Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48

Bolding team name in team season articles
I've been told that linking the bolding team names in team season articles, is no longer allowed. If this is so? it hasn't been applied evenly. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , if you are referring to this, you are correct and is incorrect. MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID says to not have links in bolded text. It's on my to do list to break out AWB and go through the thousands of incorrectly formatted articles at some point. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the edit I'm referring to. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I misread it. You're wrong and Spanneraol is right. No links in the bolded text. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Was wondering that. Anyways, it doesn't matter to me, as long as they're all consistent, which currently they're not. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-grading the Nick Solak article
I would like to request a re-grading of the Nick Solak article, to which I have just made several small tweaks. Especially, please address my concern of potentially citing a single source too much, and I would appreciate a ping if you respond. Moreover, would it be advisable to nominate it for good article, once the "needs expansion" tag (which I've added) is addressed? Thank you, NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment
Major League Baseball has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this now. I don't know if I'm able to take the lead on getting this GA-ready again, but I'm happy to help as I did with the original GA nomination. The reassessment nomination is a bit lean on detail, but it seems like we might be able to start by looking for unsourced statements, if anyone is interested. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

My nomination of Max Fried for FA
I have nominated Max Fried for FA based on my best judgement, being fairly familiar with the subject matter. I believe that the page meets the criteria, but you are allowed to close it if you think other wise. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The FAC is closed, so this discussion is now moot. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Players' Tribune edit request
Hi editors, I'm M and I work with Minute Media. I had made some requests over at The Players' Tribune and a few other WikiProject talk pages and haven't heard anything. I was hoping someone here might be willing to take a look. I think this is of interest to WikiProject Baseball because The Players' Tribune was founded by Derek Jeter and a lot of baseball players write for the site. I know I can't make changes myself because of my conflict of interest. I'd really appreciate the help! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

MLB Little League Classic articles (proposal to reduce)
Currently, there is a base article for MLB Little League Classic, plus an article for each individual game, from the 2017 MLB Little League Classic through the most recently created 2022 MLB Little League Classic page (there is no 2020 article, as that edition was canceled). I propose reducing content to just the base article, and deprecating articles for each individual game of this series. Ultimately, these are simply regular-season games, and providing a full linescore and detailed box score for such games is WP:UNDUE. Notable aspects of the series (e.g. linkage to the Little League World Series) is well-covered in the base article, along with a table of results for the annual playings. Any items of note about a particular edition of the game can be highlighted in the base article. Comments from other editors? Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree.. the individual games are not notable on their own. Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. Yes, they're promoted as a special event, but they don't even have a special broadcast, they're just part of the regular ESPN Sunday night broadcast time slot. The games themselves don't have any special stakes, being just regular season games played in a special venue. The same is true for the Field of Dreams game now that that's become an annual event. That said, the same can be said for the NHL Winter Classic and other outdoor games, and we have articles for every single edition one of those. oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Individual games probably don't get WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding pings to other editors found in History of the articles:, , , , , , , , , , and. Dmoore5556 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

As I believe we've reached a consensus, this looks to be a WP:DOIT situation and I'll merge content at some point in the next day or so. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 New York Yankees season
I've requested protection for the 2022 New York Yankees season article, due to a vandalising (ever changing) mobile editor. Do be on the look out, should this mobile editor start targeting other team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * IP range blocked. —Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Ronald Acuña jr World Series champion
What’s the arguments against him being classified as a world champion? Other than being on the WS roster? Understandable for players who really didn’t play or contribute much but he played like an mvp and the braves needed every win they got. He carried the team the first half of the season. Also CBS sports and other sports writer have named him a world champion. 2600:1700:89B0:1920:D10D:78E5:52D:ECC5 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I invited the IP editor to come here from Acuna's talk page. It is the WP:BASEBALL consensus to only include in the template and infobox WS championships for those who are on the WS roster. However, editors are often changing the infoboxes, as many are not aware of the consensus, and those who become aware of it don't agree with it. Is this a battle to fight? Acuna did play half of the regular season for Atlanta last year. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Briefly digging thru the archives, I found discussions from 2012, Aug 2015, Nov 2015 and 2019 before I stopped looking. Might be worth an RfC just to put it to rest. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would advise against that as RFCs tend to be more trouble than they are worth... and this is just an IP trying to cause trouble. The main reason it was set the way it was is that anything other than a bright line for inclusion invites too much subjectivity. Spanneraol (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think the IP is "trying to cause trouble". It's not a guideline that makes sense to many people, and seems to be different than what other Wikipedia sports projects do, which is part of the confusion for this user and many others. Ronald Acuña is a well-known player, and many people don't understand why he's not included. The situation isn't helped by a vague heading in the infobox about "awards", which is how many see a World Series ring. Perhaps that needs to be changed. BilCat (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I dug around on baseball-reference to see if I could find what their inclusion/exclusion policy was to have a World Series banner at the top of a player's page. I found nothing, so I emailed them (via sports-reference) & heard back. "Thanks for your question. Our standard is that a player must have either appeared in a postseason game, or been on the World Series roster. Gore's postseason appearances in 2015 and 2022 mean he is listed as a 2x champion, whereas Zito, Cain and Acuña missed out on the postseasons in the years mentioned." The 4 players mentioned above were ones that were mentioned the 4 discussions I linked above (Gore is Terrance Gore, Cain is Matt Cain, Zito is Barry Zito). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: RSN discussion on BR/Bullpen
FYSA: RSN discussion on the Bullpen subdomain of the baseball-reference.com site. I realize this has been discussed here often before, but wanted to make sure there are no lingering concerns before I start going through 3000 links. Kuru  (talk)  18:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball all-time leaders in home runs by pitchers
This was nominated for deletion, so I'm inviting the project to the discussion. Neonblak talk  -  18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Naming conventions (baseball players) needs an update. Some of the examples given are inaccurate as they are redirects to their current locations. We have Example: Bill Blair (Negro leagues pitcher) and Bill Blair (American Association pitcher), which redirect to Bill Blair (1940s pitcher) and Bill Blair (1880s pitcher), respectively, and Example: Lee King (outfielder, born 1892) and Lee King (outfielder, born 1894), which redirect to Lee King (outfielder) and Lee King (utility player). The second example should probably just be swapped out for another example. But clarification is also needed. When a "Chad Smith" debuted for the Rockies last week, I set up his page at Chad Smith (2020s pitcher) to distinguish him from Chad Smith (2010s pitcher), but they have since been moved to Chad Smith (baseball, born 1995) and Chad Smith (baseball, born 1989). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying:
 * The guidelines don't make sense and should be changed to...
 * The guidelines are fine and the above examples should be moved back to match the current guidelines
 * You found the inconsistencies in the guideline, and only want new examples, with no other changes
 * Some combination of all of the above
 * —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Some combination of above. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. The Lee Kings clearly need to be replaced by another example if we have deemed one to be a utility player. For the Bill Blairs, if we are not disambiguating based on their league, then we should remove that line entirely. I'm unclear on whether the Chad Smiths should be dab'd by 2010s pitcher/2020s pitcher or baseball born 1989/baseball born 1995. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For the Chad Smith's, WP:NCBASE is pretty clear that birth year is the least preferred option: If all previous steps are still insufficient, then use the players' year of birth. The rationale presumably being, "Most people don't know a player's exact birth year, but might sorta know when they played. The edit summary for the move of Per Javy Guerra is not applicable, since the Guerras' careers overlapped.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Replacing Template:Infobox Negro World Series
Thoughts on replacing Infobox Negro World Series with Infobox baseball championship series which is used on World Series pages? I mocked up a sample for what it'd look like with 1924 Colored World Series. Here's a side-by-side look:

Feel free to discuss below.–Aidan721 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the current version. Provides more information, such as the format and managers. I'm torn now on if the actual games are necessary in the infobox or not, especially if we have them later on, but as is I'm concerned about cutting too much information like what I listed above out of the main infobox. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Managers are still shown at the top of the proposed version and the format can be somewhat inferred through the number of wins shown next to the winner (i.e. 5 wins -> best-of-9, 4 wins -> best-of-7, etc.). –Aidan721 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * format can be added to Infobox baseball championship series, if it's deemed important enough. I don't see a reason why it should be important for one series and not others, so there should be consistency, which can be achieve by sharing a generic template.—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that the Negro World Series had a different infobox and agree with Bagumba about making them more consistent with the World Series infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need for the Negro WS to have a separate infobox; consistency is good for an encyclopedia. However, the generic infobox seems bland and could use a bit of color. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit taken aback by the particular use of color in the Negro World Series infobox, that it should use brown as its header color, which I can only assume was deliberate and seems a bit on the nose, no? At any rate championship series infoboxes for the four major sports don't use colorful headers, and if MLB considers Negro Leagues to be historical Major Leagues, then it seems to me using the same infobox that is used for the MLB World Series is appropriate. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I refactored it to pass information to infobox baseball championship series, which eliminated the spurious coloring. note that the infobox is being formally proposed for deletion here. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

KBO League AFDs
Hi. Please see AFDs here here here here here and here on KBO League players. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

'Year in Baseball' page content, concerning league records
In relation to the above two discussions. I've undone 'recent' unilateral changes to the 1920 in baseball to 1935 in baseball pages, concerning how to list the baseball leagues' records. IMHO, the American League & National League, should be separate from the other baseball leagues. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Negro Leagues Standings in MLB season pages
Is it time to add these standings to the season pages for 1920 through 1948? Baseball Reference considers these to be full major league seasons and lists them along with the American and National Leagues.

For example, 1920 may look like this. However, there are a few outstanding issues:
 * Baseball Reference doesn't list a home/road split, so the "MLB Standings" template doesn't work properly. I just listed every game as "home" to make the template work at all.
 * It's too wide for most monitors, although, there is definitely extra room to make the team columns much narrower if the template is edited.
 * There aren't season articles for every season of a team that MLB considers to be "major."

