name of the event. and the name of the 2023 Japan Series will not change often.. it shouldn't even change at all now that the event is over.. the 2024 Japan Series might have a different sponsor but that is something that can be mentioned on that page. Other pages, such as College Bowl games that have sponsors that change ever year do list the sponsor name in the header such as 2023 Rose Bowl or 2023 Orange Bowl. Spanneraol (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What does "official name of the event" mean? The SMBC is just an add-on to the actual name. It's a commercial. Nothing more. We use the name of the event in this encyclopedia. The Bowl Games that are sponsored have the same problem. Secondary sources that report on the game just use "Rose Bowl" or "Orange Bowl". The primary sources use the sponsor in the title because they've been paid to. Who's paying Wikipedia to feature a commercial that prominently? A mention in the body is already way more than is warranted, but fine, if there's a secondary source, throw it in the body. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are so opposed to mentioning the full title in the lead? The sponsorship name is notable in that it gets a lot of coverage... the television broadcasts certainly use it. That wasn't an excuse for you to go and make unilateral changes while this is being discussed just based on your own point of view. Spanneraol (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Because it isn't "the full title". The full title is the Japan Series. The name of the bank is a commercial. Yes, television broadcasts use it - because they're paid to use it! Those are primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources here, and per WP:SPONSORED, we have no obligation to use sponsored content, like a TV broadcast. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You're just plain wrong, it is the full title and I've provided good secondary sources showing it used as the full title. No one is arguing that it should be the title of the article, simply that it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead because it is more than relevant to the subject matter. And, again, you are using another Wikipedia policy incorrectly. WP:SPONSORED does not apply here. --TorsodogTalk 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
"Sponsored content" in the context of that policy seems to be about information or content added to Wikipedia thru paid means, rather than referring to subjects by names that were sponsored. I fail to see how commercial sponsorship disqualifies the name from being mentioned in the lead. Countless buildings, like stadiums and arenas, have corporate sponsor names, but we don't unilaterally decide they shouldn't be the names we use on Wikipedia. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not talking about buildings, like stadiums and arenas, with corporate sponsor names. There's plenty of reliable secondary sourced material on the Citi Field naming rights deal, and it's the actual name of the stadium, so that's completely different. I'm talking about things like the Home Run Derby presented by (whatever sponsor) which is just an advertisement. Few people know or care who sponsored the Home Run Derby in a given year, and if reliable secondary sources don't report on it, neither should we - especially in the first sentence of the article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What if it was not in the lead sentence, but later in the lead e.g. 2023 Orange Bowl? —Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems a little more reasonable. In the case of the 2023 Orange Bowl, there is some reliable secondary source documentation about Capital One's deal with bowl game organizers, so late in the lead seems appropriate for that one. To be clear, I'm not looking to install some blanket site-wide policy, because I do think it's dependent on each topic. Maybe more like a guideline - when there is some secondary RS documentation on the naming rights deal, like that Orange Bowl, late in the lead is a good place. When there isn't any, and it's mostly primary sources (ie people who are paid, and effectively forced, to mention the sponsor's name), we should leave that to a short mention in the body. How does that sound? Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Ideally, it'd be based on WP:WEIGHT, as you suggest. However, a lot of times, that subtlety is lost and a "blanket policy" might be more manageable with drive-by, copycat editors. YMMV. —Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I actually think the drive-by, copycat editors are mostly responsible for these ephemeral corporate sponsorships appearing in so many first sentences unsourced. A position in the middle is likely doable - guidelines that form a sort of "blanket policy" would be great, but there could be exceptions based on individual articles having subjects where the WP:WEIGHT of coverage of sponsorships comes into play. How do you feel about that? Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it doesnt need to be in the opening sentence if it doesnt match the page title. I think some people apply MOS:LEGALNAME for bios onto other subject areas. AFAIK, there is no guideline as such for non-bios. Also in sports articles (North America at least), there seems to be overuse and undue weight on the word "official" in articles. While we shy away from anonymous sources, I don't see the need to say official. Perhaps just mention the sponsor without needing to state whatever the contractual phrase is. —Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Explaining the sponsorship in a more eloquent way in the lead or simply mentioning the sponsor in the lead could work. I wasn't in love with the way it written in the first place, but I am against the unilateral removal of any mention of the sponsored name because of some personal distaste for the concept of sponsors. Like it or not, that is the title of the event and it is used in both reliable primary and secondary sources, as I've shown. I'm honestly very surprised that this