This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Scribatorian has been making changes to the hall of fame sections on all the team articles... removing useful notes and other designations. There has been no discussion of this format change as far as I know and his edits seem unproductive. Spanneraol (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Spanneraol, the changes I've made makes it easier for readers to comprehend which players, managers/coaches, and executives primary affiliation is associated with according to the Baseball Hall of Fame. User:Scribatorian —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked at this change made to the Los Angeles Dodgers article. As far as I can see, a footnote was added for primary affiliation and the other footnotes were removed. For this change to the New York Mets article, a footnote was added to indicate which players were primarily affiliated with the Mets. For the change to the Cincinnati Reds article, a footnotes was added to indicate primary affiliation, but the other footnotes were removed. Now maybe some footnotes are trying to do too much, but I think we need a case-by-case discussion on altering them, and not a blanket removal of them. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of these changes do not make anything "easier", as they remove context, notes and references, often multiple refs per edit. I agree with Isaacl that discussion is needed. Edit summaries would be nice too, which are almost completely lacking in these removals, FWIW. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Baseball Talk,

I have been looking at the page "List of current Major League Baseball players by nationality" for a while now and the more I look at it, the more I think it needs not only a cleanup but a complete change. There are duplicates of players everywhere, mistakes on some nationalities and birthplaces, and errors relating to national teams. I will try to keep this short but here is my idea.

1. Change the title to "List of current foreign Major League Baseball players", removing all American players born in the US (this clutters the page massively at the moment).

2. Adopt the format used on "List of current foreign Nippon Professional Baseball players".

3. Include Americans born outside US and US-born players who play for a foreign national team.

I have a sample for this on my sandbox for AL East, for reference. This uses the current 40-man rosters going through to Spring Training (provisionally).

So... I have a few questions...

1. What's everyone's thoughts on this?

2. If we go ahead with this, would it be better to use 40-man or 26-man (when the season starts)?

3. Should we at least semi-protect this page? It is one of the most wrong pages on Wikipedia and a lot of that is down to vandalism and inconsistent edits.

I would definitely like some feedback on this, as MLB is not my area of baseball.

ATrueCelt (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't even see the point of that page... it's way out of date and theoretically should be updated almost daily as players get promoted or demoted as players in the minors are not "current" MLB players. It just doesn't seem to have any real value to me. Spanneraol (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Due to the dynamic nature of who's currently in MLB, I think the category system is a better fit than having a list article. If a consensus does emerge to rename the article, I would not prefer using "foreign" as a synonym for non-American. Unlike the NPB, there is no rule defining foreign player for MLB. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with isaac not the least of which is how would we classify the significant number of Puerto Rican players. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fair enough. It would be easier just to remove it (I reckon NPB one can stay as it's short and the 70-man roster is pretty much fixed). I think we need a top admin to green light the deletion. Since you are one, I'll leave the decision to you. ATrueCelt (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The page has been around for a long time... probably need to bring it to afd to get it deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It is on three articles on minor league baseball seasons and can be found here[1]. Please come on over and join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Over at WikiProject College football we've had discussion recently regarding coaching trees on bio articles for coaches. Some of us noticed a proliferation in recent months of coaching tree list sections for coaches of lesser and lesser note. We reached a consensus that while such sections are appropriate for highly influential coaches where reliable third-party sources show substantive discussion of a coach's tree or legacy of coaching disciples, the vast major of such sections amount to some combination of synthesis, original research, and cruft. As such, I've culled over 800 such sections from bio articles for football coaches and left just 54, while identifying about 40 of the culled as possible candidates for inclusion, provided good sourcing can be found; see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coaching trees. There are smaller number of such coaching tree sections on bio articles for baseball coaches, e.g. Mark Marquess, Joe Maddon, Tim Corbin. I suspect the vast majority of these fall in the cruft bin. We are hoping to extended the consensus reached at WikiProject College football to other sports project and establish a site-wide policy on coaching trees. Please let me know your thoughts here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Tree littering. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and good day. Go to Gene Freese page. Go to References, click Reference #1, Gene Freese stats from Baseball Reference, goes to George Freese, not Gene Freese. Please correct. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8000:BDC0:34BC:6409:E97C:88B2 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose to merge Utility infielder and Fourth outfielder into a single page under the title Utility player (baseball) which is currently a redirect to the relevant section of the Utility player page. Please participate in the discussion.

A list that this WikiProject is interestd is nominated at WP:FLRC here: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Major League Baseball single-game home run leaders/archive1. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Skilgis1900 Created this article for the baseball history of all the minor league teams that played in Paris, Texas. There's around a dozen, the Paris Orioles were just the lat. My issue- About half those teams before the Orioles have their own article already, Paris Boosters and Paris Rockets for example. I see two solutions to this- All the other existing Paris MIL baseball articles get redirected over to the Orioles or the Orioles article gets purged of most of its non-Orioles content....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well the other articles don't have much content so I would suggest merging them and then renaming the article something along the likes of Paris, Texas minor league baseball team. Spanneraol (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Support merge per Spanneraol, although I'd suggest Minor league baseball in Paris, Texas as another potential article move point. Hog Farm (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In most (~6,600) MLB player articles, in the infobox, the years they played on each team are linked using ((MLB Year|yyyy)), which links to, e.g., 1999 Major League Baseball season, an often-useful choice. However, there are apparently over 1500 articles that, instead, use ((Baseball year|yyyy)) to link to, e.g., 1999 in baseball, a more general baseball article that includes non-MLB activity (and less, useful, MLB-specific info). Note that my search is specifically only for players who started and ended their career in the MLB, so it seems there should be no reason not to link to the more specific MLB year article, right? I also limited it to 1901–2020, since the MLB season articles before that are just redirects to the general baseball year articles (not sure why players before 1903 have league parms set to MLB, but I guess it doesn't matter for this purpose).

Should a bot be used to fix these (and is there one)? It could probably be handled better than my search, and link to the appropriate article given the team and year (i.e., for players that have both MLB and non-MLB years/teams). On further thought, wouldn't it be even better to link to articles like 1913 New York Yankees season when there is one? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, use the MLB specific year when referring to MLB team. No opinion on the bot.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I posted this in Talk:2019 in baseball, but think I may get a bit more of a response here. I quite like the 'xxxx in baseball' articles such as 2019 in baseball, but I think they can greatly improve visually and in readability. There is also a heavy US bias with the pages and I think it would be more beneficial for them to follow a format more similar to 2019 in association football or 2019 in basketball. Looking for thoughts and opinions to avoid any edit warring. JRA^Talk 05:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The articles do mention international leagues in the champions list but I agree the events section is almost all MLB stuff.. we should mention more things that happen in NPB or KBO at least in that section.. problem is most of the editors probably don't follow those leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As an NPB editor, the XXXX in baseball articles are daunting to me. The amount of MLB detail is staggering. Adding that amount of detail for the NPB would be incredibly time-consuming and probably unneeded/unwanted. To me, it begs the question: is all that detail also needed for MLB? The article is basically a daily log of MLB events for the year. I think it would be helpful to pare down what's included for MLB in these articles and then once an inclusion criteria is established, similar information can be added for the other leagues as well. Just my two cents. --Torsodog^Talk 18:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with you on paring down that section... we already have a MLB year article that most of that can be included in... the year in baseball article should be just the important stuff for each league.. and more details on the major international competitions. Spanneraol (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is probably the biggest reason why I wanted to run it past the project first. It's very hard to set a criteria for this type of thing and may involve removal of information. I at least first want to change champions into three separate tables like basketball. - International tournaments, professional domestic seasons & college seasons. JRA^Talk 01:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been updating most of the champion stuff... we could switch it to table format like the basketball one, though I'm not sure it would work in exactly the same style.. also don't like the way the basketball tables don't have any references. Spanneraol (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. "xxxx in baseball" is not limited to just the MLB, you also have to take into account significant occurrences in the US minor leagues, the Dominican Winter Leagues, Korea, Japan, Mexico, college baseball, international competitions, etc. etc. The MLB transactions lists like at 2019 in baseball focus too much on a single league. The each year in baseball article should be an overview of significant worldwide baseball events, not just MLB occurrences. Hog Farm (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've started sandboxing here what I thought would be a better look for the 2019 in baseball article. Obviously it's still wildly incomplete, but would like to get some feedback. JRA^Talk 06:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Well.. you are missing a lot of the leagues and references that were on the page before.. but the general concept might work. Spanneraol (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course! I will not exclude any league currently on the page, it's more a matter of I haven't entered the data yet. Just wanted to get the format/concept sorted. JRA^Talk 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the format looks pretty good. What criteria did you use to decide what would be included in the events section? --Torsodog^Talk 04:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I would like a bit more of a concrete criteria if you have suggestions, but I took out the day-to-day performances and transactions that weren't league records. I really think these individual entries can still be condensed a bit more to just the vital information and I've probably excluded some entries that should be in there in this rough draft. I'll be adding a bit more content today JRA^Talk 01:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that the "MLB season" articles don't have any of the event content that is dominating the "XXXX in baseball" articles. I would move almost all of that MLB-specific event content into the corresponding MLB season articles. As far as what kind of events SHOULD be included in the "XXXX in baseball", maybe none? Or extremely unusual or impactful events, such as NPB delaying the start of the season because of coronavirus, or the Astros cheating scandal for examples from this year. --Torsodog^Talk 19:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to update the Pirates' new away jersey's on their homepage? Thanks Pitt3484 (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Pitt3484