Negro National League
Absolutely I think this should be done since MLB is clear and unambiguous that certain Negro leagues are to be considered "major," but I think there is too much uncertainty that needs to be nailed down before 1 editor just starts doing it unilaterally. Jhn31 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No, as the teams weren't members of Major League Baseball & none of the teams played for the World Series. Best we not try to right the wrongs. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty well-established that MLB itself has decided certain Negro leagues to have been "major," and that sources and coverage are following suit. Jhn31 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Further example: the articles for 1914 and 1915 include the Federal League standings, not because that league was a "member of Major League Baseball" but because MLB considers that league to have been a "major" league, as do Baseball-Reference and other resources. Jhn31 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I still oppose & recommend the Federal League records be removed from the 1914 & 1915 Major League Baseball season articles. We should be including only the American League & National League, post-1900. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with GoodDay on both accounts. MLB can't retroactively say these seven Negro leagues were apart of its organization all along. Giving them "major league" status is different than saying they are apart of the structure of Major League Baseball. Penale52 (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

(ec)MLB itself has decided certain Negro leagues to have been "major,". There are so many things wrong with that: MLB has no special powers to wave a magic wand and sweep away their injustices. It is important to note that while the Negro leagues were major leagues, and Major League Baseball is major league, only the National & American League are Major League Baseball. I agree that the Federal League should be moved to 1914 in baseball & 1915 in baseball. I do think it is applicable to combine the sections in (for example) 1922 in baseball so that the Negro leagues are under the same lower case heading "major league baseball." I'll do that post-haste. I will say that the Negro league standings are outdated as most of them are from Holway's 2001 book. If you want to, all of those standings should be updated per seamheads.com. It's on my to-do list, but I'm not working on it right now. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Regarding the template: the overallWinLoss parameter setting can be used to specify that the input format is the overall win-loss record. Regarding the layout: the standing tables do not have to be placed in a side-by-side layout with a fixed number of columns. They can be stacked vertically or a flexible column layout could be used (see Col-float or Div col). isaacl (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Defensive Runs Saved capitalization?
The article on Defensive Runs Saved consistently capitalizes the fully spelled-out name of the stat (it's always "Defensive Runs Saved", not "defensive runs saved"). Is this correct? Compare with other stats such as Run batted in and Fielding percentage. Just checking. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's not a proper noun, so, no, it shouldn't be capitalized like that. Feel free to move the page and fix the text. oknazevad (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I also see no indication it's a proper name; I'll revise it in the next day or two. Some of the content also needs be updated, which I'll get to at some point this week. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Suprised me when I looked at the history to discover that I created this in 2012. At the time, the sources I cited capitalized it.  My take is that when the basic English meaning of the uncapitalized words do not match the actual specialized meaning being referred to, it often becomes a proper noun.  I don't follow baseball too closely these days, but perhaps "defensive runs saved" is more common, though a quick search found this from NBC Sports still using "Defensive Runs Saved". And perhaps it's WP:OTHERSTUFF, but there's still (captialized) Wins Above Replacement.—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. One of the other terms I had looked at (I hadn't looked at WAR) was UZR, as I don't think I've ever seen it spelled out in lower case—it always appears on sports sites as "Ultimate Zone Rating"—yet we have Ultimate zone rating. So I'm not sure what's best; certainly not a major issue, as redirects are in place. Regarding the DRS article itself, I had just finished some edits before your reply, and adjusted it to use the DRS acronym in most instances, as I find that's more reader-friendly. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

SABR as a source
SABR player bios are obviously wonderful resources, particularly for historical players. I have two questions for the project: Thanks. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) What's too much when it comes to using the bios? Obviously a verbatim paste from SABR would be a no-no, but what would begin to constitute a copyvio?
 * 2) Should I be citing the SABR page when using it as a source, or the original source SABR used for a particular piece of information?
 * For the first, take a look at WP:PARAPHRASE. We can't really teach the skills needed here, but that should provide some guidance.
 * For the second, SABR is a suitable resource in its own right as they're a primary researcher, therefore a secondary source, which is good for use here. Yeah, you can also reference what SABR was using as its source, but it's not really needed as SABR is a reliable source in its own right. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's what I needed—couldn't find a page about paraphrasing. --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox baseball team
Template:Infobox baseball team has been completely changed the last couple of days by User:Aidan721. I haven't seen any discussion about this? Did I miss something? It has broken all of the NPB team pages (and I assume many others as well) and removed much of the information from these infoboxes. Also, now these infoboxes look completely different from Template:Infobox MLB. Honestly, I don't even understand why MLB teams have a separate infobox from all other baseball teams to begin with, but now the difference is even more glaring. Can someone shed some light on these changes? --T orsodo gTalk 05:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't have been changed, without consent to do so. The status quo should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Infobox MLB can be merged to Infobox baseball team now. See test case. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Infobox Minor League Baseball also supported. See testcases. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I have resolved the issue with the NPB team pages and other pages. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose merging Infobox MLB, Infobox Minor League Baseball, and Infobox college baseball team with Infobox baseball team. It simply doesn't look right: multiples lines of text are wrapped, creating a cramped feeling; the order/organization seems wrong/out of order; it is visually unappealing. (BTW, preview Quad Cities River Bandits with Infobox baseball team/sandbox.) If anything, I think Infobox baseball team should be made to look like the others. I also support reverting its recent changes as suggested above. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Quad Cities River Bandits looks horrible when previewed with Infobox baseball team/sandbox (without any changes) since it has so many former names. However, it's an easy fix. Simply replace the plain list with collapsible list as I did here. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you've decided to make these changes? Typically a redesign of infoboxes would be discussed first with the editors interested in the topic area. isaacl (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Aidan721 has proposed merging Infobox Negro League franchise with Infobox baseball team. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_2. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the changes. No prior discussion for a template used on hundreds of pages is a bad idea, and any changes of that scope must be discussed first to arrive at a consensus. There also must be no mergers without extensive discussion. In principal I can see an argument for merging them all, but I will not support any unilateral effort with no consensus. oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox baseball league championship series
I've modified the sandbox of this Infobox baseball league championship series and of Infobox baseball championship series to convert Infobox baseball league championship series into a wrapper template of Infobox baseball championship series as they are largely the same. This will help the templates maintain consistencies in styling over time. See the testcases to see how the appearance remains the same. Join the discussion here. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You really should be doing such things, without getting a consensus first. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in my post, I modified the sandbox templates. No changes were made. That's why I posted... to gain consensus. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

MLB at Field of Dreams – split / no-split discussion
There is a discussion at Talk:MLB at Field of Dreams that may be of interest. It was opened September 2021 and had been idle since April; I posted to it today. Input should be placed there. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Chip Caray's high school
Hey all, I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source that Chip Caray attended/graduated from Parkway West High School (Missouri). All I'm finding online are the usual celebrity click-bait sites, and those don't usually meet WP:RS and WP:BLP. Can anyone help find a reliable source for this? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath sections
At 1981 National League Championship Series I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_National_League_Championship_Series&diff=prev&oldid=1088976028 removed discussion of future playoff matchups between the teams] in question, as these are not a direct consequence of the 1981 series (in this case, the events occurred over 30 years later). A subsequent edit restored this info, in a reworded form. In my view, aftermath sections should be limited to events that are a direct consequence of the subject of the article. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I would expect reliable sources to establish that the events occurred in the aftermath of (or as a consequence of) the event covered in the article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

More feedback is welcome in order to help establish a consensus view. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I look at the Aftermath section as a variable of the Trivia section. Treating it as such, if the info can be incorporated elsewhere into the text, do so; if not, is it suitable in its own section, but not in a manner of WP:COATRACKing. In the 1981 example, the first 2 paragraphs could be incorporated into the Background section, but the last paragraph ("Since moving to Washington...") would appear to me to be nothing more than a Flea. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As the first two paragraphs describe events that occurred after the 1981 series, and are direct consequences of the series, I don't have an issue with keeping them in an "Aftermath" section (as I did with my edit). The last paragraph is the one added by the subsequent edit that I feel can be removed. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Federal League records in the 1914 & 1915 Major League Baseball season pages
Question: Should the Federal League records be included in the 1914 MLB season & the 1915 MLB season? GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * No - As the Federal League champions didn't participate in the World Series, against either the National League or American League champions. PS - The AL & the NL during those two seasons, did whatever they could to get the FL to fold. They succeeded in doing so. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - Major League Baseball has officially recognized the Federal League as being a "major league" since 1968. As cited down in the discussion below, Federal League accomplishments are listed on players' Hall of Fame plaques, and Baseball Reference, FanGraphs, and ESPN all recognize the Federal League as being part of "Major League Baseball" in 1914 and 1915 as well. In addition, you can go straight to MLB.com and look up a player's MLB stats and see Federal League stats included in the career totals: Eddie Plank Mordecai Brown. Jhn31 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural close - premature/too narrow First, let's just decide on the scope of what belongs in the Year in Baseball article versus the Major League Baseball season article on a whole rather than piecemeal. I don't believe a formal RfC is necessary yet; an informal straw poll here at the Project talk page seems to be a better step per WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. YMMV. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - The FL was considered a major league during those years. Using the World Series as a prerequisite would invalidate stats from 1904, 1994, and everything from 1876 to 1902. In terms of the term referring to MLB itself rather than a level of play, one has to remember that the AL and NL were fairly autonomous until around 2000. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - Special Baseball Records Committee determined in 1968 they were major league.PrisonerB (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't recall any consensus to add the 1914 & 1915 Federal League records to the 1914 & 1915 Major League Baseball season pages. IMHO, they should be deleted from those two pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the Federal League's page: The league itself and many sports writers considered it a major league during its existence; organized baseball recognized its major league status in 1968. The Federal League has officially been considered a "major league" for over 50 years, and unlike the 1920 – 1948 Negro Leagues, there are full statistics available for every game. There is no reason why it would not be included. Remember that there was no organization called "Major League Baseball" until 2000. There were two legally distinct leagues that were considered both at the time and now in hindsight to have been "major," and in 1914 and 1915, there were three. For 1920 through 1948, there were varying numbers of Negro leagues that generally weren't considered "major" at the time but now retroactively are, so the situations aren't identical. (Though as stated in the previous section, I advocate for including them in the MLB seasons pages now they are considered to have been "major leagues.") Jhn31 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * MLB recognizes the Federal League as a "major league". The stats count, so it should stay. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When did the FL champs play for the World Series, in 1914 & 1915? Was the FL a major league? yes. Were they a part of MLB (the organisation)? no. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no "MLB (the organization)" in 1915. Prior to 2000, the articles show the legally distinct leagues that were considered to the "major leagues" at the time. For the entire 20th century, that's the National and American Leagues, and also the Federal for 1914 and 1915, and as of very recently, certain Negro Leagues between 1920 and 1948. Also, having its champion play for a World Series or not does not exactly align with "major league" status anyway, as 1901, 1902, 1904, and 1994 had no World Series but no one (I assume?) is doubting the American League and National League standings belong on those season pages. Jhn31 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The American League & the National League both worked together to snuff out the Federal League. PS - If you want to go through all the 1901 MLB season to 1999 MLB season articles & attempt to have them divided into 1901 AL season to 1999 AL season & 1901 NL season to 1999 NL season articles? Then be my guest. Odds are, you won't succeed in such mass page moves. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously I don't want that at all. I'm suggesting that we include all of the major leagues on one article per season, not spread them across separate ones. Jhn31 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't include those other leagues. Give'em their own season pages, like "1914 Federal League season", etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever is decided, I think it should be consistent across all the season pages. For example, 1884 in baseball (1884 Major League Baseball season redirects there) lists "Major league baseball final standings" (lowercased league and baseball). If the Federal League remains on the MLB season pages, then I would assume these 19th century standings should be changed to "Major League Baseball"? Penale52 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, that all season articles from 1876 to 2022 should be in the form "XXXX Major League Baseball season" and include all leagues that MLB considers to have been major, which would be the National League (1876–present), American League (1901–present), American Association (1882–1891), Union Association (1884), Players' League (1890), Federal League (1914–1915), Negro National League I (1920–1931), Eastern Colored League (1923–1928), American Negro League (1929), Negro Southern League (1932), East–West League (1932), Negro National League II (1933–1948), and Negro American League (1937–1948). Despite the long list, it's usually 2 per season and never more than 4. This is what's consistent with how MLB officially recognizes things, and how it is reported by media outlets since 2020, including Baseball Reference. Jhn31 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We're going in circles here, as it's obvious we aren't going to agree on what should or shouldn't be in the MLB season pages. Best to let others chime in. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I think it's important to point out that you keep referring to "Major League Baseball (the organization)" when "Major League Baseball" was a concept, not a formal organization way back then. It was not like the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc., which have always been explicit organizations. Thus, if Major League Baseball (the modern organization, which does exist) says that the Federal League and various 1920–1948 Negro Leagues belong under the "Major League Baseball" umbrella, and media and reference sites report it that way, that Wikipedia should align with that definition. Jhn31 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, we're in disagreement on how to handle this. So, we'll let others chime in. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been looking in the archives but can't find anything off-hand so I'm doing this from memory, but originally there was "1915 in baseball." Somewhere between 2007 & 2012, the MLB seasons were split from these articles for size reasons, I think. The "in baseball" pages were meant to house AA, UA, PL, Japanese, Korean, Negro and other major leagues. I don't think the intention was to move the FL. If the FL is included, then it should "1915 in major league baseball" (no caps) & then all post-WWII pages should also include Japan baseball, etc. But then what is the point of "1915 in baseball?" Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO, concerning the "Year in Baseball" pages, the AL & NL should have their own section/subsection, the other leagues each their own section/subsection. That way we avoid the risk of confusing less informed readers, about whether all those leagues played or didn't play against each other. Anyways, that's a topic for another time. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is where this discussion is headed – an overall definition of these pages. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even the current "in baseball" articles primarily focus on MLB events.. I've tried from time to time to include more about other foreign leagues at least listing the champions of them but they are still way too MLB focused. As to the main issue that seems to be going around here... yes MLB as an organization didn't exist back in 1914 but Major League Baseball was still referred to as a concept.. so i don't see any reason to uncapitalize it.. Also I don't think we need to move the FL out of these articles.. it is only two seasons after all. The Negro League is more complicated cause we really don't have the level of coverage of it.. we don't have season articles about most Negro League seasons like we do with the other leagues... Do we have enough coverage of these actual seasons in reliable sources to create these articles? I don't have as much familiarity with it as I do with the NL and AL personally. I would not be opposed to adding standings to the MLB pages if that is the consensus. Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

