WikiProject Baseball (Rated 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Module:MLB standings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiebreaker games format, eliminated

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

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

Watchlist notifications

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

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

Minor leagues, or, what is old is new again

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

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

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

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

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

It's only been a day since the announcement, and there's a lot we don't know, but even if the leagues are different legal entities, it's abundantly clear that they claim the history of the old leagues. There's no reason to keep these split. O.N.R. (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This piece put out today, March 17, by Minor League Baseball on the history of the International League makes it clear that as far as MLB is concerned, the league names used in 2021 were just one-year aberrations: they state the IL was founded in 1884 and was simply known as the Triple-A East in 2021. Hence, it seems clear to me that the 2021 league articles need to be merged with the applicable historical leagues, with last year's champions credited as the most recent champions of their respective leagues.
https://www.milb.com/news/international-league-then-and-now Lugubrious DBB (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have the International League article state that the new International League follows the tradition of the previous International League and that the current International League is considered a continuation of the previous International League by the current MiLB head organization. Granthew (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The format followed by User:Lugubrious DBB in the Southern League (1964–2020) looks like the best way to handle it. It doesn't belabor the point, but mentions it in the lead, and has a separate section under "History" for the MLB takeover years. BilCat (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, except the takeover didn't happen till 2021.. he has it at 2020. Spanneraol (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the heading for the section, which also covers the Covid cancellation of the minor league seasons. It can easily be tweaked. BilCat (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, it’s been suggested that the Southern League was renamed Double-A South, that’s incorrect, the Double-A South league replaced the previous Southern League and is now renamed to the current Southern League. Granthew (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as far as MLB is concerned based on their publicity on the minor leagues over the last few weeks, MLB is treating the "new" leagues that formed in 2021 as if they are continuations of their former leagues. We can nitpick about whether or not they're new legal entities (they are), but that doesn't change that as far as MLB is officially concerned, 2021 was a temporary renaming, nothing more. If we were to apply the legal entity standard consistently, we would have to say "Major League Baseball" didn't exist prior to 2000 when the American League and National League (formerly independent entities operating under a joint agreement) were legally dissolved and formed into the current legal entity known as Major League Baseball, even though the term "Major League Baseball" as a governing entity existed well before 2000. Lugubrious DBB (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Roster links on MLB rosters

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

Done. Each team's roster template will need to have the "|MLBcomName=" field changed to thier team nickname. For example, the Milwaukee Brewers would be "brewers" (lowecase) to match usage in [1] NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Championship by year colors

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

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

Wild Card Series or Round, certainly no longer Game

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

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

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

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

Minor League Baseball historical league names are back

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

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

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

Draft:Jim Ridley

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

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)[reply]

GoodDay, if you are referring to this, you are correct and Spanneraol 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)[reply]
Yup, that's the edit I'm referring to. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]