I believe Silent Wind of Doom created all of the uniform images. He isn't very active these days but with luck he will respond on that. Spanneraol (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually started working on the updates for this season right before having to leave for a week. I'll have it done within the week. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Done and done. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I always appreciate your work on these, and am glad you pushed back at the attempt years ago to remove logos from them, as those would be inaccurate and non-representative. You're doing a great service. oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been almost 2 months since List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leaders was nominated for FL (and a month since anyone has left comments). If a couple of folks from our baseball community can give it a quick look and some input, that would be much appreciated. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Should it contain entries for teams like the Canton Citizens even though it was never a ML team? Canton was a member of Mississippi–Ohio Valley League before that league merged with the Midwest League....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Strasburg, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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.—Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So, the infobox images of the team logos and cap insignias are getting targeted for improper fair use claims. From what I've seen, the Expos' cap insignia was deleted despite my best efforts to fight it. And the Orioles team logo was deleted uncontested. Is there anything we can do about this? TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 06:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a problem that goes well beyond baseball; graphics keep disappearing all over Wikipedia due to self-appointed Copyright Hall Monitors. It will probably take high-end admin action to get these busy little beavers to knock it off. Solicitr (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wanted other opinions since the articles are not in my wheelhouse. From 2011 until 2018, History of baseball was a redirect to Origins of baseball. In May 2018, part of the Baseball article was split and pasted at the History article. I am concerned that the incoming links to History were actually meant for the Origin article, and also I wondered if these 2 articles should be merged? I know it might be a long article, but if splits were needed they should be titled specifically rather than just a broad History or Origin article. Thoughts? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Bison X, "origins" and "history" are not the same thing, though the origins are part of the history. The origins include all of the pre-baseball precursor games, the Doubleday myth, etc., While the history of baseball concerns all of the different eras of baseball, including the dead ball era, integration era, steroid era, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never said they were the same thing. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say that "origins" turn into "history" with the formation of the NABBP in 1857. Solicitr (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bison X, but why then would you suggest they should be merged? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Color me crazy, but wasn't there at one time a page on the development of baseball team names, official and un-? Has it been deleted? And if we don't have one, shouldn't we?

And on a related topic, I suggest we start a discussion on regularizing pre-WW1 club names on a historically-correct basis, rather than the rather bogus Baseball Encyclopedia convention which seems to dominate (e.g. the Brooklyn club was never, ever named "Superbas;" that was a sportswriter handle akin to "Bronx Bombers." Solicitr (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

We are mostly going off the reliable sources.. baseball reference and the like .. sticking consistent with the names that they use. Changing that would likely be more confusing to readers. Spanneraol (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if BR and the BE are misrepresenting the actual names, then how "reliable" are they as sources in this department? As for "confusing readers"- isn't the purpose of Wiki to inform and educate, not coddle readers by perpetuating misinformation lest facts confuse them? Solicitr (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

History of baseball team nicknames? Lots of OR, needs improvement. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

MiLB.com have updated their roster template to reflect the MLB.com ones. I was wondering if we should remove all the players numbers because the new template lists their MLB/MiLB spring training camp rosters and since there won't likely be an MiLB season this year. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, I've updated the way the template handles the "MiLBcomName" parameter. Milb.com switched from a number to (usually) the team's city in lower case. The parameter will need to be updated in each roster template. The link for transactions may need to be modified too. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Also I can't find rookie ball rosters. All the links to them are dead. Only one that works is the mobile site. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

MiLB may still be working on those. The previous link to the AZL Rangers' roster (here) is dead with no new version available as of this moment. Also, the league transactions seem not to have changed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently working on Ray Burris' article. It was embarrassingly bad when I got to it. There's no reason a guy who had a 15 year career should have a 3 sentence article. I'd like to encourage others to expand articles that need expanding. If writing isn't your thing, I take suggestions.Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Mike Jackson (right-handed pitcher), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Hanigan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey all, I realize this may be a big ask, and maybe I'm alone in this. There's a lot of playoffs articles that include a "composite score" like so: 2019_World_Series#Composite line score. It combines all the individual inning scores across all the games. I'm sure people have put good-faith work into them. However... what is the point of these? I think Wikipedia is unusual in thinking this is a thing at all, I certainly don't recall older newspaper articles or books ever presenting this. It seems to be something Wikipedia made up. What is the relevance? Does it signify anything if one team scored more runs in the fifth inning and the other team did very well in the seventh inning? It's a box score of a fake game that never happened and had 3-7 times as much run scoring as normal. It's useless at best, misleading at worst.

Now, this shouldn't be confused with not having stats-in-general across a series. The total runs / hits / errors, sure, include those. Maybe even other series-wide stats, if desired, like walks, stolen bases, etc. The inning-by-inning scoring breakdown, however, just doesn't make sense. There's lots of ways to theoretically present the stats from a series - you could create some sort of runs-by-batting-order chart that rather than by inning, e.g. comparing runs scored by the #2 spots in each team's batting order. You could do runs scored by the player's zodiac sign. Fanciful, and about as useful.

Am I the only one who thinks all these are weird? Would anyone else be up for a policy deprecating these, and using an adjusted template that only had totals or useful series-wide statistics? SnowFire (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's sometimes useful, but not always. For instance, the 2015 Kansas City Royals were notable for winning a lot of their playoff games by coming from behind in the later innings. To demonstrate that point, a composite score would be useful. However, I'm not convinced those are useful in every situation. I wouldn't support deprecation, but I would support a scaling back of usage. Hog Farm (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are not reliable sources that present it, it should be deleted as WP:UNDUE.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Without some associated analysis, I don't believe this information is sufficiently important to include. isaacl (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• There's a bunch of research that says run differential is the best overall indication of a team's talent. That doesn't necessarily make composite score useful and I agree with the analysis above in terms of when it should and shouldn't be included - good example by Fram of when it should be, but overall we need to find those exceptions not consider it the norm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeing tentative support for this, I've removed a few of them, and will slowly remove some more if nobody complains. I'm not sure this change will "stick" however without some sort of guidance or policy, since I'm sure someone will see the composite score "missing" and run to fix it until they've been removed everywhere... I guess we'll see. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't discourage WP:BOLD editing, nor expect people to always know about prior discussions. However, the policy WP:ONUS alwasy applies: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article ...—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen the progress being made at Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge, and was thinking maybe it's time for us to work on some of the stubs in this project. Given baseball operations are mostly suspended right now, now would be as good of a time as any to expand all these 2-4 sentence articles we have. Thoughts? Wizardman 21:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

More or less the point I was making with my Ray Burris post. I'm currently working on Tom Murphy (pitcher). I'm having a hard time finding outside sources for him. So far, the only sources I've added are boxscores from games he's pitched.Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In your case I'd actually suggest signing up for newspapers.com through wmf at [2]. That's been a lifesaver for finding extra information on guys since google news is 100% useless at this point. Wizardman 16:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is nothing quite like newspapers.com to be able to read local newspaper coverage or see syndicated Associated Press articles. I would also request access to Gale, which has access to Sporting News (since 1977) and Baseball Digest (since 2000) articles. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I just did, but I think I created an account. Not sure how I access it, but it's created.Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You have to apply for access at the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. After your application is accepted, you will receive an email with details on how to log in. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Need a source. Many "RS" (a dubious classification with regard to early baseball), such as the Britannica, assert that Philadelphia N.L. officially adopted the name Phillies in 1890, making it the oldest team name in American professional sports. But I'll be darned if I can find a primary source backing up the assertion. Anyone? Solicitr (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

All articles in the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster article need a massive overhaul. It looks like these lists haven't been updated in nine years, which is a shame in a sense. The Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (I–J) for instance still lists Raúl Ibañez as on the active roster. The lists need massive statistical and player overhauls, and probably lead updates too for new players. I asked the author about this about a week ago but that user hasn't edited for a while. If someone wants to take up the mantle on these that would be great. I would also like to note the ref label template that Template:Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster/Key uses, and the corresponding note label templates the articles use has been depreciated for some time now. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Will need to be addressed to keep FL status.—Bagumba (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically every team all-time roster needs to be updated, other than the Dodgers one that I have kept up-to-date... though this one probably should be a priority to keep its status. Spanneraol (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There's an image of Dave Freisleben on his article showing him in a Padres uniform. I'm not 100% sure about all the rules on copyright images and stuff, but I'd like to change the image to one on the net that I find more relevant. How do I do that unobjectionably? I think I made that word up, but I think you all get it. Also, the line "National League Player of the Week (May 24-30, 1976" was removed from his infobox. Why? I get not including something like that for, say, Pete Rose or Derek Jeter or anyone else who has a series of far more impressive career highlights, but when someone has a far less glorious career, why not include items like that in an infobox? I believe standard rules on what is and isn't acceptable for a career highlight is ridiculous. Would I include "Topps Rookie All-Star" on Joe Morgan's page? No. Would I include it on Jose Alberto Laboy? Yeah, why not?Johnny Spasm (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For the infobox stuff there's no reason to pad it out with tiny accomplishments, that's what the body of the article is for (which, incidentally, is not in Laboy's article). As for the image, it depends if it's free use or not. Regardless of quality free always beats nonfree. What image is it? I can check to see if it's usable. Wizardman 19:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Freisleben modeled the "Washington Stars" uniform when the Padres were going to move to Washington before the 1974 season. Images of him modeling these uniforms are on the net. As far as padding an infobox, yes, tiny accomplishments are nothing more than padding on major stats' infoboxes. For the ones who didn't really accomplish much, I see no harm in including them.Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I started—then abandoned—an effort to built Postseason results page for Major League Baseball (see also NFL playoff results), and I want to get this project taken out of my hands with more collaborators. I plan on moving this sandbox draft to Major League Baseball postseason results in the near future. –Piranha249 21:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Would anybody be interested in a Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge to see 1000 baseball-related articles destubbed? Not a contest but it might be something which works to help improve existing content. If there is more than five people interested I'll create it.† Encyclopædius 11:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be. Sadly these days i dunno if we have 5 regulars expanding articles though. Wizardman 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but tbh, my interest in editing baseball-related articles is certainly down what with baseball being on hold. I know, I know, KBO and CPBL. It's not the same. :( – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement article was recently created and was assessed a GA rating (I changed it to Stub). It may need to be tagged for deletion, as the information could be detailed in Major League Baseball Players Association. However, I chose to bring it here because I can envision a fully detailed article about the current agreement as well as past agreements. If the project chose to keep it based on that, it would need to be renamed of course.Neonblak ^talk - 15:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there information that should go into that article rather than just the MLBPA article? That one seems to cover the history of contract negotiations already. Spanneraol (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think details of the CBA could go into its own article: rules around waivers, drafts, roster limits, scheduling, and so forth. I think it could act as a central place to discuss specific operational details, freeing up articles on those topics to discuss them from a higher perspective, such as their use in team-building strategy. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a valid split, personally. The MLBPA article should probably focus more on the history of the organization, and the CBA article could discuss the history of the various CBAs and their effects. Hog Farm (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