So this discussion totally died, but I see that the Federal League standings were unilaterally removed from the 1914 and 1915, despite MLB considering the Federal League to be part of "Major League Baseball" in its records, and modern day sources listing it this way. Thoughts? Jhn31 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unilaterally removed, because the FL had been unilaterally put there. MLB can't re-write history. Only the American League & the National League champions played each other in the World Series, during those two seasons. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See these MLB Hall of Fame plaques that 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 ... but you don't like it, we're just going to ignore that and not include the Federal League on the 1914 and 1915 pages? That makes no sense. Jhn31 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what they say. They can't re-write history & nor should we. Anyways, since you're refusing to drop this topic & move on? I've opened an RFC on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is "rewriting history." MLB is not claiming that the National League and American League liked the Federal League back in 1914 and 1915. They just have retroactively recognized (all the way back in 1968) that the Federal League's quality was close enough to the level of the National League and the American League that it should be considered a "major league" as well. Similar to what MLB has done with certain Negro Leagues as of 2020. Jhn31 (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the American League existed all the way back to 1885 under the name the "Western League" and was even called the "American League" in 1900. However, in those seasons, the talent level is not recognized by MLB to have been "major league" level, so they are correctly not included as a "major league" in any season prior to 1901. Your notion that "MLB just means American League and National League" is not true 100% of the time, since it does not always include the American League (prior to 1901), and includes some other leagues in a few years prior to 1948. It also cannot necessarily depend on who did or did not play in the World Series, as 1901, 1902, 1904, and 1994 had no World Series that any league played in. Jhn31 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not going to persuade each other. Thus the RFC, so more input from others, will help break this little logjam. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not close-minded. I will happily change my mind on anything given enough evidence, even this issue if you or anyone else can provide an argument that outweighs Baseball Reference, ESPN, Fangraphs, the Baseball Hall of Fame, and MLB itself. So far, all you're saying is "MLB is American and National Leagues only" which is demonstrably false. I'm still listening though. Jhn31 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll wait for others to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The FL records are in the 1914 in baseball & 1915 in baseball pages, apparently with the American League & National League records. Though I disagree with them being clumped with the AL & NL? That's for another discussion. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This ultimately feels like a semantic – or should that be syntactic? – issue: the difference between major league baseball (the concept) and Major League Baseball (the contractual agreement between the AL and NL, that ultimately united as one organisation in 2000). Feels like there's a vitally important distinction in that capitalisation.

Personally, I lean towards omission, on three counts: one, the article title being in capitals means it was intended solely for covering Major League Baseball (the latter), not all major leagues (the former). No, MLB as a singular organisation didn't exist until 2000, but it was absolutely referred to in reliable sources as such before then nonetheless, and it's not our place to dismiss that, but rather to reflect and summarise it. Two, the given sources do not describe the FL as being part of Major League Baseball (the latter), but rather as being a major league (the former). Even the modern sources very deliberately use lower case. (Also, naming standards are such that it's "[Year] [Competition] season" for specific competitions, and "[Year] in [concept]" for broader concepts; it would be "1914 in major league baseball" if it were to include the FL.) Three, we don't include the Negro Leagues on their respective MLB season pages, despite their recent reassessment as major leagues, with the singular exception of 1940 Major League Baseball season for some reason. (Granted, this could be revised at any point on similar grounds, but still. (Edited later: I now see there's discussion about above, on this very page, heh.))

It feels to me like the best solution here would be pretty much how it is already: not included in the MLB pages, but grouped together as major leagues on 1914 in baseball et al. (Note the non-capitalisation in the section header that covers their standings as is.) I don't think we should separate them on the yearly baseball pages, though, as that would be to ignore the absolute agreement of reliable sources that it was a major league. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the Negro League team standings from the 1940 MLB season page, as there wasn't any consensus to include them. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The plain fact is that the 1914 & 1915 FL records are recognized as part of the MLB record book officially, as well as by significant outside bodies like SABR and Baseball Reference. And they have been for decades. We cannot insist on some sort of non-existent, WP:OR standard based on membership of its franchises in a decades-later organization. MLB as it is currently constituted did not exist in 1915. Nor did it exist in 1968. What did exist in the latter was the two leagues that came to a settlement with the Federal League owners in 1915. And that included giving them the option to recognize those records.

There is no good reason not to include them in the respective MLB season articles, where they had already been included for years. In fact, leaving them out constitutes a factual error. Period. I'm restoring the years old inclusion of them. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you're the boss, then. What you say, goes. To heck with anybody who disagrees. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank goodness nobody's trying to put WHA teams in the 1971–72 to 1978–79 NHL season pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * False equivalence, because those aren't considered NHL records, as the legal arrangements were different. Unilaterally removing something that's been part of a page for years – and aligns with the record books – despite receiving objections from multiple editors is pretty bossy itself. More importantly it ignores the fundamental issue that the AL/NL and Federal League reached a settlement following the 1915 season that basically gave the FL records to the other leagues, as well as merging other assets (like essentially giving Charles Weeghman the Cubs' spot in the NL, and him bringing the now-Wrigley Field with him.) Just as the 1960–1969 AFL records are part of the NFL record book because of their merger, the FL records are now part of the MLB record book. I can, right this minute, go to MLB.com and look up that the season leader for OPS in all the majors in 1914 was Benny Kauff of Indianapolis because he is the official record holder for that season. He had a better OPS than any other player at the major league level that season. That's the record. It's not for us to refuse to recognize that. Dismiss it as revisionism compared to the ongoing events of that year if you want, but to dismiss it is to engage in ignoring the subsequent history which changed things itself. That too is a to engage in revisionism. oknazevad (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * AFL teams are not included in the 1960 to 1969 NFL season pages. The Federal League champions did not play against the American League and/or the National League champions in the World Series -ever-. But, like I said. I'm not going to bother trying to prevent revisionism, anymore. Done with it. PS - You may as well have the 'last word', since your version is not allowed to be challenged by me or anybody else. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Major League Baseball and steroids
The other day, I decided to be WP:BOLD and removed the steroid-related articles from Template:Major League Baseball. reverted me, and so to complete the WP:BRD cycle, I am looking for community consensus to remove some of these items, and having those articles instead linked by the Template:Doping in baseball navbox that I created.

My arguments: (1) these articles were added to Template:MLB via WP:RECENTISM in 2014, not long after the Biogenesis scandal broke.. As its now 2022, it's good to reassess the importance of PEDs in MLB. As the wave of news coverage on PED-usage and suspensions have decreased since it has become a common and routine occurrence for a player to be suspended, it's WP:UNDUE to give so much weight in the big MLB navbox to that issue. Further, (2) some of these articles are really insignificant compared to articles on the World Series, draft, rivalries, interleague play, etc. that one would expect in a MLB navbox. Do we really need to be giving that much importance to Jose Canseco's two books (Juiced (book) and Vindicated (book))? Game of Shadows? The Mitchell Report? BALCO? The Bonds perjury trial? I don't think so. I would argue the Black Sox Scandal has more WP:LASTING impact on MLB, and it's not in this navbox.

