Baseball Project‑class

This page 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Baseball was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 April 2010.

WikiProject Baseball was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 August 2014.

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Special projects talk Resource Library talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (61) talk  → Featured lists (210) talk  → Good articles (544) talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Style advice talk  → Naming conventions talk  → Player style advice talk  → Season article format talk Handling transactions talk Popular pages talk Active editors
Project organization Participants talk Large userbox talk Project userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball Team specific Atlanta Braves talk Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Mets talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk Negro league baseball talk Hall of Fame talk Umpires talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Players Archives

1 2 3

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

How about if the map is smaller or placed in a different location on the articles or put on another type of MLB article? Seems a bit repetitve to add this pic to each season article

between 2000-present since there have been no team expansions or removals. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no objections. I'll delete them from the rest of the MLB season pages. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am for deleting from seasons page but let's add map of expansions to Expansion of Major League Baseball and find a way to shrink image size if possible. Agree? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, all my work! Lol. All kidding aside, the reason I added maps to (most) of the season pages (hadn't finished 1901 through 1911 just yet) was because NFL and MLS season pages have maps for every season. I was simply taking that idea and applying it to MLB. I also had plans to do these maps for the 1920 through 1948 Negro Major Leagues for the 1920 through 1948 "year in baseball" pages. Since many of the MLB season articles had standings right below the header, the standings template and map templates couldn't co-exist at the same horizontal area. I personally think it's useful information when looking season to season, but if the majority disagree then so be it. Perhaps if the articles were slightly rearranged, there wouldn't be this obnoxious gap where the maps are. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 15:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spesh531, Thank you for the contributions. Your logic made sense but unfortunately the horizontal clutter was an issue. Consensus can always change. If it is any consolation prize, maps have been moved to Expansion of Major League Baseball, 1961 Major League Baseball expansion, 1962 Major League Baseball expansion, 1969 Major League Baseball expansion, 1977 Major League Baseball expansion, 1993 Major League Baseball expansion, and 1998 Major League Baseball expansion. Also, all your maps can be pulled from any time in the future. Again, thank you for your contributions. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay, the question is whether the NFL season and MLS season formats were the right way to go, and if so, should they be applied to the MLB with some proper tweaking? @Spesh531, if you show the slight rearrangement you have in mind, perhaps the people will be receptive to it. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no value in having any such maps in any sports season pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they could be valuable for MLB/NFL seasons in the past since teams moved around quite a bit. Nemov (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I have been playing around with the 2019 season page. I added a spring training section, but this doesn't help with a wide view (regardless, this section should probably be in each season page going forwards). In standard view, it does enough. However, this doesn't work, for example, in the 2000 page (which already has a large empty gap, due to there being no schedule section). I was looking at other older MLB season pages, such as 1989, and it appears the "Awards and honors" section (which is already above the standings section) would be one solution to not creating a large empty space, as the templates from this section can co-exist on the same horizontal as the maps. However, with a page like 1948, with the only non-template content being the header and a much smaller Awards and honors section, there would be a somewhat awkward white space regardless. It seems we are WP:BRD about this, so I don't want to make any bold changes until anything is agreed upon. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 17:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to show in a sandbox what it could look like, and you think it could work, feel free to share that way. Otherwise, sounds like the images might not fit like NFL/MLS articles? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all seasons pre-1969, when there were no divisions, maps could fit side-by-side with the standings, as such. It's a bit more awkward once divisions are considered, as seen here. These are setup using the column formatting templates, setting the standings to the left, and maps to the right. My thinking is that this would only be done on the pages that do not have enough content to avoid awkward spacing. For example, the 2019 page has enough content, where the template can be inserted immediately below the infobox, seen here. I guess the only concern is that now, the standings are no longer side-by-side, except for the pages where the maps are placed below the infobox, as opposed to in a column formatting with the standings. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 14:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, BeFriendlyGoodSir, Nemov, Skipple see the above comment of mine. All links in the above lead to the same sandbox article of mine. As I've thought about it more, the 1901–1968 articles would be visually great. My feelings on say, 2011, where post-1960 articles have small leads... I'm still not in love with it but I think it's the best option. For seasons like 2019 where there are big leads, I think they fit nicely under the infobox. Spesh531^{[[User talk:Spesh531|(talk]contrib., ext.)} 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agreed. Season pages doesn't seem like the correct place for these types of maps. - Skipple ☎ 03:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the maps from all the season pages. BTW @Spesh531: created & added them, earlier this year. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, nicely done. I added the maps to Expansion of Major League Baseball. There is also Timeline of Major League Baseball as you know but not a good fit there. Any feedback is welcomed. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain how to shrink the maps, but they certainly need shrinking. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see GoodDay knows how to shrink it. Should be good now. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced 1997 to present templates from 625 width to 400. Clumps the teams up a tad bit, but gives more room for readers. Besides, an editor can always click onto those maps to make them bigger. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be conducive to separate out the 1997 to present templates into NL and AL maps, to reduce clutter (as they are pre-1996). Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 15:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 1997 templates should be separate NL and AL maps. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 17:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I remember that previous discussion, and the rough consensus back then was to include it for current coaches and people with long histories of coaching.. not so much for people that just coached for a season or two. Was this really 14 years ago? I've spent way too many years here.. lol Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's time we have a full-blown project consensus on this. What I mean by "random" is pretty much what Spanneraol is saying. Long time coaches or ones that are very well known for being coaches (Dave Duncan, Mike Maddux, Mel Stottlemyre). Not random stints like Bichette's that just make the infobox unnecessarily larger.-- Yankees10 18:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many players are we talking about? Less than 100? Or more? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was just thinking along these same lines, and came here to suggest this, thanks for beating me to it. The only role I might consider adding to these four might be bench coach, a role that has become more prominent in recent years. But yes, rather than trying to use the years of one's service as the brightline for inclusion - when after all we don't require minimum years as a player for inclusion - an easier to follow brightline for new and experienced editors alike would be the roles. Newer or less common roles like "offensive coordinator" or instructors at spring training would be easy enough to keep out. Echoedmyron (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The on-paper responsibilities for pitching and hitting coach have been relatively clear over the years, even if they may have been staffed as favours in the past. Historically, first-base and third-base coaches were more likely to have been essentially player pension sources. Today, coaches will have other identified roles beyond the in-game position. I wouldn't support making this a brightline rule where only these five coaching roles are listed in player infoboxes. Newer roles are in practice more likely to have specific responsibilities and tasks, making them have greater importance to the team than the older, undefined roles. isaacl (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wrote "Perhaps we start with..." as in start the discussion with. It was not meant to be an exclusive list.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: I did try to speedy delete, blank and redirect, and Afd this article since I don't think its necessary and its an outlier of sorts. Some editors were strongly against deleting it though. I ended up just shortening it by removing a long list of quotes (moved them to Clemente's Wikiquote page and added the link to the page) but am lost as to what I can possibly add to it that isn't already in the main article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the need for a separate article. We already have Roberto Clemente#Honors and legacy. --Jameboy (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky area, as the topic undoubtedly meets English Wikipedia's standards for having an article, but that doesn't mean an article must exist. Editorial judgement can decide that the topic is more easily covered within another article. Thus the decision to be analyzed is whether or not it's easier to cover Clemente's legacy within his biography than in a spin-out article. For better or worse, this involves a degree of subjective judgement. Editor traffic and page watcher counts for the two articles provide some indication of the amount of maintenance support each is capable of receiving, but it's not definitive by itself. isaacl (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with the subjective judgement part. My own personal opinion is that such info can easily fit into Clemente's biography because just about all well-written biographies of ballplayers (most notably Ruth and Jackie) have legacy sections that fit within the acceptable word limit.