However, I believe that the article should be moved to Major League Baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement. There's a redirect in the way of the move, but that can be dealt with at RM and with histmerge of the redirect contents, if need be. The MOS is generally that MLB should be spelled out in article titles I believe. Hog Farm (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like we are gonna get a season... a shorter one than usual but still.... couple of things as we get ready to work the articles for this new season. 1) I think the season articles should contain the original game schedule as well as the new one... so we can discuss how it was changed as a result of the pandemic.. 2) Rosters... since they will be weird this season should we do a new roster template for the season (based off the spring training one) that lists the "taxi squad" or the 60 man "reserve list" instead of "inactive" players.. with maybe the 40-man roster guys designated with a *. What do you guys think? Spanneraol (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think listing the larger rosters initially makes sense. After the season, when we have a better sense of how they were used, we might choose to handle it differently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Well.. after the season it's not really relevant anymore unless they consider this for another season. Spanneraol (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to mark in every players articles if they test positive? Especially if they are asymptomatic.. I mean this could wind up being a lot of players so it seems really unnecessary and not encyclopedic... If they suffer serious illness from it sure but just getting a positive test? Anyone think this belongs? Spanneraol (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If they get put on the COVID IL and miss time once/if play resumes, I'd say it should be mentioned in the season summary for 2020 in the player's article. If they are asymptomatic over "Summer Camp" and don't miss any non-training time, I think there's a good case to be made for exclusion. Should most certainly not be in the lead IMO unless they get it really bad. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In past years I've used the release of the next season's schedule as my benchmark for the timing of the creation of team pages for the next season. MLB released the 2021 season schedule this week, but in my gut it feels too early to begin creating team pages for the 2021 season when there has yet to be a plate appearance for the 2020 season. (Some 2020 team pages don't even have the revised schedule in the game log for this year yet!) Is it time? Is it too early? Do we wait until about the 3rd week of August to begin creating those pages like we've done in past years? Bob305 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've always waited until the end of the current season to create next seasons pages... there isn't anything that can be added to them except the schedules. Spanneraol (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For MLB players there's a panel on the right hand side of the page with the player's picture and some basic info. For an example look at the page of 2020 #2 draft pick Heston Kjerstad. Conspicuously missing is the player's height and weight. This is something that many users would probably want to know. I tried editing the Infobox baseball biography part of the page but it didn't work. Any suggestions ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Comic Book Guy (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I've edited a lot of player pages from year's gone by (~1930s to present), and height and weight for the most part are not mentioned. In my opinion, those bodily stats play a more important role in basketball and football. In my opinion, I would leave it out of the article if height and weight were in the the "normal" range (i.e. Randy Johnson was of exceptional height, but even there it is not mentioned until much later in the article). Bob305 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Weight can fluctuate throughout a players career so putting an exact number in there involves too much pov and these arent really important factors in baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I remember reading in a sabermetrics book somewhere (I think by Rob Neyer) that official heights and weights are often somewhat inaccurate because players sometimes give the wrong information to give scouts a better impression. I'll need to find the exact reference, I think it was in Neyer's Power Ball. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I mean from a scouting perspective these are important but otherwise they're not really. So yeah I'm' also against adding these.-- Yankees10 01:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For background, here is the most recent discussion on this topic from the archives. My views are the same as before (and in the minority). isaacl (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Ty Cobb#It's time and past time to fix the batting average thing. I noticed this some of our articles have Cobbs lifetime average as .367 (Ty Cobb, and 3,000 hit club, and Ty Cobb (song), and List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable, and probably others) while others have .366 (Batting average (baseball), and List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders, and probably others). Whichever you believe, it's not good to be giving the reader different values in different places I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It should probably be listed as .366 with a note that it is disputed. Spanneraol (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

But it's not disputed. Who disputes it? There's no scientific research on the .367 side of the matter.We go with academic and scientific research. That's why we don't say its disputed that cavemen rode dinosaurs. You can always get someone with a dog in the fight to take take contrary position on anything, that doesn't mean it's disputed. (We can note something like "It used to be thought to be .367, and some sources still give this old incorrect number" or whatever.) Herostratus (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well..MLB still lists it as .367 which is what I meant by disputed. Spanneraol (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference and the Hall of Fame website give .366, MLB.com uses .367. probably best to use .366 but state some sources give .367. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, as long as we don't imply that there's any scientific evidence for .367. At Shape of the Earth we don't say "The shape of the Earth is disputed. According to Mesopotamian sources, the Earth is a flat disk floating in the in ocean, but other sources say that the Earth is a sphere". We can and do describe Mesopotamian cosmology and show how more advanced research in Greek times disproved it. That's different from saying "disputed". If there was counter-research showing .366 was wrong, that'd be different. But I've never seen any evidence of that, and I've been around the track a couple times. Herostratus (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah .366 is the correct career average for Cobb, but .367 is the MLB official career average for Cobb. This SABR piece explains it pretty well. I'd say use .366 in the article, and have a footnote explaining that .367 is official, but is widely considered to be incorrect. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame has an interesting article on re-examining the statistical record by Dave Smith, founder of Retrosheet. It includes a mention of sports writer Leonard Koppett who apparently wrote about the distinction between "official" and "accurate". isaacl (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey all, have a proposition for you. I'm a paid staff member of Baseball Prospectus but also a longtime editor of Wikipedia (see my COI disclosure on my user page). There's interest at BP in updating the Wiki article. They're not trying to whitewash anything (e.g., the criticism section); rather, they want to bring the article more up to date with what the site has been doing lately. I'm fully aware that editing on behalf of your employer is frowned upon, so I'd like to work with the community here to only make changes we agree are compliant with Wikipedia's core policies. How does the community feel about working with me to implement some changes in that vein? If Muboshgu is available for input, I'd like to hear his thoughts. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Jprg1966, I was not aware that you work there. I'm a current subscriber to BP. The bat signal has been helpful for my fantasy league. Thanks for disclosing the COI. We can work together to make updates. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, good to hear! On the BP side of the house we're going to start planning for how we want to go about this internally. Where should I reach out for edit requests or updates? Article talk page? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Jprg1966, probably best to do it there. It's on my watchlist. Any other editors interested in WP:BASEBALL can consider this their invitation to participate there too. We can take whatever is internally wanted under advisement, and we will work to make sure it meets NPOV and all other relevant policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

With the page List of baseball players who went directly to Major League Baseball, we should be seeing a few more entries on this list?

With the minor league season being cancelled, the college and high school players selected in the 2020 Major League Baseball draft that goes on to make their MLB debut this year should qualify to be put on the list, right?

Or would it be better to have a special subsection on that page dedicated to the effects of coronavirus, and list the affected players there? Canuck^{89 (Converse with me)} 11:23, July 24, 2020 (UTC)

Only if those players actually appear in a MLB game.. just being in the player pool doesn't qualify them for that list. Spanneraol (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's see if it happens first, there's no guarantee, especially in the age of service time gaming, that this will actually happen. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is here[3]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been over a month since List of Major League Baseball players with a home run in their first major league at bat was nominated for FL. If a couple of folks from our baseball community can give it a quick look and some input, that would be much appreciated. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster and their prodigy for FL Review at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster/archive1. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yea.. I have tried to contact the page creator a few times but he isn't around anymore.... Honestly all the all-time roster pages need major updating... I've kept the Dodgers list up-to-date but don't have the energy or enthusiasm to tackle all the other teams. Spanneraol (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, To fix the right side page overflow issue, I changed the "Page Content" lines from transclude to wikilinks instead. At "Statistics" section I added progression, pie graph, rainbow, wikilink QO daily log and popular pages. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought this Wikiproject should be made aware that many, if not most, cap insignias have been listed at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_August_14. Interested editors may wish to comment there. Indeed, if consensus emerges that cap logos violate the NFCC, this Wikiproject's manual of style may need to be updated. schetm (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The above article includes this sentence:

Coleman's duties were expanded to being host of Mets Extra (and later a fill-in play-by-play) when former host Howie Rose was hired to do play-by-play for the Mets and the Islanders games on SportsChannel New York.