I agree with leaving Major League Baseball drug policy and List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs in the navbox, but I do not believe the other articles belong there. I welcome the thoughts of others. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ideally, Doping in baseball would meet WP:NAVBOX #4: That article could then also be included in Major League Baseball, removing any need for the lower level pages in the template.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , apparently, Doping in baseball exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As you noted, some years back I did say I think the section needs a trim. And frankly I don't necessarily think it needs a whole section. But I also think completely removing the biggest story in baseball from the last 20-30 years, one that lead to congressional hearings, is a mistake. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , as I said above, I agree that I went too far cutting the entire section and suggested leaving the drug policy and list of suspended players article. The MLB drug policy article is not that good, though. Perhaps we could keep the doping in baseball article instead? Where would you think we should draw the line of what to keep in Template:MLB? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely remove the books. The individual scandals and Mitchell Report I'd be more inclined to leave in. But a link to some sort of overview is needed. Major League Baseball drug policy should be that article, even if the article itself needs improvement.
 * And, yeah, I definitely agree that the Black Sox scandal should be included in the navbox. It's easily one of the most significant events in the history of the sport and directly responsible for the establishment of the office of the Commissioner of Baseball, which has had significant impact beyond the scandal (it's also essentially why Pete Rose got banned). It's impact extends even baseball; there's a reason all the other major pro sports leagues have chief executives called "commissioner". It's too important not to include. oknazevad (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think that I can remove the books and add the Black Sox Scandal without objection. I'd like to continue discussing the other articles. Should we keep the Mitchell Report, Biogenesis scandal, BALCO scandal, and/or Barry Bonds perjury case? Or remove them? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those are all key events in the overall topic, so I'm inclined to retain them in the section. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd lean toward just linking Doping in baseball. While navboxes are for navigation, it doesn't require that all topics are enumerated at the top level. The navbox Doping in baseball provides the lower-level details.—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

immaculate innings in the infobox
it appears that immaculate innings are not standard accomplishments listed in infoboxes for pitchers that have completed one. the only players who have immaculate innings mentioned in their infoboxes are the players tied for most in their career (sandy koufax, chris sale, max scherzer).

historically, an immaculate inning is MUCH rarer than the no hitter (by an order of about 3x as rare). it should be included in career accomplishments and highlights, and while not necessarily well known amongst the general population or "casual" viewer, i'd imagine the difference between a no hitter and perfect game remains about as obscure as the concept of the immaculate inning. with these innings becoming more common, they should be addressed. 2600:1005:B0F0:6A9C:3D43:8A30:F493:7B72 (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Rarity does not automatically mean notable. Walk-off grand-slams when down by 3 are rare, but not always notable. At one point there was a discussion of what to include in infoboxes, but it disappointingly petered-out. For the time being, I would advise against including the immaculate inning in the infobox. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said. I would add that, for the most part, accomplishments that span just a single inning are not likely to warrant mention in an infobox. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As Bubba J might ask. What are "Immaculate innings"? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A pitcher striking out the side of the opposing team on nine pitches. No balls, no two-strike fouls, just nine straight strikes. It is indeed one of the rarest occurrences in the history of Major League Baseball. It's also one that has no long term impact, as it has no more effect on a game's outcome than getting three groundouts on full counts. Definitely not infobox worthy. oknazevad (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A perfect game has no long-term impact, either. My personal rule of thumb in considering what should go into an infobox is if the item in question is essential for a brief summary of the key characteristics of the subject. The previous discussions on achievements to include in the infobox generally have agreed on ones that are indicative of individual excellence at the highest level. A perfect game fits both of these criteria. It's not clear to me a nine-strike inning meets them. isaacl (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at Chris Sale and Max Scherzer, mentioned by the OP, it seems that they have a "MLB records" section in their infoboxes. Not sure how widespread this is, but it could lead to indiscriminate listings of any and all "records".—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Team hall of fame in infobox
Should induction into a team's hall of fame be listed in a biography's infobox?

I believe there was never a formal consensus on this. However, I see many FAs with HOFs listed in their infobox: Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Bob Feller, Casey Stengel, Derek Jeter, Harmon Killebrew, Jim Thome, Mariano Rivera, Ozzie Smith, Rogers Hornsby, Stan Coveleski, Stan Musial, Billy Martin, and Lee Smith. Per WP:PROPOSAL: I believe including team HOFs in the infobox is already a widespread, de facto practice, that should be reflected at WP:BASESTYLEPL. —Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, the discussion that led to the current style guidance did include team halls of fame in its list of potential infobox items and consensus was against including them. We can of course re-evaluate if consensus has changed since then. isaacl (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that was more a "no consensus" to include than a consensus to exclude. In any event, there's the de facto practice to include, in the many year since, esp. in those FAs.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rinku Singh (wrestler)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rinku Singh (wrestler) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

T206 Honus Wagner Featured article review
I have nominated T206 Honus Wagner 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility issues with MLB brackets
Hello. There is an issue with the current tournament brackets used in MLB pages, such as 8TeamBracket-MLB and 10TeamBracket-MLB. The background colors used cause an accessibility issue. Specifically, neither the red nor the blue background is WCAG AAA compatible for standard blue links and purple visited links. Per MOS:COLOR, we should be meeting the AAA standard whenever possible. It is in my opinion that the colors are largely unnecessary, and we should be using the standard grey background that is ued for every other team bracket, such as 8TeamBracket. Nonetheless, the accessibility issue should be addressed. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about suspensions in infobox
Can I get a second opinion on this edit? It seems to me that the Tatís suspension is different from ARod's in exactly the most meaningful way--he wasn't suspended for an entire year--but on the other hand, it's true he isn't going to play for all of the 2022 season. I just didn't realize that we do anytime someone misses a year for any reason, if that's true. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The info box lists the years someone plays for a team.. it's not just suspensions, if someone misses a year due to injury it is also treated that way. Spanneraol (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! Alyo  (chat·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal regarding WP:NBASE
A proposal to eliminate WP:NBASE is underway. It can be viewed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It really is a shame how the anti-sports posse has completed butchered the notability guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

MLB Wild Card Game
Would appreciate input at this discussion, concerning the 'new' playoff format. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

An RM has been opened. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

LCS & DS pages unilaterally moved
FWIW - The pages League Championship Series & Division Series have been moved to League championship series & Division series without going through the RM process & thus failing to obtain a consensus for such page moves. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I will move them back. LCS and DS are proper nouns. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This case is more interesting. Without captialization, it looks like a generic term for any league's championship series. But "League Championship Series", without being prefaced, is typically referring to MLB's series, specifically either the NLCS or ALCS. —Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:CAPS discourages using caps for a "looks like" effect; caps are reserved for proper names. These are generic terms that encompass several proper-named events, but are not proper names themselves.  I've started an RM. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I've left a notice at the RM at Major League Baseball Wild Card Game. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Standardization of inline statistics?
After doing some searching through the talk page archives and reviewing the WikiProject's MOS, I haven't been able to find any uniform guidelines on how to present stats in the prose of an article. If they in fact don't exist, I think it's prudent that we create a standard. Something in particular I've seen is that there is a lot of variation in whether single-digit stats are presented as digits or spelled out (e.g. Trout had 8 RBI in the game vs. Trout had eight RBI in the game). I think most people would lean towards spelling such numbers out, but it should be clarified regardless. Another question is which stats should or should not be included in prose and what order they should go in. I think the latter question has some more flexibility. Sewageboy (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've always spelled out any single digit stats in prose.. as to what stats are included.. really I think it is hard to spell out particularly as different stats would be more important to different players.. One thing I hate though is when people write "Player A slashed .300/.400/.700" as "slashed" is not explained and neither are what those numbers represent. I've avoided doing that myself and try to correct it when I come across it... but it's definitely sloppy writing and should be avoided. Spanneraol (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the slash line. Hopefully that can be clarified too, especially since I've even seen some instances of the SLG being replaced with OPS. Sewageboy (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be "RBIs" for plural, "RBI" for one. We went over that in the past and I think it's in the archives of this talk page. Single-digit numbers should be spelled out as per MOS:NUMERAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We can update the WP:BASESTYLEPL page with some of this. Spanneraol (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since it's for more than player pages, I think WikiProject Baseball/Style advice is a better location. I've added a writing style section to the style advice page. isaacl (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Player A slashed .300/.400/.700", I typically change those to "Player A had a .300/.400/.700 slash line." as needed. Dmoore5556 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As the linked explanation only lists a typical interpretation, I think it might be better to spell it out as "(BA/OBP/SLG)", though I realize that's kind of verbose to type. Perhaps we could create a template to make it easier (it could be designed to only be used through substitution). isaacl (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath sections (continued)
Continuing the discussion from : following that discussion, I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1981_National_League_Championship_Series&diff=1103174328&oldid=1098486988 removed the passage in question] once again, but the other editor has restored it. Participation at Talk:1981 National League Championship Series is welcome to discuss the matter further. isaacl (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * More participation to help establish that a consensus has been reached would be helpful. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a good discussion to have at a greater scale. I've seen things put in "aftermath" of postseason series articles that are really beyond the "aftermath" of that series. The future of the franchise is not automatically "aftermath". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Like, what does the Lerner family selling the Nationals in 2022 have to do with the 2019 World Series? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure; that's why I launched the previous discussion on this talk page. I see too much "here are future playoff appearances by the teams" in the "Aftermath" sections. Also, "aftermath" has negative connotations as it is commonly used for consequence from some unpleasant event. Some other heading such as "Aftereffects" might be more fitting, and emphasize how the content in the section should be direct consequences of the subject of the article.
 * Regarding the sale of the Nationals, if reliable sources make the case for a connection, it could be in theory included (owners can decide to sell teams when their market value is high). It might be a better fit in the 2019 Nationals season article though, and certainly ought to be covered in the Nationals article itself. isaacl (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aftermath should be something directly connected to the series.. things like the Astros cheating scandal... and not every article needs one. Or if it's something like the division series, then it is ok to mention what happened to the teams in the next few rounds. Spanneraol (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked them out, but I imagine that articles about the Lerners seeking to sell the team will mention the 2019 World Series, not because it's relevant, but because what else are they going to write about? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's no specific causal link, then it's just X happened after Y, without it being part of the aftermath. The owners might be motivated to sell for other reasons than winning the World Series. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think looking for a "causal link" is a good standard for these aftermath sections. Future playoff series matchups are not cause-and-effect. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tom Butters (baseball)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tom Butters (baseball) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wild Card (Game/Series) or wild card (game/series)
I've noticed several pages (example) 2022 American League Wild Card Series, 2019 National League Wild Card Game, List of American League Wild Card winners & sections/subsections (example) National League Wild Card at 2022 Major League Baseball season, tend to use "Wild Card" rather then "wild card". Which is actually the correct form? Uppercase or lowercase. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The series (and single game before it) are uppercase as proper nouns for the name of a specific recurring event, same as the Division Series and League Championship Series. And the World Series for that matter. On the other hand, earning a wild card berth is a generic noun because there are multiple per league. The comment at the move request that prompted this can and should be ignored; the editor who made it has proven he doesn't actually understand the fundamentals of English grammar in terms of proper and common nouns and resorts to shallow google tests without actually examining the results. It wouldn't be the first time he's stuck his nose in a field he has no clue about in an attempt to force his misunderstanding of the conventions of English. oknazevad (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I figured the capitalised version was correct. But, just wanted to be certain. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lowercase: It's a common noun, not a proper name, in the cases where it is not part of the name of an event. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you'd face resistance in attempting to use (for examples) 2019 National League wild card game or List of American League wild card winners, etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The first of those two might be the proper name of a specific event. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The first one is a specific recurring event. It gets capitals as a proper noun. The second is a generic term and common noun. The fact that the second is lowercase has no bearing on whether the first should be capitalized. That's my concern, that some don't get that simple fact. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lowercase for the term, uppercase for the round, but I think "List of American League wild card winners" is a silly concept for a page anyway. We don't have a page listing wild cards in the NFL or NHL.  O.N.R.  (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It made more sense when there was just the one per league, making it a distinct and unique annual achievement. Once a second wild card team was added (and the Wild Card Game begun), then it ceased to be particularly noteworthy. oknazevad (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lowercase It's just a desriptive name of common English words, whose meaning does not change whether it is captialized or not. Leagues captitalize for branding and emphasis, but our MOS does not require us to be a slave to their decisions.  For example, The New York Times is usually conservative with capitalization: On Tuesday night, in the National League wild card game at Nationals Park...—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Lowercase in most cases, as a perusal of sources makes clear. It is nowhere near consistently capitalized in sources, so per MOS:CAPS we shouldn't capitalize it.  I've downcased this in hundreds of places already these year, and got not one peep of feedback.  As BP notes, there may be some proper names of events in some of these that include American League or National League Wild Card Game, etc., but most uses of wild card are generic, like wild card winners (ideally hyphenated, too).   The observed "tendency to capitalize" is not much to do with Wild Card; there's a big tendency in sports to capitalize everything; look at my tens of thousands of edits this year for copious examples; or my hundreds from this weekend.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lowercase if kept, per Baguma, et al.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Uppercase - as this is how MLB does it. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lowercase The OP is posed as a question. To the question, this is not intrinsically a proper noun phrase. I am seeing nothing in the discussion (evidence) that would support that it should be considered necessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * PS Specificity does not inherently make something a proper name, since this can be done by the definite article (the) and other modifiers, as is done in these cases. That the presiding body capitalises, does not satisfy MOS:CAPS per consistent usage in independent sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Uppercase - It is a event like the Division Series that occurs in both leagues. So it should be capilized like Division Series. Nemov (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That would best be fixed by fixing Division series, which is not a proper name, but a generic term encompassing two different series. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Uppercase for the games as they are all events that are proper names. I'd suggest renaming the list page as List of American League wild card teams as the list is not just showing the winners of the games but mentions all the teams that held that distinction. Spanneraol (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Uppercase when referring to a specific event or title within MLB, as this would be a proper nown. Lowercase when speaking in generalities about a wild card position. <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple  ☎  14:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Mix I would echo User:Oknazevad's point up above: Uppercase when referring to the proper-noun event (e.g., https://www.mlb.com/news/nationals-win-2019-nl-wild-card-game) and lowercase when referring to the concept (e.g., "competing for a wild card spot") generally. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of related RM
An RM has been opened up, concerning League Championship Series and Division Series. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: RM was closed as 'not moved'. Thus remaining League Championship Series and Division Series. GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I notice that this is under the above "Wild Card" discussion. I believe the outcome for LCS and Division Series is unrelated, as wild card, in contrast, is a basic English term defined in general dictionaries. There's more justification to captialize if the term in question has a special meaning from its basic English lowercase counterpart. —Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An RM was also closed as moved to Wild Card Series. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the standalone term should probably just be "wild card" in prose, as I doubt capitalized "Wild Card" has any special meaning in any MLB specific page. That can co-exist with the preferred "Wild Card Series" consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Two-ball
I have nominated the article Two-ball for deletion. As the article appears in Category:Baseball terminology, it may be of interest to some editors here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't even heard of that game. Spanneraol (talk)
 * Yes, it needs to be deleted before some adds "dogfight football" to the article! BilCat (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: it has been deleted. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes with unknown parameters
The category Category:Pages using infobox MLB yearly with unknown parameters currently contains over 1200 entries, the vast majority of which appear to be due to the use of two invalid/deprecated fields: "logo" and "Uniform logo". It would be helpful to edit the infoboxes of articles listed in the Category to remove those two specific invalid fields, so the Category can be used to spot and resolve new(er) mistakes. Might someone here know how to / be able to construct a bot to do that? Dmoore5556 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Please provide attribution when splitting from a "minor league players" page
Last night, Ezequiel Tovar's wiki page was tagged as a copyright violation and deleted per WP:G12. It was an innocent mistake for the tagger and deleting admin to have made, as the page was split without proper attribution, noting that it was split from an existing page.