seems to be such a controversial thing. Having a guideline like MOS:LEGALNAME for non-bios would certainly be nice to help to resolve situations like this, especially with more and more things these days being named with sponsors. --TorsodogTalk 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To clear this up, I do not have a "personal distaste for the concept of sponsors". I do have a distaste for blind devotion to putting a sponsor's name in the first sentence without a good reason for it. The title of the event is actually the article title - so that part of your statement I do disagree with. Yes, a handful of sources use the sponsored name. Most secondary sources do not use the sponsored name. That is why I believe it doesn't belong in the first sentence. A branded name isn't the "official name", it isn't the "legal name" - it's just a made-up extended name of the event. I doubt you could have an MOS:LEGALNAME for something like a World Series or Home Run Derby, but if you did, I'm pretty sure it would just be the WP:COMMONNAME. No one would suggest that the Bulls rugby team changed their name to the "Vodacom Bulls" in any legal sense, and if anyone does suggest that, I'd like to see a reliable secondary source proving it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're accusing me of "blindly" doing something, then I obviously take offense to that as I've explained my reasons quite clearly. And you say a "handful of sources" as if you took any time to actually take a look at the sources. The fact is that this is a Japanese event, yet you seem to simply disregard all Japanese-language sources on the matter. I quickly pulled those 5 sources with almost no effort or searching. Japanese sources DO call this the SMBC Japan Series. I've demonstrated that, yet you continue to ignore it. And I'm not sure what you're on about with "made-up" extended names, but all names are "made up". Sources call it the SMBC Japan Series. That's all that matters, not that you deem that to be "made-up". And as for the rugby bit, I have no idea what you're talking about nor how it is relevant. It's also not really been addressed that the event is called something different in Japan at a very basic level, "Nippon Series" vs "Japan Series". This is being completely lost with the removal of the full title. My compromise is to add the Template:Nihongo in the first sentence (as is done in almost all articles about a topic with a specific Japanese name) to call out this difference in name between regions and then leave the full title of the event in the body of the article where the sponsorship is discussed and cited. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I suggest keep the Japan Series/Nippon Series names due COMMON NAME, but add redirects and mention in article that the SMBC is there due corporative rights? - Meganinja202 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC on List-of-teams table, one format for pre-1969 and one for 1969–present

Should a list of teams appear in table format be included on each season page? These tables would include the league or division, the team name, city, stadium, stadium capacity, and manager. I have an idea for pre-1969 seasons so location maps fit side-by-side with the table and an idea for 1969–present seasons, so that maps will fit in both. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Where is the WP:RFCBEFORE? You should be seeking input before starting RfCs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The above section was the WP:RFCBEFORE. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a lot up there that I hadn't noticed. But I agree with Bagumba that I'm not clear on what the perceived issue is or what this would solve. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
It's more of a question of (potentially) increasing the quality and content of the page. I was previously boldy making additions/changes to the season pages, but discussions broke out because of all the changes I was making. There were several different ideas as to how to format this list-of-teams table. It was suggested that the changes I'm proposing (including the other two RfCs) be submitted as an RfC before making any additional changes. So I'm heeding that suggestion. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Best to slow down. We don't need to make changes, just for the sake of making changes. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not just for the sake of making changes. There's already a manager section on (most) season pages, and adding stadium content to the pages is relevant information. However, instead of having multiple sections across multiple tables, if they can be consolidated into a single table, it's useful information in a smaller, more compact space. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think either table format is fine (I'm not sure that the shading is necessary), and I would put the maps above the standings tables, since narrower screens might not be able to show these tables and maps side-by-side correctly. Jhn31 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The shading probably isn't necessary. The idea for it is that, given it's a sortable table, once a column is being sorted, it'll be easier/quicker to identify what league a team is in.
Also, I'm hesitant to agree with maps-over-standings, as this is not consistent with other Sports-League season pages, which, when containing maps in their page, are almost universal in having the maps under the infobox. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Is there a difference between the pre- and post-1969 formats? CurryCity (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, for the sake of being able to fit the maps besides the table. The 1969–present format puts "American League" and "National League" in a small legend above the table. "Division" takes the place of "League" (as it would be pre-1969). Also, the shading besides the leftmost column won't necessarily be there if most feel it is unnecessary. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_50&oldid=1233650022"