SportsChannel New York is a wikilink, however I'm not sure what its target should be. Either MSG Plus or SportsChannel. The page SportsChannel New York currently redirects to the former, for what it's worth. Which one should I use? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

MSG_Plus#SportsChannel_New_York is probably most appropriate. The "SportsChannel" article is about the umbrella "brand" of regional networks whereas the MSG Plus was the NY regional version, SportsChannel New York. only (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds right, thanks. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 12:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I was recently contacted by Fugitiveartist, the granddaughter of Howie Williamson, who offered to help expand the article. I've tried to explain our verifiability and original research policies, but beyond that I'd appreciate it if a more experienced content worker was able to chime in with advice that will probably be more helpful than mine. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello and good day. Go to career statistics, line where it has his Hits per 9 innings stat. Change 7.84 to 7.47. Source: Baseball Reference pitching leaderboards: hits per 9 innings pitched. Seaver is #39.(round to three figures, 7.47). Thank you for your time.2601:581:8402:1EE0:D945:D5B4:306D:41AC (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I created an article this week on the 1919 Detroit Stars season. However, I found the Template:Infobox baseball season yearly a bit confusing, and it's kind of messed up. If anyone here is familiar with the workings of the template, I would appreciate help in fixing the layout in the 1919 Stars article. Thanks, Cbl62 (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The following World Series articles individual game narratives (all or most) can be expanded. They are 1909, 1910, 1915, 1917, 1920, 1934 and 1944 World Series. Have a good day.2601:581:8402:1EE0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The season article style guide (Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/MLB team season articles format) does not specify a standard for the opening sentence. I'm not suggesting we must have one, as one size does not necessarily fit all, but I thought I'd get some feedback on some alternatives and see what's working well and what could be improved. My starting point was noticing that many such articles don't meet Manual of Style guideines for the first sentence (MOS:BOLDAVOID etc.), so I am intending to fix some of these.

• 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season is a Good Article and begins "The Philadelphia Phillies' 2008 season was the 126th in the history of the franchise."
• For 2014 New York Mets season, I went with "The 2014 season was the 53rd season in the history of the New York Mets."
• I was also considering "The 2014 season was the 53rd season in the history of the New York Mets." (adds an extra link)

Interested to hear what others think about what links to include and how it is phrased. --Jameboy (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I would definitely be in favor of using the wording in the Phillies article that you cited. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think most of the current articles start similarly to the Phillies article... but I don't know if they all have to be exactly the same. Spanneraol (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My requirements are follow MOS:BOLDAVOID and provide links to the team article and the respective MLB season. In the above Mets example, "2014 season" is MOS:EGGy and should be expanded to 2014 Major League Baseball season.—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed a bunch of Yankees related biographical articles have had there infobox photos changed out to blurry screenshots from YES Network press conferences. Examples are this version of Buck Showalter and Mike Ford (baseball), where the infobox photo was updated to an image of him that is more recent and front facing, but in my opinion is far less descriptive and clear as the previous image. I think that while newer is ideal preferable, a clearer image is far more important and that in general having a headshot is not particularly important for athlete infoboxes. I have already started changing some of them back but I'd like to also build a consensus. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If those photos are just screen captures off of the TV broadcasts I would think they would have copyright issues and should be deleted anyway. But yea those are terrible photos, if another one is available i'd use that Spanneraol (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be COPYVIO, the YouTube link it's pulled from is the official channel for the network and has a CC release statement in the summary. For the Mike Ford, one, at least, it does. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright or not, they look terrible and aren't better than a clear shot. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@GPL93: In case you haven't already seen: Wikipedia’s Best Worst NBA Photos Are Modern Art.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Thank you, this has made my Monday morning! It reminds me of when Mark Titus said on his podcast that its his goal to get a photo on his page, but a "real one" that was clearly taken from across the street or while he's at a diner and looking away and not a professional shot. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This editor needs help. He thinks it is a fine idea to (use tools to) revert proper updates to infoboxes of baseball stats. As he did here. I asked why he did that. He thinks a ref is needed with each update - and says that otherwise it is vandalism.

I tried explaining things to him without success. Can someone set him straight before I lose it? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B1D8:2CA1:6CE6:78E8 (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:V: ... and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. A non-baseball editor could legitimately not know where the information came from. There's no existing reference link in the infobox. It's not sourced in the body. If it's challenged (or not), just put the reference's URL in the edit summary.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A fairly new user has split the Vancouver Canadians into two articles: Vancouver Canadians (the current Northwest League franchise) and Vancouver Canadians (PCL) (a team that preceded it in the Pacific Coast League). Succinctly, the PCL team relocated to Sacramento, and a NWL team was acquired and relocated to continue as the Canadians. I’m of the opinion that they are the same team and should be merged back to Vancouver Canadians.

I know this has been discussed before, but I wanted to see if we are still of the same consensus. We may see more of this in the coming months with the likelihood that several MiLB teams may change classifications and/or leagues, this would be a good discussion to point back to when handling those changes. (I’m also temporarily with out a desktop internet connection, so I can’t perform the reverts myself very easily.) NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, the current franchise is a completely different organization that just shares the same team name as the previous one? In that case I feel the two separate organizations should have separate pages. isaacl (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is an announcement that the new Canadians franchise is inheriting all records, history, etc from the relocated franchise, a la the Charlotte Hornets inheriting the Charlotte history from the New Orleans Pelicans franchise or the Cleveland Browns inheriting their Cleveland history from the Baltimore Ravens franchise, I think they should be treated as two distinct teams. However, I am not clear on what the consensus is for maintaining articles for previous iterations of minor league baseball teams that have relocated - I think makes more sense for the PCL team's article title to be renamed to in accordance with their new Sacramento name and for it to preserve the team's history from Vancouver, rather than forking the history into a separate article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sacramento doesn’t recognize their preceding history in Vancouver, so placing the full history at Sacramento River Cats would be inappropriate. Typically when a team moves to another city we consider it a new team with a separate article. Another related example is the Nashville Sounds—the original Southern League franchise was relocated to Huntsville while an American Association team was relocated from Evansville to Nashville to continue as the Sounds at Triple-A. Each of those three teams recognize only the history in their cities. Thusly, we have Nashville Sounds, Evansville Triplets, and Huntsville Stars. This series of moves seems to be similar to Vancouver–Sacramento. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pemilligan: We briefly talked about this with another recent relocation. Do you have an opinion on this one? NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, now I'm convinced that that I was wrong and the Canadians are indeed two separate franchises using the same identity. In the rare instances that the current team references the PCL team, they tend to call them the "Pacific Coast League Vancouver Canadians". This is a marked difference from the ways Nashville, Norfolk, Charlotte, etc handle their histories. Sorry to bother everyone. Hopefully the forthcoming 2021 MiLB changes will be clearly laidout to avoid this kind of confusion. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

We haven't really been consistent about minor league franchises... sometimes we talk about the history in a city sometimes we talk about teams having moved from one city to another... I think it really depends on the situation... as often the franchise itself doesnt really move but the Major League team transfers their franchise rights to a different city... it's not the same as what happens with major league teams moving. For the more recent teams or teams in different leagues like Vancouver I think separate articles is fine.. for older teams where there isnt much info on them... grouping a bunch of teams into one article is also fine. Spanneraol (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the split into Vancouver Canadians (Northwest League) and Vancouver Canadians (PCL) (and Sacramento River Cats for that matter). There are too many differences between Class A Short Season and AAA to call it the Canadians the same team. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

How does one edit the infoboxes for the Wild Card Game articles? I'm trying to add in 2020 American League Wild Card Series & 2020 National League Wild Card Series to the infoboxes at 2019 American League Wild Card Game & 2019 National League Wild Card Game articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on a quick look of the code of the Wild Card Game infobox, it looks like the 2020 games will automatically be added if it finds the existence of 2020 American League Wild Card Series 2020 American League Wild Card Game or 2020 National League Wild Card Series 2020 National League Wild Card Game articles. The problem is the playoff format for 2020 will be different, and thus the article names will need to be different as well. We may need to either change the code or create a redirect from those redlinks to the true article names. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC) note: I've edited my original comment to correct a typo Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You were correct. I've just created the two articles 2020 American League Wild Card Series & 2020 National League Wild Card Series, with accompanying re-directs. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've also created 2020 American League Division Series, 2020 National League Division Series, 2020 American League Championship Series & 2020 National League Championship Series articles, which have been re-directed to the 2020 Major League Baseball season article, for now. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the playoff format for 2020 will be different, and thus the article names will need to be different as well.: Won't the playoffs still unchanged at a high level with wild card, division, and league championship series?[4]—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

At a high level it's significantly different, with sixteen teams in the playoffs instead of ten, and all of them playing in a multiple-game wild card series rather than just a single wild card game between two wild card teams. From the infobox point of view, it assumes the link to the analogous page for the previous season / next season has a specific format for the name, "year league Wild Card Game", which breaks down for 2020 as the page name is changing. isaacl (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I overlooked the wild card game vs "series" naming. Division and LCS names remain the same.—Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The template could be modified to allow an overriding page to be specified for the next season / previous season, as is done with ((Infobox MLB yearly)) (I implemented it that way to handle franchise moves). isaacl (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I implemented support for next_season and prev_season parameters in Template:Infobox baseball league wild card game/sandbox and added test cases for 2019 and 2021. If there is support for this approach, I can update the main template. isaacl (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I've updated ((Infobox baseball league wild card game)) and its documentation, as well as the 2019 wild card game pages with the overriding link. Please feel free to provide any feedback. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be updated, so it will show the extra playoffs teams. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

None of the other playoff teams have clinched their spots yet. The "Wild Card Game" should be changed to "Wild Card Series" as that is what they are calling it this year. Spanneraol (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't know how to change WCG to WCS, for this template. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe some kind of special "marker" in the template for this year? Like if anyone is good at programming templates, can put an option in there saying something like "series=yes" that changes the template to dispay "series" instead of "game" for 2020, while leaving the rest of the previous years templates as they are.Canuck^{89 (What's up?)} 22:28, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