Please read Copying within Wikipedia. Whenever you split a minor league player from a minor league player page, write an edit summary that explains what you are doing. On the new page, write something like Copied content from ; see that page's history for attribution. On the "minor league player" page, don't just delete the content, but add a similar edit summary that says where you're splitting it to, as I have seen editors assume incorrectly that it is an illegitimate blanking situation.

This saves everybody time in the end. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Matt Mervis
Maybe he now meets GNG? Chicago Cubs minor league players Articles about him every day. 2603:7000:2143:8500:75B2:5004:43A1:9FC0 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything about Mervis that's particularly notable as a minor league player. Mentions of the player do not make him notable. Section appears to be WP:OVERCITEed. <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple  ☎  00:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * GNG. That’s a sufficient measure of notability. And just google to see the level of GNG coverage in RSs devoted to him. He easily meets that standard. Of course papers will write about you when you lead the minors in RBIs, with the most since Pete Alonso four years ago. But the gold standard is GNG. Not subjective personal views as to notability.  --2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:F87:252D:CD98 (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:12TeamBracket-MLB
Hello WikiProject Baseball members. As 2022 postseason will have 12 baseball teams competing (6 teams each on both American and National leagues), can we make a template of 12 teams in a bracket for the postseason article? I made a draft template on my sandbox page here, so I request for a template review on my sandbox template page if it's ready or not before the playoffs begin? I don't know where to remove unnecessary lines between the wild card series and the division series columns from the unneeded boxes that I certainly can't find the code? -- Allen (talk / ctrb) 07:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Your bracket fails MOS:COLOR. See previous posting by Pbrks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for working on this... I believe if you remove the color and work off this Template:8TeamBracket color scheme you should be fine. Nemov (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with using 12TeamBracket? – Pbrks (t • c) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 12TeamBracket covers what's needed. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to make the 12 team bracket support NL/AL seeding system? Or just use two 6TeamBracket brackets? Nemov (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, it is handled by the parameters RD1-seed1, RD1-seed2, etc, as seen at 2022 Major League Baseball postseason. – Pbrks (t • c) 17:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I copied from 16TeamBracket-MLB template and I still haven't removed those unnecessary lines on my sandbox bracket template when it comes to a 12-team bracket but retain its colors for both American and National leagues. -- Allen (talk / ctrb) 23:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The colors fail MOS:COLOR so should not be included. Thus, it's redundant to 12TeamBracket. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Allen2, the seeds aren't correct. 4/5 winner plays the 1 seed. 6/3 winner plays the 2 seed. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed it on my sandbox template page. I even forgot that the 4/5 seed winner will play the 1 seed and the 3/6 winner will play the 2 seed, both for the Division Series. I flipped the better team to the bottom of the box for each game on the second column as a result. So you think it's unnecessary to include background colors on the infobox for the playoff bracket this year as Pbrks said it comes to accessibility issues of the bracket? At first, the playoff bracket had colors of red representing the American League and blue representing the National League, so the background colors was used for every postseason article on Wikipedia until you said that the background colors on a playoff bracket couldn't agree with MOS:COLOR. -- Allen  (talk / ctrb) 20:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed it on my sandbox template page. I even forgot that the 4/5 seed winner will play the 1 seed and the 3/6 winner will play the 2 seed, both for the Division Series. I flipped the better team to the bottom of the box for each game on the second column as a result. So you think it's unnecessary to include background colors on the infobox for the playoff bracket this year as Pbrks said it comes to accessibility issues of the bracket? At first, the playoff bracket had colors of red representing the American League and blue representing the National League, so the background colors was used for every postseason article on Wikipedia until you said that the background colors on a playoff bracket couldn't agree with MOS:COLOR. -- Allen  (talk / ctrb) 20:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How should the Angels be shown in the 2005 to 2015 AL West standings?
Myself & are in dispute about how to show the Angels, in the Template:2005 AL West standings to the Template:2015 AL West standings. I think the team should be shown as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Where's he thinks it should be shown as Los Angeles Angels. We can't both be correct. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * While Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim was the official name of the team, the team was commonly known as simply Los Angeles Angels at the time. Evidence of this is the article titles 2005 Los Angeles Angels season through 2015 Los Angeles Angels season. There's no "of Anaheim" in the article titles because it's unnecessary and doesn't match COMMONNAME. For a parallel situation in other sports, not a single NBA standings template (such as Template:2022–23 NBA Atlantic standings) uses "New York Knickerbockers," instead using the more common "New York Knicks." Jhn31 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish somebody would've invited to the (if one was held) RM, covering those 11 team season pages. Concerning those team season pages, "...of Anaheim" is included in their intros & also their infobox headings. PS - Do we have to 'delete' "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" from the team page itself? Retroactively eliminate it entirely? GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there's a proper context for using longer technical names (such as explaining within the text of an article or a detail in an infobox), and also a proper context (such as article titles and standings templates) for using the common names. This convention exists throughout Wikipedia, both on sports and non-sports pages. Jhn31 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for others to give their input. I'll accept whatever the consensus is for those 2005 to 2015 Angels season templates. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with @Jhn31. Going with the common name is the logical solution. Nemov (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also agree with using the shorter common name. A chart is exactly the sort of place where a shorter form is preferred. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference: renaming the season pages was (briefly) discussed at . The discussion refers to . isaacl (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly well attended RMs. An RM on the matter, should've been held 'here' at WP:BASEBALL. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, a requested move should be held at the article for which the move is proposed, or at one of the articles in the case of a multi-move as these were. A pointer to the discussion should be dropped at the project, but the move discussion itself should be at the article talk. oknazevad (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if ya'll prefer the templates-in-question to drop the "...of Anaheim" bit? I'll no longer dispute it. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I imagine you know this already, but for the benefit of anyone who isn't familiar with the WikiProject Baseball/Article alerts page, it lists these types of discussions for pages associated with the baseball WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aware of it, until now. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Batted ball GAR
Good article reassessment/Batted ball/1 - I originally wrote this back in my early days as an editor, when I didn't realize the b-ref bullpen was user-generated. Now nominated for removal as a good article, as I don't have the time or energy to fix the referencing here. Hog Farm Talk 00:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