On the same note, I would like to add that "Roberto Clemente" needs to a lot of attention and work done on it (and possibly permanent semi-protection due occasional bursts of disruptive edits by... users with strong opinions, lets say). Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clemente's bio has 229 page watchers, while the legacy page has fewer than 30 (thus the page information won't show an exact number), so arguably the primary article has a greater capacity for resilience against vandalism. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I brought it up mostly because I thought it, while we decide on what to do with legacy article, we can also see if we can improve and clean up the bio itself. I guess we'll figure that out as we go along. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to push this conversation along, @Muboshgu @Spanneraol, pinging you for an opinion on this. I think its an important discussion to have. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about this.. but the Legacy article seems to be primarily just a list of books about him and that doesn't need it's own article. The other stuff is easily covered in the main article. Spanneraol (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spanneraol, it was previously a list of quotes taken from Wikiquote AND a list of books. I removed the quotes and replaced it with the wikiquote link. But I came here as a last resort, essentially, because I tried everything to delete/redirect the page to "Roberto Clemente" and am not sure where to go from here. I don't know what to add which isn't already covered in the main article - hell even the books are listed in "further reading". I hoped someone here had an idea as to what to do about it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan. Looking at a couple of the Category:Legacies by person articles, Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev and Legacy of Napoleon give critical analysis of their, well, legacies. Legacy of Roberto Clemente looks more like a content fork of "in popular culture" with one banal quote from Carlos Correa that could really be considered "legacy". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu, so what would you do here? Should we change its scope? Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or merge the content back into Clemente's article. There may be enough legit "legacy" items to justify such a page, but that ain't it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried blank and direct, as well as speedy delete and Afd, but since it meets the requirments of an article a lot of people objected to it. Changing its scope is really the only option left. If you and others on here agree, that is.

Worth noting, I did check if there was something to write which may have been missed but there isn't really more to write that isn't already covered in Clemente's article or its sister articles which there were enough of to create a template and a category to collect. I don't think we need yet another page. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost missed this discussion because I have been hard at work drafting Legacy of Jesse Haines. After all, Haines was a Hall of Famer and a nice chap, and if that's not deserving of two articles, I don't know what would be. I even have a head start because in the legacy section of the main article, Frankie Frisch said Haines was “a worthy, worthy man” and “a fine fellow”. If I run into any difficulty, “legacy” is vague enough that I should be able to throw in most of the things anyone has ever said about him.

In all seriousness, it sounds like we're stuck with this, but it doesn't look like the existence of this entry has inspired similar bad ideas. I do notice that Roberto Clemente was delisted from GA status years ago, and it looks like a peer review has been requested. I'm encouraged to see that it may be getting back to GA soon. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Hockett, it was created by a fan to be just that: a list of random quotes about Clemente -they even said as much in the talk page of the main article. I do think a second Afd would work if people on here support its deletion/redirection. The one I started failed because two people voted 'keep', one of whom told me he votes 'keep' on everything. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is he even notable? Never played professionally.. a division III ballplayer? Spanneraol (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first item at WP:NCOLLATH is "Have won a national award". He was the first baseball player to earn the overall (all-sport) Academic All-American of the Year recognition and the first person to win Academic All-American of the Year for his sport in two sports. He is not conventionally notable for his baseball, but rather for the fact that he maintained a 3.98 GPA in the Chemistry department while being all-conference in two different sports. I think he is notable, but would stand corrected if people feel otherwise. Basically he has conferred honor on his sport by being the best scholar athlete a baseball player could be.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that "academic all-american" counts as a major national award... or having a 3.98 GPA in Chemistry.... I wonder how that distinction survived the purge at that page.. if academic all-americans are notable but major league ballplayers arent then the page has serious problems. Spanneraol (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to say that All Academic All-Americans of the Year are notable. He is a special case as explained above.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Those classic loopholes like "such as XYZ league" or "any award in <insert loosely discriminate template>".—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((Infobox person)) and then embed the baseball and soccer infoboxes. See Sammy Byrd for an example. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muboshgu, I have employed the infobox setup you have suggested. Let me know if you have any feedback.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No longer watching here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated PNC Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Personally, I feel it's still accurate to say that Matt Carpenter previously played for the Yankees and Padres, even if he also had a previous tenure with the Cardinals. I'm not a fan of dictating that there be only one form for listing a player's teams. In a case like Carpenter where most of his career is with one team, for instance, the text could be something like "After debuting with the Cardinals and playing for them from 2011 to 2021, Carpenter played for the Yankees and the Padres, before returning to the Cardinals in 2024." isaacl (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]