Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 21 October 2023 (Archiving 1 discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51

2022 ALWCS & NLWCS infoboxes

Hodwy. Does anyone know how to fix the bottom of the infoboxes at 2022 ALWCS & 2022 NLWCS, so that they directly link to [2021 American League Wild Card Game|2022] & [2021 National League Wild Card Game|2021]? -- GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Title discussion

Have opened a discussion which may be of interest at Talk:Batting out of turn to check if Batting out of order would work better as a title. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

inclusion of NPB stats

Please see this edit at Alfonso Soriano: [1] Is there is benchmark required to include stats in the infobox while in NPB? Or it is like MLB, where even a handful of at bats might get used if that's all there was? Echoedmyron (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know I just don't feel stats over 17 at-bats is worth including. At the very least it should be below the MLB stats, despite him playing NPB first.-- Yankees10 01:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
At the same time, the infobox still includes the Japanese team he played for, so if it's worth including the team, it would seem to me to be worth including the stats, no? If a MLB player played most of his career for one team but a handful of games for another - such as Ryne Sandberg's six at bats with the Phillies - we don't exclude those six at bats' stats from his career MLB totals. Any any rate I wanted to find out if there was a guideline for NPB stats infobox use before reverting the edit. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
As documented in Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice, participation in MLB, NPB, and KBO are considered to be key characteristics of a player, such that the infobox for players of these leagues omit teams from other leagues. I agree it seems reasonable to include stats from these leagues in the infobox in chronological order, without making a value judgement on the length of tenure in the league. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Negro League years and stats

Somewhat related to the NPB discussion above, another edit crossed my watchlist, this time at Hank Thompson: [2], which removed the league name headings in the infobox (yet maintained the KC Monarchs]], but also deleted the debut year section for the Monarchs that had appeared above the MLB debut. I found this discussion, in which the subject of Negro League play in the infobox was discussed, but it does not appear that the stye advice was updated based on it, and I can't see anything there that supports or counters removing Thompson's debut with the Monarchs. Any insight is helpful. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as the Federal League is treated as being on equal footing with the American League & the National League? I don't see why we shouldn't treat the Major Negro Leagues, the same. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There was disagreement in that discussion on whether or not there should be a cutoff date for including various leagues, so no consensus was reached. Perhaps we can reach one now. If someone could make a proposal with specific leagues listed, that would be great! isaacl (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps more of a question for the Hank Thompson article, but seeing as the Negro Leagues were a Major League, why is the header "Major League debut" when he played for the KC Monarchs earlier in his career? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Playoff bracket with colors

Hello WikiProject Baseball members. So I worked off on another 12-team bracket template with background colors (red for American League and blue for National League) on boxes that would have been the bracket for MLB postseason articles from 2022 season and onwards with {{12TeamBracket-MLB}} on "Playoff bracket" sections instead of the regular {{12TeamBracket}}. I carefully fixed the potential 12-team playoff bracket here and here (upside version according to MLB source I mentioned) on my sandbox pages to ensure it is smooth with every lines between boxes, while retaining the colors instead of the usual gray color scheme from standard team bracket templates. How about a template review of those sandbox pages if it's going to work on this page in the "Playoff bracket" section? The playoff bracket for the 2022 season would've looked like this from my sandbox page if we think that the colors are needed to represent both leagues in Major League Baseball.

From what I saw on Wikipedia at first, the playoff bracket for every single MLB postseason article before the 2022 postseason used to have background colors on boxes that some other user created (i.e. {{2TeamBracket-MLB}}, {{4TeamBracket-MLB}}, {{8TeamBracket-MLB}}, {{10TeamBracket-MLB}} (2012-2019 and 2021 seasons), and {{16TeamBracket-MLB}} (2020 season only)). I'm willing to bring those colored multiple-team brackets for MLB postseason articles back on Wikipedia for this case. I don't get it why those multiple team bracket template pages ending with -MLB had to be deleted on Wikipedia that those brackets could not agree with MOS:COLOR, and some of you opinionated that the background colors in boxes are unnecessary to any multiple-team playoff bracket? Should those colored multiple-team brackets be exclusive only to MLB postseason articles on Wikipedia instead of using brackets with the usual gray color scheme? Let me know if my brackets given above on this section would work on postseason articles from 2022 and onwards or not, regardless of MOS:COLOR and WCAG AAA compatibility. I might use that bracket on {{12TeamBracket-MLB}} as a separate page from {{12TeamBracket}}, either the standard (MLB2) or the upside (MLB2b) version. --Allen (talk / ctrb) 02:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Those used to be coloured - red for the AL & blue for the NL. I don't remember when the colours were removed, but I do support restoring them. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason to make MLB specific, colored bracket templates. --TorsodogTalk 04:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I also see no reason to have league-specific brackets. The standard brackets serve the exact same purpose. – Pbrks (t • c) 16:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Bob Meusel
  2. Moe Berg
  3. Youngstown Ohio Works

Good article reassessment for Barry Bonds

Barry Bonds has been nominated for a 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. Steelkamp (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Park#Requested move 21 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Park#Requested move 21 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Joe West (umpire)