D. J. Mitchell
Hi Baseball community. I have recently created D. J. Mitchell (basketball). I am keen to find out if this community would be receptive to moving D. J. Mitchell to D. J. Mitchell (baseball). Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good idea to me since there are multiple notable people with that name. Neither one seems notable enough to justify the article being titled D.J. Mitchell. Nemov (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Year postseason pages infoboxes
I noticed in the 1981 postseason & 1995-present postseason pages' infoboxes, we include the semi-final losers. I realise these were added due to the Division Series. But wouldn't it be best if we limited the infoboxes, to the World Series champion & runner-up? GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Brian Wolfe
The article about Brian Wolfe is being edited by a number of people from the same IP range, some claiming to be a child of his, others claiming he has no children. Can someone investigate this. Mind matrix  17:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can find no reliable sources online about his personal life... minor children should not be mentioned by name on articles anyway so I just removed all of it. Spanneraol (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Seth Brown (baseball)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Seth Brown (baseball) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Boxscore links
Boxscore links on some previous years' playoff games are broken, e.g. this on 2016 National League Wild Card Game (and several subsequent years, plus AL games, etc.). 192.104.199.208 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I see this all the time in other sports as well. The league sites at some point either remove (or move without a redirect) old game recaps.  Personally, I'd say to use something more stable like baseball-reference.com.  If people insist on using "official" sites, then we'll need to invest time to repair dead links.—Bagumba (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of issues with this from mlb.com links I guess they changed their format recently. Is there a bot or something that can fix this easily cause it seems like a real hassle to go back and change them. Spanneraol (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding teams abbreviations to articles
I proposed adding the team abbreviations to the infoboxes (or at least the articles bodies) here. Please state your opinion. Thanks. --Angus (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting conversation when it comes to baseball, as abbreviations aren't particularly well defined. (NYY vs NYA, NYM vs NYN, CWS vs CHA, etc.) <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple  ☎  17:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/64.107.220.166 added a lot of fake-sounding world series
Are any of them real? Some of their additions are still there and some aren't. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You sure you have the right IP? I don't see anything in their edits which are all from 2009 Spanneraol (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * i.e. none of the extensive inter-league stuff that has been in 1877 in baseball for over a decade is in list of pre-World Series baseball champions. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think those are supposed to be world series.. maybe some sort of exhibition contest? Likely not "championships" so should be removed.. The minor league titles are probably worth keeping if accurate. Very little on that page is actually sourced. Spanneraol (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://hhbmhof.com/the-first-world-series/ says the 1882 exhibition was the first time in baseball history that two champions from their respectful leagues played in a post-season series but 1881 in baseball says the NL and ECA champions had an inter-league playoff with the minor league team winning 2 games to 1. And 1880 in baseball through 1877 in baseball have an inter-league playoff every year I have no idea which is right. I agree that minor league titles are probably worth keeping if accurate. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Nolan Ryan
Are any of Nolan Ryan's no-hitters notable enough to have their own article? 100.7.44.80 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not think so. If one of his no-hitters is notable, then all no-hitters are notable, and MLB has had over 300. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would agree, but I believe his 5th and 7th no-hitters are notable enough. His 5th in particular was the record-breaker, so...yeah. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that List of Nolan Ryan no hitters is likely a notable topic and a better way of covering the topic rather than having separate articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already a list: Nolan Ryan. No justification for a stand-alone article has been offered. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

President field in Infobox MLB yearly?
I propose adding a president field to the Template:Infobox MLB yearly template. The template currently allows owners, presbo, general managers, and managers to be listed, but lacks a field for the team president. Teams have had presidents since the start of organized baseball, many notable, and a majority of MLB teams have navboxes for their presidents (see Category:Major League Baseball president navigational boxes, capitalization issues notwithstanding). By comparison, use of a "President of Baseball Operations" (presbo) title in MLB doesn't seem older than the 1960s. Addition of a president field to the template would be straightforward, and the president would appear after owners and before presbo in the infobox. Comments welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thoughtful addition. I'd have no reservations as "president" is certainly a notable position in the baseball front office hierarchy. Question to educate myself - is there a defined difference between "President" and "President of Baseball Operations"?Skilgis1900 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a written definition, but my observation is that a team president is like a company president, responsible for running the franchise as a business, whereas the presbo has oversight narrowly of baseball operations. Presbo and GM offices seem to have a fair amount of overlap, to the point that some teams have one or the other but not both (ex. Dave Dombrowski was presbo of the Red Sox for multiple seasons with the GM office left vacant). As far as I know, every MLB team has a president, while only some have a presbo (or variant thereof; ex. Chaim Bloom is currently the "chief baseball officer" of the Red Sox). Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A team president is in charge of the entire organization and typically focuses on business matters. Running the on-field operation didn't involve as many people in the past, but now that the front office staff involved with player-related tasks can be quite large, some teams have elected to designate someone as the head of baseball operations, with various titles. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, it was very briefly discussed in November 2020 at . Note that the template is protected so if there is consensus for a change, an edit request would have to be made. isaacl (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications of "President" and "President of Baseball Operations" in the heirarchy of the front office . If each team has a president and that president is near the very top of the organizational chain, that position is very worthy of inclusion. With that I would Support the addition of "president" to the template. Skilgis1900 (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with adding such a position to the infoboxes, though it would require a fair bit of work to go back and enter all the data. Don't know if we need a formal edit request.. we have several members that are admins that should be able to make the edit. Spanneraol (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but no edit was made last time (though perhaps they were waiting for more people to weigh in to establish a more definitive consensus?). The key point is that someone with appropriate access privileges will have to make the change. isaacl (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

In the last 10 or so years, the sports world has introduced the title president of 'any sport' operations. I don't know if this is a new position or merely a name replacement of president or team president. Kinda like how in ice hockey, 25-30 years ago, coach got replaced with head coach. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In MLB, it is not a replacement for the president position. A good example is the Twins front office, see here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

✅ I have added the parameter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Works great, example at 2022 Boston Red Sox season, thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

October 3, 1927 I have a score card between the two teams. Why did they play on that date:
LoisJS (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a score card to me - the 1927 World Series between those two teams started two days later. Nothing in that photo says these teams play on October 3, it is merely a list of stats. My guess is it was a Milwaukee publication issued on October 3, including those team stats as a preview for the World Series. Perhaps additional pages before or after that one in sequence provide missing context. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Sahlen Field
I've just nominated Sahlen Field for a good article reassessment -- it's a minor league baseball stadium. The original GA nominator hasn't edited in a month so I've come here in the hope of finding someone willing to try to keep the GA status for the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Cancelled 1994 playoffs
In the past, I've reverted edits [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1994_World_Series&diff=1119311673&oldid=1119302231 such as this one] that added a hypothetical playoff bracket to the 1994 World Series article. Given that it would have been the first year of a new playoff format, though, does anyone think it might be desirable to have a prose description in an article such as 1994 Major League Baseball season describing what teams would have been made the playoffs based on the final 1994 standings? This would help illustrate the new format. I still feel including a bracket in any article is unnecessary, and think it should be removed from the 1994 World Series article. isaacl (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd delete them, as 'no playoffs' occurred in 1994. As for a pros? I suppose mentioning that it would've been the first usage of the expanded 8-team playoff format (had the strike not occurred), wouldn't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding correctly, you're commenting on whether or not to include any information in the 1994 World Series article. I'm asking about including some additional text in the 1994 Major League Baseball season article, describing the planned playoff format, and possibly using the final standings to help illustrate the description. isaacl (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Concerning pros, I would assume it's alright. But, I wouldn't set up playoff brackets, as team standings would've highly likely been different had the '94 season been played out. PS - I'll go along with whatever the final decision is, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with discussing the new playoff format in the season article.. but also don't think the bracket makes sense in this context as it is highly speculative which teams would have actually made the playoffs if the season finished. Spanneraol (talk)
 * Count me as another who thinks mentioning that the 8-team post season was planned for 1994 should be included in the prose, but utterly oppose including any bracket. The season ended with over a month an a half to go. The idea that the teams leading their divisions at the time of the strike would necessarily be the ones to qualify for the postseason had the full season been played is unsupportable by any reasonable means. It's pure speculation, and has no place in a Wikipedia article. (On a similar note, I've had to remove attempts to include 1994 division titles on multiple team articles. There are no such things, as the season was not completed and no titles were awarded.) oknazevad (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, speculation on the two wild card teams would also be a no no. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that many readers would benefit from seeing a specific example (in the text) to understand the playoff format. We could of course point readers to 1995 Major League Baseball postseason (which contains a brief description of the wild card but no season standings) or perhaps 1995 Major League Baseball season (which has the season standings and bracket but currently has no description of the format) for an example, but it would be convenient to just use the final 1994 standings in the same article as an example. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There were no final standings in 1994. That's the point. There were the standings the day the season was suspended, but that is not the same thing. The season was never completed, no team won their division, no teams captured the wild cards, and no bracket exists. Any such depiction is factually wrong. Just give a quick mention that it would have been the first year for the new format, but it never happened because the season was abandoned. And include a more robust description in the 1995 article. oknazevad (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By "final" I just meant the last set of standings for the season before it prematurely ended. (As my repeated reversions on multiple articles have shown, I fully understand there were no division winners, no wild cards, no playoff brackets, and no post-season winners.) Another option would be for the 1994 season article to point to . (On a side note, that section should have a better description of the rotating home-field advantage and how that affected who the wild-card team would play.) isaacl (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Greatest Negro league teams
Our coverage of the Negro leagues needs a ton of work. Season articles for the greatest Negro league teams would be a good starting point. Ten such teams are listed below in order of page views, and only two have received even 1,000 views (both of those appeared at DYK in 2020). Any suggestions on how these should be improved? On how to attract viewers/editors to these articles? Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Spring Training Ballpark
Forgive me if this has come up before, but I couldn't find it in the archive. Would editors be opposed to having a spot on the MLB club infobox for the club's current Spring Training park? I wouldn't suggest showing the entire park history like we do for the home ballpark, but just show the current Spring Training park. This information would be helpful if it was in the same place. I notice some articles don't mention the Spring Training parks at all while some mention it in the lead. Nemov (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The information you are looking for is on List of Major League Baseball spring training ballparks which has the current occupants of the ballpark. I'm not sure what value this would provide having it in Template:Infobox MLB. I highly doubt users are regularly looking for this information. <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple  ☎  19:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know the information exists on the ballpark list. This is just for users looking for the information on the club's article. It's unlikely they'll look for the park list. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My personal rule of thumb for what ought to go into the infobox is what characteristics are essential for a concise overview of the subject? I feel the spring training location falls short of this criterion. I do think, though, that a section could be added to the team articles regarding their spring training facilities. I believe all of the current franchises have been around long enough to have some history with their spring training sites, in terms of investing in their upgrades, or being attracted to new sites. Some teams such as the Blue Jays have invested in making them key rehabilitation centres, and with impressive facilities to act as a recruiting tool for prospects as they cycle through (including visiting teams who see what's there). isaacl (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a section to the Atlanta Braves article for ballparks that briefly covers the home ballpark and the spring training facility. Some of this was already included, but now it's covered in the same section. Nemov (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI there is at least one such dedicated article, List of Boston Red Sox spring training venues. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Justin Verlander
An IP has repeatedly changed the infobox to hide the fact that Verlander missed all of the 2021 season. Attempts to explain on the talk page that this is standard procedure for baseball articles have failed, so I am bringing it here to get more eyes on the situation. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