There's a "wc" parameter that can be set to yes or no indicating if the link to the wild card game should be included (defaults to yes). It could be modified to support "series", for example, to display a link to a wild card series page. I can take a look at the changes if there is interest. isaacl (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I implemented support for a "series" value for the wc parameter in Template:Mlb playoffs navbox/sandbox, and added some test cases to test no wild card links, links to the wild card game pages, and links to the wild card series pages. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I see User:Santiago Claudio implemented support for a "wcs" parameter. Does anyone have a preference for reusing the wc parameter versus having a new parameter? isaacl (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

From a user perspective I think it's easier to have just the wc parameter rather than two, particularly since they should be mutually exclusive (the way it's coded now, since wc defaults to "yes", you have to include both wc=no and wcs=yes). isaacl (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Since there is no 2020 Major League Baseball postseason article, wouldn't it make sense to combine Template:2020 MLB season by team and Template:2020 MLB Playoffs navbox into Template:2020 MLB season? --Jameboy (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Better to stay consistent with previous years. Spanneraol (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What I'm proposing would add consistency. Currently we have two teams called "Chicago" in one template and Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox in the other (the latter, with the full team name seems clearer). If the change is acceptable, the previous years could be changed accordingly and I'm willing to work on that. --Jameboy (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are just suggesting adding the playoff series to the season template... but the post-season one groups just the playoff teams which has a purpose. I don't see any great need to make such a change. Spanneraol (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That is what I'm suggesting but I do see what you mean in terms of navigating between just the postseason teams, especially for "normal" seasons when only a few teams qualify. I will withdraw my suggestion for now. --Jameboy (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of new articles sourced to it, so I wanted to confirm whether it's considered WP:RS. Thanks for any guidance anyone can offer. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Yes, it is.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say so. I've used it in a successful GA nomination of Alex Gordon with no issues. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, this consensus view is documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice § Reliable sources. (Note the wiki portion of Baseball Reference is not a reliable source.) isaacl (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the short description that appears at the bottom of ((Infobox baseball league wild card game)). Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on bringing the Brooks Pounders article up to GA status, and noticed during the effort that I can't find a link for pitching mechanics, and didn't notice an entry in either the M or P glossary of baseball pages, although I may have just missed it. Do we have an article or list entry on this subject somewhere, because it's a fairly fundamental concept. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Pitch (baseball) goes into mechanics of the various pitches a bit, with each type of pitch being fleshed out a bit more in their respective articles. --Torsodog^Talk 03:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: the closest article would be pitching position. But that covers only the windup and set positions (and not the motion). I agree, it's quite fundamental, given the number of articles written on it [5][6]. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm almost sure that a GNG-passing article could be written on the subject. There's even medical articles written on the relation between pitching mechanics and injury. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

An article if written would have to make sure it don't violate WP:OR or namely the part about synth. That is taking two references to say something neither of them states. I find original research in WP baseball articles regularly....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It isn't showing up in the project's article alerts, so if you'd like to chime in on the deletion of the now-defunct team rosters in the Appalachian League, you may do so at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 29#Appalachian League rosters. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Having received no comments, it the discussion has been relisted here. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys.. where are the team colors from the templates set? Someone changed the Dodgers secondary color to Red.... and red is really not a significant color in their scheme... it should be blue/white like it was before... But I can't figure out where those are set. Spanneraol (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The team colours used by ((Baseball primary style)) and ((Baseball secondary style)) are defined in Module:Sports color/baseball. The usual editor who changes these colours made the change. isaacl (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Spanneraol (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and good day. Go to Adolfo Phillips page, reference section. June and 11, 1967 are spaced far apart and I don't know how to correct that. Correct so it so it is together. (June 11, 1967). Thank you.2601:581:8402:1EE0:2549:D739:8645:E35F (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, hoping for some advice on naming conventions. Because of a second Ron Tompkins, I need to disambiguate the baseball player Ronald Everett Tompkins. Might someone from this project suggest what I rename his page? The other Ron Tompkins is a doctor, not a baseball player, if that helps. Thanks for the assistance! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The proper disamb would be Ron Tompkins (baseball). Spanneraol (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players).—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Innisfree987: If "Ron" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the doctor, a WP:HATNOTE at the baseball player would be more suitable than renaming.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the use of team colors in baseball articles at Module talk:Sports color#A couple of issues with these colours. The particular focus is on the use of dark backgrounds in sortable tables, which obscures sort arrows, and blue text that may appear to look like a hyperlink. Any interested parties are invited to weigh in there. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Some editors have been changing the infobox on the Major League Baseball page so the "current season" field points to the current World Series instead of the MLB season article. The infobox, being a generic sports league one, does use the label "Current season, competition or edition". Nonetheless, personally I feel the MLB season article encompasses both the regular season and the playoffs, and would be an appropriate entry for the infobox. I think "competition" is better suited for sports that don't feature a regular season plus playoffs, but regardless, I don't think it's a good fit for describing the current phase of the Major League Baseball schedule. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The World Series is not a "season" so that should continue to point to the season article... should probably change the label to just reflect current season so it's not confusing. Spanneraol (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The template would have to be changed to support configuring the label. A new parameter could be added to specify what the label should say. Someone started Template talk:Infobox sports league#Remove or customize the current season caption in 2017 but seems they were content with the option to move the link to the bottom, without any label. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In the infobox, it says Current season, competition or edition:. The World Series would be considered a competition or edition so I don't see why this is even an issue, considering that linking to WS articles in the MLB infobox has been happening for years, as well as the Super Bowl for the NFL infobox, NBA finals for the NBA and Stanley Cup Finals for the NHL. - Richiekim (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The template is made for our use and not us for the template, so we can decide what would be most appropriate to link to. I see you altered the infobox in previous years (I just looked back four years: 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016). Let's talk about it now to determine what people believe would be most useful, so we can have a consensus to point to in future. isaacl (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree the regular season should be linked from the infobox. The World Series is part of that season and so is but one leap away. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It should link to the season article. No need to direct the reader to certain portions of the season in that infobox. If the reader wishes to dive deeper into certain portions of the season, they can easily do that from the season article. --Torsodog^Talk 00:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Should be linked to the 2020 MLB season article. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

1. 100% it should go to World Series as per previous years and other leagues (NHL this year, NBA this year, NFL Playoffs last year, NFL Super Bowl earlier this year, and isaacl's examples above).
2. Generally when referring to season, it refers to the regular season (watch any sports talk, season vs playoffs is clearly differentiated. please see: Season Structure: in regards to when the All-Star Game is: "In early-to-mid July, just after the midway point of the season" this is referring to midway point of the regular season (162 games), and in baseball 'playoffs' are officially called the Postseason. Can we view click through rates somehow? I would be curious, but willing to wager people like clicking to the current 'contest' (I have worked in analytics) (and on a personal level, I always type MLB, NHL, etc. in the main page then click to get to the post-season, playoffs, etc. quickly (without having to search the first few paragraphs, re: "one leap away" from Barkeep49 above)) as I prefer this vs official sports sites for a clean/quick up to date look).
3. And, from a NPOV based on the language, World Series (Stanley Cup Finals, NBA Finals, and Super Bowl) are indeed competitions as per the infobox. This seems to have stemmed from one editor's edit, so, based on previous precedent, I will be bold and switch it to how it is normally (and generally during a dispute, the way it was is left active until a dispute is resolved I believe), and I have submitted a Wikipedia:Third opinion request. It sounds like the above edit conflicts stem from infobox vocabulary used for the most part, and in the World Series article under The original World Series, the third paragraph starts "The 19th-century competitions are...". So, indeed, perhaps more infobox template talk is needed. Thanks kindly! Baseballfan (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that wording is because this info box is used on various other articles that deal with tournaments and the like.. but it's kinda silly to be constantly changing that field to whatever game is being played that day.. should stick with the season. Spanneraol (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That is absolutely why it is there. To change that infobox link just for the World Series is impractical and nonsensical. Do we change it for the other postseason series? Why not change it to links for the NLCS and ALCS? The Division Series? Where does it stop? The point of the link is that a reader can quickly go to the league's current season. They can dive deeper from there if necessary. --Torsodog^Talk 04:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Though I welcome any feedback, note that the third-opinion process is intended to solicit a third opinion when only two persons are involved in the discussion, and there are many beyond two right now. Again, we get to decide how to use the infobox; just because someone designed it with a lot of flexible options to be used across all kinds of sports doesn't mean that we are compelled to make use of all of its flexibility. isaacl (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think of the current season link as a hatnote of sorts. Someone enters MLB wanting to know what is happening currently this season, not historically, but it's ambiguous with the league, MLB, itself. Someone who then wants the playoffs or what not can get there through the current season page's TOC. Though I would think they would enter "MLB playoffs" or "World Series" otherwise. Yeah, the template should be customizable to display something more specific than verbose "Current season, competition or edition".—Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a consensus about including “US” after City, State in Template:Infobox baseball biography? User:Nikkimaria is adding it to several players (example). If there is no consensus against this, then she is certainly within her rights to add it. I know it hasn’t been standard practice to add it, but that is not the same as a consensus. Rikster2 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE says "A United States city's article should never be titled 'city, country' (e.g., 'Detroit, United States') or 'city, state, country' (e.g., 'Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.'); that is contrary to general American usage." Not sure if that extends to referring to a city in an article, but I would bet that it does. Klohinx^talk 03:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It does not; it's a titling convention for articles. There are many infoboxes that explicitly use 'city, state, country' for locations including US. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently noted that Alex Gordon does not have his two Platinum Glove awards listed with his achievements. I attempted to add them, as they are listed for Matt Chapman, Nolan Arenado, Yadier Molina, and all other winners of the award; however, my edits were reverted twice. Shouldn’t they be a part of his achievements?

