Baseball Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

As it stands, this template is only for perfect game pitchers, not the articles on perfect games. Perfect game articles have withstood AfD, so there should eventually be one for all of them, though many remain redlinks. As they're created (I'll get on making a few of them soon), should the perfect games and perfect game pitchers be housed in the same template, or in different templates? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My 2 cents is that they should be on one template. The reason for this is that both would be redundant. The perfect game articles were pitched by the pitchers and vice versa. This is in contrast to whether or not we have a template for a NL/AL pennant AND a World Series champion. It may warrant it for the losing team of the WS, but the team who won the WS automatically won their respective pennant so having both a template for the WS champion and the pennant champion of their league would be redundant. Arnabdas (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two entries added and reverted in a 'Related' section, the Haddix 12-inning perfect game and Galarraga's perfect game lost to an admittedly incorrect umpire call, should, I'd say, be included on the template. The template would then look like this, listing the two pages without links to the pitchers. 'Related' template sections contain directly related pages of interest to readers and researchers. On this template both of these topics are so defining to the topic that it's arguably an imperfect template without them. The historic 12 perfect innings thrown by Haddix qualifies by the probable fact that whenever perfect games are discussed or mentioned at length, the Haddix example is included and honored. The Galarraga example may be even more directly related, because not only was it a perfect game marred by an umpire's incorrect call, but the umpire later admitted his mistake and apologized. Although not recorded as a perfect game, it also would be included and honored in any full discussion of perfect games. Since Wikipedia templates should be full records of its prominent existing articles concerning the topic, a 'Related' section, typical of these templates, seems appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose since the template is titled "Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game." I completely understand your reasoning behind this, but the template has a clear inclusion criteria, and the Galarraga and Haddix games, while incredible performances, do not meet that criteria. Hog Farm (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Which is why they would be included in a 'Related' section. They fit 'perfectly' there. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Hog Farm, I just reread your answer and noticed that the name of the template is not the visible name that you quote, nor is the visible name the criteria for inclusion. The name of the template is actually "MLB perfect games". The template's actual name seems to be wide enough to include a 'Related' section with the two applicable entries. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• ...and one of the alternate names and redirects to the Galarraga game is 28-out perfect game. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Additional information. The two articles in question are the only two pages on Wikipedia about 'perfect games' aside from the pages already on the template. All the more reason that 'Related', relative to the template, applies. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, but change the title to something like "Major League Baseball perfect games" or such that puts less emphasis on the pitchers. @Randy Kryn: Hog Farm (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support with a Question, are these the only past perfect game anomalies that will be included? Will it include Pedro Martinez's game as well? It is the only other Perfect game lost in extra innings. Granted, it does not have nearly the same level of lore attached to it as the two you listed. However, the Ernie Shore 27 out perfect game in relief did have quite the notability attached to it, and was considered a perfect game by MLB until the change. I am interested in just how many games will/can be included?Neonblak ^talk - 21:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'd personally add the Martinez game if it had an article, which it probably should. Shore's game is more iffy, because he only had 26 outs to deal with after the failed stolen base, although I can see the argument for including it in a 'Related' section if it too had an article. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]