IP is causing problems across other MLB pages. I think it's best we escort the IP off the premises. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I fully agree, but this is a protracted issue that keeps coming up. Blocking them now will only stop it briefly. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 04:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW re: Verlander, the previous discussion at Talk:Justin_Verlander doesnt seem to show any consensus. Is the practice documented anywhere? If not, consider establishing a formal consensus for the project.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it has been documented anywhere, that's part of why I brought it here. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I agree with the IP. He was under contract to a team, albeit on the IL, not an unsigned free agent, which is what the gap in the list looks like. Plus it takes up more room needlessly in an infobox, one place where space is at a premium. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The effect on infobox size is very minor. If we make this change, then what about players who were under contract but stayed in the minors all season? I disagree that the gap in the list makes it seem like he was an unsigned free agent, but even if it does, the article itself will set the record straight. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The effect is to show the years the player played with the team... lots of players are under contract but dont actually play with a team for numerous reasons. It shows that he was injured that year, which the prose in the article explains. Spanneraol (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Omitting the year from the date range is the standard way we have handled any absence from playing in an MLB game in a single year. Look at the articles for any players who took time away to serve in the war (Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams). This is not something specific to Verlander and should be handled consistently as other articles, unless the consensus were changed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. For a more recent example, see Adam Wainwright, who did not play in MLB during the 2011 season (due to Tommy John surgery). His infobox reflects that, consistent with his page at Baseball-Reference.com. Salvador Pérez is another recent example (did not play in MLB during 2019, also due to Tommy John surgery). Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage
The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names nominated for deletion
The discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. I'm posting here because I can't access the SABR report which seems like the only reference likely to discuss these players "as a group or set" as required by WP:NLIST, and I'm not sure what other sources might be out there or where to find them. Hatman31 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

MLB postseason page infobox
I've removed the semifinalist losers & removed mentioning of how many times the World Series runner-up appeared in the World Series. We should limit the infobox to the World Series Champion (number titles) & the runner-up. For example at 2022 Major League Baseball postseason's infobox - Do we really need to know who lost in the ALCS & NLCS? Furthermore, do readers really need to know that it was the Phillies 8th trip to the WS? Isn't having the Astros 2nd title description, enough? GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand why we list the defending champions at all, let alone higher than that year's actual champs. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 07:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , it appears that who may have originally added the info, has restored it. But, I've removed it again. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that bothers the hell out of me. Every year's postseason is a fresh postseason and not a tournament to determine a challenger for a defending champion. It's useless info. I'm removing it. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Though not required (as the parameter was removed), I removed the 'defending champions' from these pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Frankly, I removed the parameter because it was easier than removing it at each article. It's not needed for hockey pages either for the same reason, so I felt no qualms about removing it (it's only been in the box for a short time, having been unilaterally added without discussion). It's little weird that it's a hockey-specific template instead of being moved to a more general name, as it works for other sports, as seen here, but if it works it works. oknazevad (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it was ever added to the NHL playoff pages. Agreed, the parameter should never have been added. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody complains about this kind of content being on the NBA, NFL, and NHL playoff infoboxes, so I don't get the complaints for this. Alex9234 (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with your take on this, GoodDay. Any additional information, such as you listed here is superfluous at best and confusing at worst. <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple  ☎  02:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

what's your view on this. I could accept the addition of the semifinal losers. But do readers really need to know how many times the WS loser has been to the WS? We don't show how many times the WS winner has been been to the WS. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think given how the playoff format has changed many times, a parameter for number of rounds might be helpful, to complement the number of teams. I agree that the amount of times a team has been to a specific round of the postseason is unneeded for this infobox. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 20:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would lean against including it as it seems superfluous. But it certainly shouldn't be there if it isn't in the article text, as the infobox shouldn't contain anything the body doesn't convey. Anyway, this is a minor detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Alex9234, at & Muboshgu's talkpages, you seem to describe the MLB postseason pages as being your articles. Whether you created them or not, is irrelevant. They're now public domain & so anybody can make improvements. We don't need your permission. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is not in the public domain. However, all contributions to it have been licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL (see the notice that appears below the edit box when making a change), so no one can restrict someone else from editing an article in a manner that complies with community guidance. isaacl (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No one editor has control over any article. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you guys were using a hockey infobox template like Infobox hockey tournament season. Because any extra parameters you add to that template, or any parameters you remove, may require gaining consensus with WP:HOCKEY. So unless there is a massive discussion on TFD to merge all of these numerous-looking sports tournament infobox templates across all these sports, I would like to diffuse any potential editing disputes among these Wikiprojects. Therefore I have temporarily replaced it on these MLB articles with one of your own, Infobox international baseball tournament, since you are currently using only the same basic parameters. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Winter baseball
Anyone know if there's been an effort to create an article about winter baseball leagues, or if the topic may already be covered somewhere? There are a number of active winter leagues, but I'm not aware of any article that provides an overview or context in the manner of, for example, the existing article about collegiate summer baseball.

Currently active are: Dominican Professional Baseball League (LIDOM), Puerto Rican Winter League (LBPRC), Venezuela Winter League (LVBP), Cuban National Series, Mexican Pacific League (LMP), Colombian Professional Baseball League (LPB), Panamanian Professional Baseball League (Probeis), and Australian Baseball League per this article plus others than are defunct (e.g. Hawaii Winter Baseball and Arizona Winter League). Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Article Winter league baseball has been created; contributions welcome. Note: after some additional searching for existing content, I could only find a brief entry in the Glossary of baseball (W). Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Standings templates
I've worked hard to make updates to Module:Sports table/WLHA so that it can encompass the details of MLB standings and standardize the standings templates across WP. Check out how it looks for the 1901 season on my sandbox page here and compare it to the current version here. Open to thoughts and ideas about any changes. I'll be testing how more recent standings templates transfer over as well, including WC standings. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said at, the advantages of changing are not evident to me. I designed the input of MLB standings to minimize the number of characters needed to represent the stats for each team. Both times it's been raised, no one has responded saying they were interested in changing to a new template with a new input format. I appreciate the time spent, but in my view it would be more onerous to have a more verbose format. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of moving is to standardize across all sports. Right now, baseball is one of the few not using Module:Sports table. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From the looks of the (minimal-participated) previous discussions, your main concern with the Module:Sports table was the lack of GB, home/away options which are all included now. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in previous discussions and above, the change in input format is a key concern. (There are more things that could be done to better align the output format, like displaying half games with a fraction as is typically done in baseball standings, but I appreciate there are ways to introduce this.) If the editors most interested in updating the baseball standings templates aren't interested in using a different input format, I don't see a compelling reason to change. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * MLB.com displays half games as decimal so I would think that using fractions should not be the way we show GB. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a pre-Internet tradition, I suppose. Long-time baseball fans will remember the use of the half fraction in print. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to moving away from the current template. It works, it is succinct, and there is not a problem to be solved. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's inconsistent with other sports pages. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So? There is no requirement to do things the same way others do. Spanneraol (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding Ty Cobb's lifetime average
It is here: Talk:Ty Cobb if anyone is interested. Herostratus (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor warring over calling MLB stadiums "stadiums" in the first sentence
Months after it happened, I read (I did not participate, although I agree with the outcome) in this discussion about whether to describe MLB stadiums as "stadiums" or "ballparks". The way I read it, there's a clear consensus to go with "baseball stadium". That seems like the most specific term available, as not all "ballparks" are stadiums, but MLB stadiums certainly are stadiums. I'm borrowing a little here from 's comment in that discussion. Now one of the editors who disagreed is apparently running to a bunch of those article's lead sentences and changing it back to his preferred choice. I feel, as a discussion already occurred and consensus was reached, that we should go with that result unless a new discussion reaches a clear consensus to do something different.
 * Pinging the previous participants:             . Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The editor's recent changes should be reverted. Trying to force something into articles, never turns out good. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have the same opinion as expressed previously: refer to the venue as a baseball stadium in the first sentence, and as a home ballpark of its tenants in the second sentence. (See the previous discussion for my rationale.) isaacl (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. It appears that consensus was reached in general on the pervious thread. Unless would like to explain their rational for the changes and what has changed since the previous discussion, all edits related to stadium/park should be reverted. That said, I'm perfectly fine with having another discussion on the topic if someone else has new/refined arguments. <span style="font-family:Gadugi;font-size:90%;border-radius:0em 1em;padding: 0.05em 0.9em;background:#3160B5;"> Skipple   ☎  22:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In his edit summaries he refers to a move discussion at the ballpark article, which was lightly attended and doesn't really justify the changes he is making to the individual articles.. He does have a point about linking to a general stadium article is a bit awkward.. but I think there should be a midground here between those two options. Should have discussed before starting on these changes. Spanneraol (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It may have helped if the discussion was properly closed with a clear call to action. It's possible the editor just missed it. I think it's worth getting more comments so it's clearer. Nemov (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

===Should the term Baseball Stadium be used universally in the lead?===

No

 * 1) "Baseball stadium" may be the best term for a majority of baseball venues, but I think there should be some flexibility per venue. Nemov (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC),