The Kip (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice, there is no consensus to add it as an infobox highlight. I am personally not opposed to it, but it should be listed there to avoid future issues.-- Yankees10 02:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me (((u|Tom (LT)))) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

New article idea I'm working on that I need help with for awhile. –Piranha249 18:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Further elaboration, someone started an article devoted to this late last month, but I'm rebuilding it using the structure of the NHL and NBA articles, but not without your help. –Piranha249 17:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume that the table can now be removed from Game seven#Major League Baseball? It seems too detailed to exist in both places. --Jameboy (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, this new table will replace the separate old tables for the World Series and League Championship Series. The old WS table will stay on the game seven article. –Piranha249 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the talk page for the Major League Baseball rivalries article regarding the appropriateness of a recent addition. There are other recent additions as well that might warrant discussion. Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed recently a lot of team presidents were listed as President of Baseball Operations in teams infobox. I corrected that as they are very different jobs, however I find it strange that we don't have a spot for team president in the infobox. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

They are definitely different positions and should not be listed as PBO unless they also have that title. Spanneraol (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, but what I'm saying is that shouldn't we add a spot in the infobox for team president? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding one. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the person in charge of overall business decisions, which is typically the team president, is a significant role for a baseball organization and is reasonable to include in the team infobox. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to add a new line to an infobox? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added it to the MLB Team infobox template, can't add it to the yearly infobox though cause that one is protected for some reason. Spanneraol (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the yearly infobox appears on every season article, it's included in a large number of pages. Thus it was identified as a candidate for template protection and protected. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've edited in the past, so must have been a more recent change... If one of our admins can add the President parameter to that would be helpful. Spanneraol (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

February 2018... Oddly, I remember creating this change in 2010, but the update to the template was made by you, not me, and I can't find any contributions by me around that time discussing it... (I might have put it in a sandbox somewhere, but I would have thought I could find some discussion about it.) isaacl (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely remember a discussion about it.... I think it was in someone's sandbox.. probably yours.. and then I added it to the template from there. Spanneraol (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to make a street baseball article, which would broadly summarize the differences between various games in Category:Baseball genres from regular baseball, and could someone make it? I don't know the finer points of many of those games, but I think it could be interesting to have a definitive article to link to from Baseball, and it also might be somewhat useful for comparing street cricket in the Comparison between baseball and cricket article. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

How would street baseball differ from stickball? Echoedmyron (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

For now, I'll put a redirect to that. I suppose it might be interesting to see an article covering variations like stoop ball; in addition, there are so many games closely related to baseball (like kickball) that an article akin to Forms of cricket might be a helpful overview. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a third opinion over at Talk:White Flag Trade, where Dennis Osmosis and I are at a bit of an impasse regarding the tone of the article. I came across the article looking like this a couple weeks ago, and was surprised at the relatively positive tone of the article given what I could find in external sources. I made this addition, Dennis reverted, and that's where the discussion on the talk page starts. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I was coming at the article from a totally neutral POV as I hadn't even heard of the White Flag Trade before I read the article. The more research I do, and the more contemporary sources I read (and have added), it seems like the reactions today to the trade are definitely mixed. I have continued to discuss on the talk page, and I didn't realize we were at an "impasse", as I thought the discussion was still ongoing. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and good day. Cecil Perkins age in infobox has to be changed from 79 to 80. I cant figure out how to change that. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8402:1EE0:FD80:78A2:FA58:D25D (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. It needed to be purged to update "automatically".—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it's clear that the Minor League Baseball article, the articles on the affiliated minor leagues, and the List of Minor League Baseball leagues and teams are going to need major overhauls soon to keep it updated to reflect the changes being wrought. That said, I think it's best if we a) don't try to piecemeal the changes b) don't report rumors as facts, and c) wait until the full lineup of leagues, affiliates, and classifications are known. It won't be too long what with the initial trickle of info released already. Per WP:NOTNEWS, I think it's best if we just plain wait for all info to be known, therefore don't fall into the trap of WP:CRYSTALBALL issues. oknazevad (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree... Best too wait for official announcements before making a bunch of changes... it's all gonna be changing. Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree. Provided the changes are well sourced, reliable, and "official", I don't see any problem in applying those changes to articles. As we know, there will be lots to change, so we may as well change what we know when we know it. On the other hand, I do see how it might be confusing when only parts of the overhaul are reflected. I've tried to make sure the changes I've made and reviewed on my watchlist reflect what is known rather than what is rumored or assumed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Are we going to pretend the New York Penn League and other defunct leagues didn't exist? Category:New York–Penn League ballparks is on my watchlist and has all of its articles de-tagged so it it is up Speedy Deletion. I would think the category is still relevant for the former ballparks. I understand the navbox templates for those leagues being deleted. --Michael Greiner 05:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of the Florida State League and Midwest League (I think), those league ballpark categories are used for currently used ballparks only. Category:Former New York–Penn League ballparks could be created and applied to all parks that have once hosted NYPL teams. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems kinda silly to do that... They were still NY-Penn League ballparks... the category didn't have "current" on it... so it should remain for parks that used to be in that league. Spanneraol (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Then, put Category:New York–Penn League ballparks on every NYPL ballpark. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see this article. This may have massive implications for any articles on MLB statistics and records. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That is some big news and will require some thought from us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should wait till Baseball Reference or MLB update THEIR records pages and then use those to update ours. Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The article said that MLB is working with Elias to determine what reliable info exists that could justify statistical changes. We should wait to hear what those changes are. In the meantime, we may want to identify all the statistics/records articles that exist for MLB and the Negro leagues and compile a list so we at least know the population of articles that are likely to need edits (and that's not even factoring in the individual player articles). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Are they including all the Negro Leagues?... I'm not as well versed on that history but there were several different leagues.... We will need to add them to our MLB yearly season pages for sure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

They are going to be using statistics from seven specific Negro Leagues. There were minor leagues for the Negro Leagues as well. (Skilgis1900 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC))

I think waiting until Baseball Reference and MLB update is a good idea. This is a major decision, and it'll probably stick, but if it doesn't, it'd be annoying to have to change everything back. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

See post at Village Pump Technical, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source indicating that the copyrights to Bowman baseball cards were never renewed? Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice recommends them for use in articles, and there's a template indicating that they're in the public domain, but there doesn't seem to be any authority for the assertion. I ask because this issue came up in an FA review. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The template has a search link which I imagine can be used to search for the image in question to see if a copyright renewal was filed. isaacl (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think going forward, we should try to create one postseason article for all rounds through the World Series, as the idea of arbitrarily splitting by round and league is ineffective. –Piranha249 17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That would create unnecessarily long articles. Spanneraol (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Spanneraol: Not if you summarize each series, like other playoff articles have. I've developed a prototype of how we can achieve this consolidation. Some current postseason articles, like the 2003 and 2004 ALCS (and all WS articles, of course), may end up being retained if they are of greater importance. But the rest can be consolidated into one article, like the other leagues do (see also 2019 NBA playoffs, 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs, and 2019–20 NFL playoffs). –Piranha249 18:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

the LCS series should definitely remain separate as those have a long and important history.. and the championships of the leagues matter more than the conference championships in the NBA and football is just individual games. Spanneraol (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, I think the wild card round could be one consolidated article. Why we have separate articles for individual games of the postseason, I'm not sure (probably evolved that way from tiebreaker games of the past when wild card games were not built into the postseason). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

At least some of the Wild Card games should keep individual articles. For instance, ones like the 2014 American League Wild Card Game that get cited as among the iconic games. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

One more addition, I've proposed consolidating several articles (List of Major League Baseball postseason teams, League Championship Series, Division Series, and Major League Baseball wild card) into an expanded Major League Baseball postseason article, as it makes no sense to have these as separate articles currently. I've also proposed all series results be centralized into a postseason results article, starting with the ALDS, NLDS, and Wild Card Games. –Piranha249 21:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I recently overhauled the NPB postseason articles in a similar way. When creating Nippon Professional Baseball playoffs, I tried looking to an MLB equivalent for guidance and was surprised by how all over the place the the MLB postseason articles were. For the yearly NPB postseason articles, I lump all of each league's postseason into one article and I think that it works well (e.g. 2019 PLCS). Granted, NPB's playoffs are less complicated than MLB's. --Torsodog^Talk 22:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for opinions on what should and shouldn't be included in this infobox. It isn't the most bloated infobox I've ever seen, but perhaps some changes could be made. Infinite mission (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We definitely should get rid of "Hall of Famers", as this only retroactively applies when a player is elected to the HOF in the future and has no bearing on the series as played. I'm not sure which instances Manager of the Year is even applicable to (Japanese series perhaps?) but I don't see why that is needed. I also think ALCS and NLCS can be dropped. While those series ultimately determine the competitors in a World Series, we already know who the contestants are and I don't think we need to summarize previous postseason series results for the World Series infobox (a link to the postseason article should be sufficient). If I had it my way, we would also consolidate the TV and radio parameters, but that doesn't simply reduce the amount of details that would be listed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that the Japan Series does not use the Manager of the Year parameter. That award doesn't even exist seasonally for NPB.--Torsodog^Talk 07:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. What other use cases are there? Mexican or Korean professional leagues? College World Series? There has to be a reason the parameter was added in the first place. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it is used in a couple of Taiwan Series articles, for example 2008 Taiwan Series. --Torsodog^Talk 15:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, so a very limited use case. I'm fine with leaving that parameter, since it is unlikely to be widely used outside of the Taiwan Series. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove the broadcast parameters. They are not key, must-know information that defines a series. It's been removed for a few years now from NBA Finals' infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd also remove the umpires, another niche piece of info.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd remove the broadcast, and "Hall of Famers" parameters. As others have said those things don't have any bearing on the series at all. However I think the information all the other parameters provide are important to the series being played. Maxorca (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know the correct or I guess standard making for teams like the Kansas City Monarchs (2021-)? Something about that doesn’t look right but I’m not sure what... Corky 18:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend Kansas City Monarchs (American Association). NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be a good choice, though I think dates are more useful as there's been multiple American Associations over the years. So I'd say Kansas City Monarchs (2021–present) (note the dash). Either was it needs a disambiguator, as the Indy team has had the name for a day, and is not as notable as the historic team, which remains the primary topic. (There is zero support in the guideline for the idea that a current entity is automatically primary over historical ones, so let's get that out of the way right away. I'd also oppose any call to have the bare name be a disambiguation page at this time.) oknazevad (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Went ahead and moved it to the (2021–present) title because the dash is needed per MOS:DASH (the hyphen is incorrect) and per MOS:DATERANGE. oknazevad (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and good day. In 1928 Detroit Tigers season, other batters, when adding Paul Easterling, my addition (edit) was denied, claimed as not constructive. There must be a slight problem on my end why I am denied entering that. His stats came from the Baseball Reference page. Hope someone can help me with this. Had this problem over 2 years ago but cleared up. Have a good day.2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems the issue has been resolved for now. Please disregard.2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Was having a conversation with some users on WikiProject NBA's talk page, and the topic of using Module:Sports table came up. It made me consider why many NA leagues still don't use the module, and also to try and build an experimental sports table for the League and Division-level standings (eventually).