Y'all may want to take a look at the recent changes to this article made by a new editor. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some persistent disruption on the article, with content that casts Joe West in a negative light being removed continually. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Amusingly, Joe West himself admitted on the Effectively Wild podcast episode 1967 that he himself was behind these edits. [3]https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-1967-season-preview-series-angels-and-red-sox-plus-joe-west/ TomFitz77 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability issues for use of MLB.com player profiles as cited source for a nickname

I have been stumbling across a lot of player articles that include what seems to me to be an extremely obscure nickname as a parenthetical in the opening sentence, with the cited source being their MLB.com player profile. The example I just found (and corrected) was Taylor Rogers, supposedly known as "Lefty Piece", but I have seen several others in the past. The cited source was his MLB.com player profile but the nickname (IMO) obviously does not meet notability criteria to be included as their parenthetical nickname. A search on google for "'Taylor Rogers' 'Lefty Piece'" yields no actual examples of the name being used to refer to him - only results about his Player's Weekend jersey, which is the crux of the problem. MLB.com includes the names worn on these jerseys as "nicknames" in the official player bio. The problem with this as it applies to Wikipedia is that these names are always chosen by the player to wear on their jersey for a single weekend for an event the MLB only held 3 times and not since 2019. Almost always these are not names that the media or baseball community ever actually use to refer to the player. I feel that for a player to be introduced in their article as "Player Name, (nicknamed 'X')", that nickname should be one that is widely used to refer to that player by people throughout the baseball world.

As such I feel that MLB.com should never be used as a source for a player's nickname and nicknames listed on Wikipedia which are only cited by MLB.com should be removed from the article. How do others feel about this? Has anybody else noticed this problem? TomFitz77 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO we should largely avoid using these Player's Weekend nicknames, as they're often not in common use, and instead rely on general sports reporting for what players' nicknames are. Hog Farm Talk 23:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I think we should avoid any nicknames for players unless it is something that is widely used in reliable sources. Spanneraol (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:NICKCRUFT:

Boldface is not needed for obscure ones or a long list, and those that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all.

—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah I wasn't familiar with that section of MOS. MOS:BADNICK is highly relevant here.

Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject. For example, a sports journalist's one-off reference to a player as "the Atlanta panther" in purple prose does not constitute a nickname, and treating it as one is original research.

Jake McGee (baseball) is still protected because of that "Uncle Jake" nickname nonsense. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

2017 World Series "aftermath"

I noticed a recent edit and revert at 2017 World Series regarding whether future WS titles by a player should be mentioned. Also, its "Impact and aftermath" section seems to conflict with prior discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48 § Aftermath sections and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48 § Aftermath sections (continued).

Finally, is aftermath even an appropriate term here? A dictionary shows

the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event: food prices soared in the aftermath of the drought.

That doesn't apply to the winning team.

(It's a GA page, so courtesy ping to nominator Muboshgu) —Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me that "aftermath" means "bad things", but you're right. Will brainstorm a better heading. And offseason transactions are not "aftermath" of the World Series, they're part of the new season. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Although I agree off-season transactions shouldn't automatically be considered a direct consequence of the team's playoff results, there can be some occasions when they are. However I think this ought to be treated as much more of an exception than a rule. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I raised the issue regarding the terminology in the previous discussion. I had suggested "Aftereffects" in that discussion. "Off-season consequences" might be another possibility, which would help limit the scope to direct consequences. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
In my view, the discussion in that article about what happened later to the two teams involved are a better fit for the team / team history articles. It's part of their story, and not that of the 2017 World Series. I appreciate some readers like to know how the teams progressed later on; the team infoboxes on the page do provide the bare facts on all playoff appearances. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
My opinion is that these aftermath sections should be very limited to things directly related to that particular series... such as the sign stealing controversy is definitely relevant.. and maybe what happened to the teams the next year could be mentioned... but players showing up in later world series for other teams is completely irrelevant. Spanneraol (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
If a team wins the World Series again, or this is the last of two or more consecutive victories, then I think it may be warranted to mention this as a signpost along the way of their championship streak. Otherwise, I think as a general rule the future results of the teams is better discussed in the corresponding team articles. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying all future results.. but a "the team got back to the series the next year" or "the team fell off and failed to make the post season next year" is possibly something worth noting... not anything related to further seasons. Spanneraol (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Even for the next year's results, I think they're generally not a direct consequence of the World Series appearance. Obviously it plays a role, just as the levels of playoff success influence the other post-season competitors, and how not making the playoffs affect the other teams. Thus I think most of the time it's better covered holistically within the team article. I agree there may be times when I think it may be worth noting, but I struggle at trying to articulate when this is the case in a way that will provide useful guidance to those who want to put all next season results into every World Series article. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Related to the previous discussions I had started, more watchers for 1981 National League Championship Series are welcome. isaacl (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tony Gwynn's lead

In the lead of Tony Gwynn, Stormplatter and I are in disagreement over inclusion of his career batting average ranking. They added his #22 ranking, sourced from baseball-reference.com.[4] First of all, MLB.com shows him at #16.[5] Even if we resolve that discrepancy, the ranking seems WP:UNDUE for the lead, when little of Gwynn's legacy per reliable sources is tied to his specific ranking.