Discussion
I believe this should be withdrawn and reworded, as it's based on a false premise. There are ALREADY multi-use stadiums that are not designated as "ballparks" or "baseball stadiums". This Yes/No survey is, given the current state of MLB stadium articles, offering a false choice. In addition, it's not the same question, at all, that was offered in the original discussion. That discussion applied ONLY to stadiums that weren't multi-use. This question appears to lay a trap - of course you would not call multi-use stadiums a "baseball stadium", so forcing editors to vote for "No" opens the door wider for Nemov's preferred term - ballpark. It's a clever attempt to circumvent the previous discussion's consensus. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I opened the last discussion and the general consensus then was to use "baseball stadium" on every park. So that is the choice. Either use it on every baseball park venue or not. Not sure how that's a false choice. Nemov (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple articles were (until last week, when Oknazevad went on his crusade) not described as "park" or "stadium" - instead, they were called "multi-use stadiums" or something similar; those were stable and no one objected to that wording. You're posing a different question this time. I'm merely pointing out that if you want the question to have a definitive answer, you should limit the scope to stadiums that are primarily used for baseball - for example, there's no NFL team that had or has it as a home field. I think that would be a better question. I personally don't have a problem with Oakland Coliseum being called a "stadium" as opposed to "baseball stadium". But for Yankee Stadium, the phrase "baseball stadium" is more specific and more appropriate. That's one of the many that Oknazevad changed in the last few days in spite of the discussion from last February. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue really with the current edits is that there is no article called "baseball stadium" as that links to the "ballpark" article. We should address the linking issues before proceeding with a vote like this. We have List of current Major League Baseball stadiums but the template is "Current ballparks in Major League Baseball".. we should have some consistency about all this. Spanneraol (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Ballpark article starts off well, but once you hit the "Types of ballpark" section, it's nearly exclusively about MLB stadiums. I think that entire part of ballpark could be broken off into a Baseball stadium article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the fundamental part of my issue and why I made the changes. " baseball stadium " as a linking pattern doesn't even link to the ballpark article. Not having MLB ballparks link to the article specifically about ballparks is, frankly, silly. If we're going to insist on calling MLB ballparks "baseball stadiums", which is not incorrect but also not particularly more correct, as "ballpark" is just as correct – the two terms are synonymous – and in many ways more idiomatic, then we should use the baseball stadium redirect and not two separate links. oknazevad (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple articles were (until last week, when Oknazevad went on his crusade) not described as "park" or "stadium" - instead, they were called "multi-use stadiums" or something similar
 * Reviewing the discussion it seems like it was going to be used on all MLB venues. Apparently no one applied this to all articles. I know Back Bay Barry applied it to several articles, but that was the consensus at the time. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that I specifically didn't change the ones that were multipurpose stadiums instead of baseball-specific ballparks. I didn't change Oakland Coliseum, Rogers Center, or Tropicana Field because of that. oknazevad (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The big question(s) is. What do we call them & do we call them all the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any stadium that is used primarily for baseball can be called a "baseball stadium" in the first sentence, as it's more specific than "ballpark", which includes everything from the scrubbiest dirt diamond all the way up to Dodger Stadium. For those, they can all be called the same thing. For stadiums used by multiple major sports franchises (like NFL teams), just use "stadium" - which was already the case. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what we call it, but there should be consistency and I agree that the " baseball stadium " linking doesn't make sense.. we should use the baseball stadium link instead if we are going that way. Spanneraol (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I split off the part of the Ballpark article that deals with professional-level stadiums (which was most of it) into Baseball stadium. That should satisfy most people. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Major changes in article scopes like that should wait for discussion to complete. Frankly, I think that's a terrible idea. Your insistence that there's a distinction between the terms is not borne out by the sources used in the article, or in common usage of the language. Even Merriam-Webster simply says "field or stadium used for playing basebal" (emphasis added). oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article about venues for playing baseball is at ballpark, as that is the most common name. We should use the term in articles about structures built specifically for baseball. That's my 2¢. oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For context, though, you gave your 2 cents in the discussion last February, most people disagreed with you, and you waited 9 months, then went ahead a few days ago and changed it to what you liked anyway. So why is this discussion meaningful to you? The last one wasn't. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we discuss the topic and not the editor? It's pretty clear based on the responses so far there was some confusion about the outcome of that last discussion. Nemov (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this either because calling the home venue for a baseball team a "ballpark" isn't confusing. Maybe for non-Americans? Baseball stadium/ballpark are synonymous. It's why there's a Yankee Stadium and a Fenway Park. Nemov (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thank you. oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections, if we use "ballpark". Mainly because when I think MLB, I think "ballpark". Where's when I think CFL & NFL, I think "stadium". GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But, "baseball stadium" is more specific. Many baseball stadiums (but not all, as some of the MLB stadiums articles point out) are ballparks. But not all ballparks are stadiums, and we're supposed to be specific, especially in the first sentence of an article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why mention either? For examples: "Yankee Stadium is where the New York Yankees play" & "Fenway Park is where the Boston Red Sox", should suffice. Just mention who uses the facility. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because if it's an article about a baseball stadium, the first sentence should mention that it's a baseball stadium. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Check out my compromise edits to the intros of the Yankee Stadium & Fenway Park pages. It avoids the dispute, entirely. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like that's created a third option that's still not right. The field is only one part of the stadium. The articles aren't about the field - they're about the stadiums. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. To not include a definitional link in the first sentence is poor article writing. oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an idea. You're both free to restore those page intros, to whichever version you both think is best. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

To repeat what I said in the previous discussion, a stadium is a place with tiered infrastructure to allow a large number of spectators to watch events. A ballpark is venue for baseball. If a stadium is designed to be used for multiple sports, then it is a multi-purpose stadium. If it is designed for baseball, it is a baseball stadium. All baseball stadiums are ballparks; not all ballparks are stadiums. Thus stadium is a more specific descriptor for a venue, and I think it is more useful to describe it as such in the first sentence. (If it is multi-purpose stadium, it should be described as such rather than singling out one sport that it hosts.) The term ballpark can be used and linked to when describing the stadium as a home venue. isaacl (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify what you mean, when you say tiered you mean that each row of seating is on a different level, not that there's necessarily multiple decks, correct? Because there's many stadiums in many sports (not the least some major college football stadiums like the Rose Bowl and Lambeau Field, for that matter) where the regular seats (not suites) are just one massive deck. If that is the idea you have in mind (the presence of stadium seating), then pretty much any ballpark with a few permanent bleachers counts as a baseball stadium, and the distinction is meaningless. Because there is no minimum size criterion for calling something a stadium. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was paraphrasing from the "Stadium" article. In practice, given the etymology of the term, no one calls a field with a few bleacher benches a stadium. It's only used to refer to facilities with substantial infrastructure. Ballpark can be used to refer to the home venue for the local school team. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do we draw the line, though? Because there are some low-level independent minor league teams and collegiate summer teams that play in decidedly small venues that lack amenities that are still called stadiums, just as there are anmong English football stadiums. The key defining characteristic is that they're purpose built for baseball, not size or amenities, which makes them ballparks. It's why a split of the article is unnecessary, and why the word "ballpark" should be used in the leads of these articles. oknazevad (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree with using "ballpark" in the lead. We differ on where to place this term. Reliable sources can be used to determine what venues are considered to be stadiums. Note reliable sources can still categorize a venue as a stadium even if the term isn't part of the venue's name/PR coverage. isaacl (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is using both "ballpark" and "baseball stadium" is redundant and that there is no clear line above which a venue is specifically a stadium (which not a phenomenon limited to baseball). So we don't really need to use "baseball stadium" at all, or should do such in passing, the way actual sportswriters do, where they casually use the terms synonymously, switching back and forth. oknazevad (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a one-or-the-other decision, and it's common in Wikipedia articles to switch between terms to describe a subject, as you indicate. I prefer mentioning stadium first as I think it provides a more immediate picture of the type of structure, whereas ballpark describes the venue's use, so covers a wide variety of structures. Baseball stadium covers both. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Article spilt subdiscussion
Fred split the article. I see no consensus here for such a split. Can else get a straw poll going?


 * Oppose split. The terms are synonymous for all practical purposes and are used as such in all the sources. A split is unjustified and WP:POINTy. oknazevad (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that the Little League field down the street from me should be referred to as a "baseball stadium"? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'd call it a baseball field. If it has permanent stands I might call it a ballpark. I wouldn't call it a baseball stadium because I find the term needlessly wordy and unidiomatic. oknazevad (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support split. The term "ballpark", which means any venue for baseball, from your local dirt field in your neighborhood on up, and the term "baseball stadium" are not the same. Many baseball stadiums are ballparks. But not all ballparks are stadiums - not even close. Most of the Ballpark article was about professional baseball stadiums. Clearly that amount of text warrants its own article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a project for baseball. For baseball venues I have never referred to a MLB ballpark as a baseball stadium. In the context of a baseabll venue it immediately understood that a team's baseball venue is their home ballpark. Nemov (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3,420,000 Google results disagree with your assessment that no one refers to baseball venues as a "baseball stadium". Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. Also, it's kind of hilarious that the link shows "ballpark" on the right side which kind of sums up this discussion. Nemov (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose.. I don't think we should split the article but the redirect should be used on some of those articles.. On the other hand, I really think we should revisit that move request. The term "ballpark" can refer to any park where ball games can be played, not just baseball... and it also has other uses such as a "ballpark estimate" for prices... The article really should not have been moved from Baseball park. Spanneraol (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the current state of Ballpark and Baseball stadium. They're both full of information about the specific topics. If you saw those two articles for the first time, would you think they needed to be merged? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW there was a move discussion on that topic. Seemed pretty clear cut at the time. Nemov (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw it, exactly four people participated, one of which opposed the move.. not exactly clear cut.. which is why I suggest revisiting the move. Spanneraol (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for reliable sources that talk about other games besides baseball being played at a "ballpark", but I am not finding any. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Baseball park" is a term made up for an article title because some thought that "ballpark" was a quaint colloquialism that lacked specificity for this unfamiliar with baseball. It is not, it's bog-standard idiomatic English. oknazevad (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Baseball park" just isn't an idiomatic phrase in use. It makes me think of an academy complex with multiple baseball fields. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it should be Ballpark (baseball). Spanneraol (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? No other sport calls their venues "ballparks". Except softball, which is technically a code of baseball (same international governing body). That's unneeded disambiguation, as the plain word "ballpark" is unambiguously about baseball and all others on the disambiguation page are already naturally disambiguated and, for that matter, derive from the baseball use of the term either directly or metaphorically. Its already clearly the primary topic by a massive margin. oknazevad (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think a split is necessary. A lot of the content in the current ballpark article is related to professional baseball venues, which have evolved to stadiums to accommodate more spectators. Thus keeping the history of professional baseball venues together provides a more cohesive narrative. isaacl (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Split. There are separate articles for ice rink and Ice hockey arena. Also Football pitch and Soccer-specific stadium. Same logic. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The analogous term for baseball, baseball field, is a separate article. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I just noticed that. Reading ballpark, the "General characteristics" section is text that could all be in baseball field. The rest all describes MLB stadiums and should be in an article called "Baseball stadium". Then redirect "ballpark" to either. Maybe a disambig page. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - My goodness, we don't want to create confusion. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * So where are we in this discussion? Baseball Stadium has been folded back into the Ballpark article. There's still no clear consensus about what baseball venues should be called in the opening of the lead. It seems like generally the word "stadium" is preferred. What's the path forward? Nemov (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if a baseball stadium is described as a stadium by reliable sources, we should use "stadium" in the first sentence. Ballpark, as I've said before, can mean a wide variety of places where baseball is played. Stick with stadium. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I still think we should stick with "ballpark" as the common term (something we already acknowledge with the article title), but would be okay with "baseball stadium" if it was linked to the specific article on ballparks either by piping or the redirect. The baseball stadium linking pattern is just lousy, being it links to the non-specific article instead of the specific one at the most definitional point, and runs onto WP:SEAOFBLUE issues with back to back links made to look like one link. oknazevad (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to read all that's been said about this, but with that being said, is there a reason we don't just link to "baseball stadium" since it redirects to "ballpark" anyways? It seems like the obvious compromise. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 02:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This does appear to be the easiest way to deal with it. The two terms are interchangeable and calling it "baseball stadium" at the start of the lead would remove any confusion (I'm not sure there is any) and it can be called a ballpark or baseball stadium after that. Nemov (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources that discuss these terms and any distinction between them?—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's kind of tough... let's take Truist Park for example. I looked up the first game to see how it was referenced. The Atlanta Constitution says "day turns into evening as the sun sets on the ballpark while the Atlanta Braves take the field in an exhibition game against the New York Yankees in the first game in the new SunTrust Park stadium. Associated Press says as the Braves opened their new stadium.
 * Ballpark and stadium are used together and interchangeably. Nemov (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saw the ping so I'm late (I don't log in much anymore) but my opinion is the same, and matches the outcome of the last discussion - all baseball stadiums are ballparks, but not all ballparks are stadiums. Use "baseball stadium" or "stadium" in the lead. "Ballpark" is more of a colloquial term and is used by writers when they're being flowery like in the above quote about the Atlanta stadium. Works as nostalgia. Doesn't work for an encyclopedia. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A word that's the most common term for something is not a colloquialism, no matter how "quaint" it sounds to you. oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)