My plan for these developments is to base them on standings like the 2012–13 NHL Conference standings, including a cut-off line between the postseason teams and those in the hunt. What's your thoughts? –Piranha249 02:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned last time we discussed this, a new style would be required for baseball, with multiple output formats for the different types of tables that are currently generated by ((MLB standings)) (that is, by the underlying module, Module:MLB standings). Baseball is unique in having a "games behind"-based ranking, with half games. The input format is considerably different, so either existing uses of ((MLB standings)) would have to be modified, or Module:Sports table would have to be modified to support a new input format. As the implementer of Module:MLB standings, it's no surprise that I prefer its input format—I deliberately designed it to minimize the amount of characters needed to represent the stats for each team. Personally, I'm not clear on the advantages of changing. isaacl (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

So, it's come to my attention through my reading at Baseball America that the historic minor league names may not be used for the newly structured minor leagues. And that includes the name "Minor League Baseball" due to rights issues. Apparently the way the reorganization is actually legally being structured all the invited teams are formally leaving their existing leagues and joining new leagues under direct MLB control. And none of the league lineups are actually set yet. So there may have to be a lot of redoing of the work already done on the subject once it becomes clear over the next few weeks. Especially since these would not be legally the same leagues that they were previously in. This is why I wanted to wait to make wholesale changes, as it was a lot more complex than we thought. oknazevad (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• There's no reason to suspect the leagues won't retain their histories. We may have to discuss the status of MiLB the organization at some point, but we should wait for the situation to clear up before we try to make changes. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But that's just it. Baseball America (a reliable source) is basically stating that the leagues won't even have the same names, unless a deal can be worked out. oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

And they have a while to work out a deal. We shouldn't worry ourselves with this yet. O.N.R. ^(talk) 22:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel the same way I did before the changes began: we may as well make edits reflecting what we know and make additional edits as more details develop. Otherwise, we would have spent the last six-plus weeks reverting numerous changes made by IP and newly-registered users updating their local team's status. If league names and makeups change, we can take care of that when MLB announces it. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that we are currently stating things that are incorrect. Yes, we can only write what we know from reliable sources, but the problem is much of what we're saying is actually synthesized conclusions that aren't confirmed, like the existence of a Mid-Atlantic League. I fear we're jumping the gun a bit based on half-known things, not firm facts. oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hope they get around to making these announcements soon. Spanneraol (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We should know by February 10 (my dad's birthday). That's the day that invited teams must respond by as to whether they accept the invitations or not. oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like they may be dropping the league names completely.... If this is accurate we may have to completely rewrite much of the minor league articles. [7]. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

JJ Cooper says they are placeholders.[8] Some league names may be retained? New ones created? Should we make placeholder articles (Triple-A East League) and make further changes when actual names are announced? NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably should start setting up some thing, since the teams are official... Though Triple-A West, East Division is an awfully weird name... I guess the historic leagues are now former leagues and should be wrapped up? Spanneraol (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. However, I recall seeing speculation that some league names may be continued. It may be best to create placeholders for new names, wrap up the previous names, and be prepared to make changes if some leagues are continued. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

MiLB wtf? I created redirects for the "new names", if we can call them that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if redirecting to existing leagues is the way to go. As I understand it, those entities (like the International League) are no more. It doesn't seem accurate to say it became the Triple-A East. It would seem better to edit the IL as a defunct league and make a new Triple-A East page. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yea, I agree.. The International League, PCL, Cal League, etc are gone... those should be listed as defunct and the new articles should be created... the Mid-Atlantic League can probably just be moved to the new name since that league never really existed.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It's like I said above, the teams left the old leagues and joined new ones, and these new leagues are not the same as their historic predecessors. Perhaps before the season begins a deal will be struck to take the old names, but not at this moment. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I made the redirects as placeholders. Clearly the IL and PCL are no more, RIP. It appears to be the same for the other leagues too, even though some of the leagues are less changed than others. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I would urge patience as we wait for further confirmation but it's pretty peculiar that a league like the FSL, which is only losing two teams and not gaining any, would be announced as "Low-A Southeast" instead of simply retaining its name being a league based entirely in the state of Florida. Tampabay721 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

They apparently don't have the rights to the name, as the league as a corporate entity still exists (even if no member franchises remain). Same with the other leagues. Which means that as of this moment all our articles on affiliated minor leagues are straight up completely incorrect. There is no Mid-Atlantic League, let alone a six-team circuit as the article describes. I knew this would happen. oknazevad (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The other thing I wonder about, is the Mexican League still considered part of Triple-A? It seems that it may not be. Spanneraol (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything to suggest that that partnership has changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well since it's no longer linked from the milb.com website and the Minor League Baseball organization has essentially been shut down It's status seems unclear to me... is it now essentially a partner league? Spanneraol (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Triple A classification of the Mexican League was always more political than actual. It does seem that it's no longer valid. The only leagues listed as such under the new arrangement are the Triple A East and Triple A West leagues. I'd remove it from the class as we have no source saying it is currently classed as such. (It does seem that it's essentially independent now, not even an official partner league like the 4 US/Canadian leagues.) oknazevad (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

How exactly does the new term "Professional Development Leagues" fit into all this now? BilCat (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's just they're new legal term for the minor leagues. As I said above, the teams legally have actually left their old leagues as corporate entities and joined these new leagues, and MLB doesn't have the rights to the old league names or the term "Minor League Baseball" as a trade name (yet). That the term is capitalized may indicate it's the new formal name for affiliated leagues, or it could just be legalistic jargon, which is often capitalized even if it's not a proper noun. Another wait-and-see aspect. oknazevad (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

What the heck is this "musical career" nonsense at Bruce Robinson (baseball)? Echoedmyron (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not there anymore as was some other not referenced things....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

After posting here I took a closer look, and found a simple google search shows the only mention of his musical career is his own website and a couple of non-RS websites. And it's also likely, based on the user name that the editor Robbypad has a connection to the subject, so I boldly the section wholesale. The user was welcomed in 2010 as a potential COI, which apparently went ignored, so I added a fresh COI notice to the user's page. Thanks for grabbing the additional unsourced passage. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. I put the article on my watchlist. Over the 12 or so years I have edited here, I have had to work on some athlete articles after the person themselves or close family edited it. John D'Acquisto was regularly making unsubstantiated changes. I think he gave up after me reverting most of them 6-10 times. He hasn't worked on his article in about 5 years. Bob Lally, Billy Hunter are a couple of others. I have these articles on my watchlist too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of creating a centralized list of game sevens to replace the current article. If you can, please be sure to help out as much as possible! –Piranha249 18:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m happy to chip away at this project from time to time. Made my first additions last night. PatrickAtBeanstalk (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I recently noticed that the infobox on Hank Aaron's page lists his full name above his date/place of birth. I can't say I've spotted this on any other MLB page, but obviously the parameter is there, so I went looking for consensus on if it's supposed to be used, and came up empty-handed. Am I not seeing the forest for the trees? I figure that, given that the template has a space for it, there's probably a reason most articles don't use it, but I could be wrong. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nohomersryan, the birth name parameter in infoboxes should only be used where the birth name and common name are different. But that's not the case with Hammerin Hank, as "Hank" is a hypocorism of "Henry", so it should not be treated as such. It's more for a Mark Twain / Samuel Clemons type of situation. I suppose it could be appropriate for Babe Ruth and others like him. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone see any value in the recently defunct minor leagues having tables listing members in their final season along with what league they moved to for 2021? I don't. It seems arbitrary. Some editors have reverted their removal, so I wanted to see if there was a consensus for their inclusion or removal. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree... what makes the final season more notable than all the other seasons? No reason for such a thing. Spanneraol (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there's value in showing who moved where. It helps show the legacy of each league. oknazevad (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to present that information in prose at the end of each history section rather than with a giant table with MLB affiliates, stadiums, and capacities accompanied by a map? NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone said it better in another response - the cancellation effected the community as well, so map and table is better IMHO.--195.160.243.50 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The effect of the team on a community is important for the articles for the team and the community. Since the league is being replaced, it no longer provides a good overview of, say, triple-A level baseball teams for a given region of the country. This type of information would probably be better placed in an article on the minor league structure. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I just checked a couple of leagues but I assume all/most of the league articles list the team memberships in some form across all seasons (for instance, International League has a timeline chart, and Pacific Coast League has various lists). And well, the final team membership is a significant transition point for those teams into their next organization, or shutdown, as the case may be. I agree what's mainly needed as a list of the teams and their dispositions, versus detailed information about each. isaacl (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's more notable. I think that if a 100 and somethings years old league got the rug pulled under it, there's a place for the the final teams that got down with the ship (so to speak), and at the very minimum put their final destination. Regarding the argument between a table or paragraph, I think the former is better, and much more easy to read. --StanleyKey (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Since it was so abrupt and the impact on some markets was so big, there's certainty a place for it, especially if it shows who moved and to where. --Ccui123 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

An overall list of teams that played in the conference and what leagues they moved to is fine, but I wouldnt specifically focus on the final roster. Spanneraol (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To be the last to do something has it own merit. From my perspective, writing who were the last teams gives you more complete picture, or in other words: if we don't write it, the story (article) in not complete.--Ccui123 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't even know if the 2019 full-season leagues are defunct in the first place. O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but right now it relevant for to the New York–Penn League, that we can all agree that it won't be back...--195.160.243.50 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It depends, if we want to give the full picture, I think that a snap shot of what was on the last day of the league is a must. I understand that if someone would write the whole league history at once he might omit the table of "last franchises", but since it's already exist, we should use it. Having said that, we should pay attention to the teams that we put on the list (for instance Fresno Grizzlies last played in the PCL, not Cal league).--195.160.243.50 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, someone today moved Florida State League to Low-A Southeast.... the league isn't just renamed so we should keep the FSL page and make a new one for the new league. Spanneraol (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And if the leagues do turn out to keep their histories, this will all have been for nothing. O.N.R. ^(talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My original reason for asking is that using the previously existing tables with an added column for a team’s 2021 league seems like too much information. If a table is the best way to display final teams, would it not be best to have columns for team name, city, and 2021 fate? Does the user need the name of their ballparks, seating capacity, division? I’m certainly not proposing forgetting about these teams or ignoring what’s happened. I just don’t wish for the league articles to look like memorials or be slanted toward recent history (any more than they already are). NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The decision was economy base (it's true for every league that collapse), and because of that there's a place for the extra info on the table. The city/town, the stadium, the capacity and maybe even the MLB affiliation are all matter, because that were the reasons the team stayed as affiliate or got left behind (in the Northwest League people updated the Avg. attendance and I think it's reasonable to keep it too). One last thing, I can agree with O.N.R that it might be to soon to add it to league such as the PCL or the International, but for some of them (i.e NYPL) it's part of the history.--Ccui123 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

I recently tried to update the individual pages for all members of the Buffalo Baseball Hall of Fame by listing the accomplishment in their infobox. I then had all of my edits reverted by Yankees10, who apparently gatekeeps all the baseball player pages and is telling me that Minor League Baseball accomplishments are not important. I pointed out to him that most of the players in the Buffalo Baseball Hall of Fame overlap with members of the International League Hall of Fame, which from what I've seen is allowed in infoboxes. I asked Yankees10 why that is and why players who peaked in Minor League Baseball should not have their accomplishments listed. He had no response and referred me to the style guide. I'd like to propose an amendment to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice so that minor league and regional Halls of Fame can be listed in infoboxes. It's also notable that several members of the Buffalo Baseball Hall of Fame played for defunct Major League franchises in Buffalo (Buffalo Blues and the 1879–1885 Buffalo Bisons). Thanks! TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Piss off with the personal insult dude. I'm not gatekeeping anything. I provided a link to what was agreed to go in the infobox and what was not, which was written in consensus by numerous users not me. Also, not once did I say we allowed International League Hall of Fame.-- Yankees10 23:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, rude. Reported. Do you support my proposed change or not, because that's what we're discussing. And you still haven't responded as to why minor league accomplishments aren't important. Should we delete the Wikipedia pages for every baseball player who never made it in the majors? That seems to be what you're implying. TheNewMinistry (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Dude, he was only citing established consensus to you... and minor league players that don't make it to the majors are not normally notable unless they meet GNG on their own. As to info boxes, the baseball wikiproject set up standards for what goes in the info boxes and what doesn't. If you want to change the standards, open up a proposal here and see if you can get any support for your changes... but don't go changing things on your own or you will just get reverted. Spanneraol (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a response typed out but Spanneraol pretty much summed it up perfectly.-- Yankees10 00:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI wikt:en:Major League Baseball has been nominated for deletion; see wikt:en:Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#Major League Baseball -- the entry itself is not tagged, but it is listed at deletion -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average is .366. I've edited his article to say so. I mean I put in three paragraphs about it, which is maybe overkill, but I guess a lot of readers are confused about all this, and some are stubborn I guess.

So just to point out first of all that the Wikipedia is the only -- and I mean literally the only -- important independent NPOV publication on Earth with any standing that is still saying (in places) that Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average was .367. At this point that is basically WP:FRINGE position which we should only mention to disprove, and certainly not to claim as true, as we are now (in places). Also we were and are saying .366 in some places and .367 in others, and that's just embarrassing.

Yeah I get that people want to mess around with the term "official", but... "official" means "legal", mostly. It can be is sometimes stretched to mean "authoritative" (that is, "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable")

OK, so the legal sense, there are no official baseball statistics. Sorry, there just aren't. If there was any doubt of this, it was decided by ''C.B.C. Distribution Marketing v. Major League Baseball which ruled that baseball statistics, as being mere facts, are in the public domain. Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc. doesn't like that. They wanted to own the statistics and only allow people to publish them that they had sold to rights to. Of course they did; they're a business, and income is income. But the court said no. (It is true that the private for-profit corporation Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc. has some official -- that is, legal -- rights and responsibilities regarding major league baseball. They collect merchandise fees on copyrighted team material, handle scheduling, publish the official rule book, negotiate labor contracts, and so forth. These are all things that require legal authority, which Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc. has. Because Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc. has some authority, some people -- not many anymore, but still some I guess -- think that they also have legal authority in areas where they don't, but would just as soon people think they do.

So what about in the "authoritative" sense -- "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable"? Are you kidding? Nobody -- and I mean actually literally nobody -- with any expertise and standing in the baseball world pays any attention to Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc.'s stats. If you go to a SABR meetup and try to be like "Well, but Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc. says Cobb batted .367, and after all they are pretty authoritative" you'll be treated the same as if you go a meetup of the National Geographic Society and try to argue for a flat earth.

Why does Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc. -- if they mattered, which they don't -- still say that Cobb batted .367? Heck if I know, but I assume that's it combination of being still run by stubborn boomers ("The passage of 70 years, in our judgment, constitutes a certain statute of limitation as to recognizing any changes" -- Bowie Kuhn) and existing for the purpose of making a profit and not caring too much about things that don't impact that. It is true that Major League Baseball Enterprises, Inc. outsources it's statistics compilation work to Elias, which has statisticians and historians on staff and is for most things considered reliable, but first of all Elias doesn't reveal its sources or methodology, which makes them useless as a historical or scientific source, and second of all I think we can all be quite sure that Elias's methodology in this case is "The client wants us to say .367, so we do."

It's not worth arguing about this. I mean the arguments for Cobb hitting .367 basically devolve to "When I was 12, I read the Fireside Book of Baseball cover to cover, and it said..." or "In my day we played with an old taped-up ball in the field down by the creek, and my grandpappy told me Ty Cobb hit .367, and we didn't have this monkey business with four-eye neckbeards doing 'research' to vet 'facts' in some nerd-central '"library'". We don't deal with other historical facts on that basis, and let's not here. If there's any pushback on this we can go to to a time-wasting RfC. Herostratus (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• As it currently stands, Wikipedia holds the contradictory positions that Cobb batted .367 but Lajoie won the 1910 batting title. We need to pick one source and run with it, no matter which source it is. O.N.R. ^(talk) 05:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think most of the third and fourth paragraphs in Ty Cobb § Regular season statistics belong there as they aren't about Ty Cobb, beyond the mentions of his batting average. There is an interesting history about MLB statistics which could perhaps be placed in the baseball statistics article that can incorporate some of this (as I understand it, through most of its history MLB didn't keep its own record book; it's progressed to the point where it hired one of the preeminent sabermetricians, "Tom Tango" (aka tangotiger). as the stats guru for MLB Advanced Media). The other stuff about what Major League Baseball Enterprises does wouldn't be a fit for that article either, though. The court ruling is really about whether or not there is proprietary ownership over data, and not about the authoritativeness or officialness of baseball records, so it's a bit of a non sequitur in this context.

The concept of official records (which is just "what MLB says"—no more, no less) is getting more scrutiny once again, now that the Negro League stats will be incorporated in some manner. With this door opening to the numbers changing, perhaps the chance will be taken to incorporate the most recent research. isaacl (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not worked my way through the finer-points of calculating Cobb's lifetime average, but on the general topic of "official" statistics I'd like to pass along a several-page read at Retrosheet, here, that discusses inconsistencies in baseball records. One point the author there makes is important—We must always remember what "official" means. The literal meaning is "of the office," not "guaranteed to be accurate." That is, a designation of "official" is a statement of authority, not of reliability. Dmoore5556 (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)