Per MOS:LEADREL:

According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources

—Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with omitting this ranking from the lead section per LEADREL. I actually reverted the editor's change before I saw this talk page discussion. I think the other editor misunderstood your use of "lead" in the edit summary. He appears to have thought you were talking about Gwynn being in first place. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the equivalent positions on the homerun chart, the rankings for that stat isn't mentioned there either including in one GA Ernie Banks so I agree with the the4 conclusions above that once you get outside the top few such a rank isn't worth including. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that Gwynn's career batting average ranking has relatively lower significance compared with his other career achievements currently listed in the lead section, and so doesn't need to be included in the lead section. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The conflict arose with an extra redundant word, so I added that section to make the irrelevant word unnecessary.

Does this mean the redundancy will stay away for the time being?

Gwynn is one of the best of all time, not possibly considered one. Stormplatter (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Your removal of "widely considered" didn't require the addition of an obscure ranking pulled from a database. —Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mass draftification proposal on Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Tottori Jōhoku High School

An article I wrote on Tottori Jōhoku High School just got brought back in the draft section due to lack of notability. Given Jōhoku High is well known for its baseball team I wonder if anyone could help me expand the baseball section of the article or at least give me a proofread? I don't know much on baseball (I mainly work on the sumo part as a member of WikiProject Sumo) OtharLuin (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

AfD

FYI

You're invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Diego Padres retired numbers. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Better communicating uncertainty in unconfirmed sports transactions

I've started a discussion that could use this project's input at the idea lab village pump. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Splitting 1901 Balt. Orioles from NY Yanks article

See the discussion at Talk:New York Yankees#Splitting Baltimore Orioles into its own article (while keeping some information for background).

—— Shakescene (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain 'when' or 'where', but I do recall that about a year or more ago, an RFC was held on how to handle pages of 'relocated' MLB franchises. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Heads up: National League baseball vs. football

There is a discussion at Talk:National_League#Suggested_move_to_National_League_(baseball) where it is being suggested that the baseball league is not the primary topic. Chime in there with your thoughts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Nationalities for International baseball players

Today I added references to players who appeared at the 2023 World Baseball Classic, and in cases where they represented another nationality than their birth I added it to their intros (ie "Mexican-American" instead of "American" if they played for Mexico. User:Yankees10 reverted the edits, also removing the references, without discussion which I think is against policy. Most of these athletes are dual or naturalized citizens of another country. Since this dual-citizenship is relevant to the subject's noteability, they should be kept as per MOS:NATIONALITY. If consensus allows, I would like for Yankees10 reversions to be reverted, and ideally warned to not make this type of reversion that removes other relevant information per WP:REVONLY. Let me know what you think and how to proceed.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI: I'm not sure if WP:NATIONALITY changed recently, but it seems to prefer "and" over a hyphen for dual citizenship, e.g. "is a Mexican and American baseball player". —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Does WBC require actual citizenship, or is being a descendant of a national sufficient? I've seen some bios for players in FIBA junior events that people are removing nationalities saying they wanted sources saying explicitly that they were naturalized. —Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Many players in the World Baseball Classic have played for teams of countries for whom they are not citizens or nationals, but are connected by ancestry. This is especially true of countries like the UK, which has players from other countries ,such as the Bahamas, which were once British colonies; or players who are American by birth, don't have dual citizenship but are eligible to play for another country because of a parent's ancestry. So it's not simple issue. I've had to remove "British" from Jazz Chisholm's article several times, as he is strictly Bahamian. BilCat (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is tricky. Freeman is a "American and Canadian" because he has citizenship in both countries. @Ortizesp is Rowdy a citizen of Mexico or did he just play for Mexico? I don't know the rules for how that works for the WBC. - Nemov (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Eligibility criteria are broad. You can be on a national team if you were born there, are a citizen or legal resident there, or have a parent who was born, a citizen, or a legal resident of that country. Wikipedia wouldn't view everyone eligible for a national team as having that nationality. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think their sporting nationality should be listed even if they don't have that nationality. It doesn't make sense to have someone who specifically plays for Mexico, and then not include it in the lede. In soccer/association football articles, the compromise we have is to omit nationality in the first sentence, and just say "born in x, subject plays for y national team". Ortizesp (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't object to it being mentioned, but having it in the first sentence of the lead has to conform with WP:BIO/MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines. Nemov (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
As an example, Mike Piazza played for Italy, but it is not in the lead sentence. It is later in the lead though. In the grand scheme of things, I tend to think WBC is minor comparared to one's professional career, so short mention in end of lead, at best? —Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it depends, for some players it's the pinnacle of their careers IMO. Ortizesp (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Regardless how players feel about their time playing for a national team, that does not make it their nationality, which I believe is the core of the question here. For example, continuing to add Japanese-American to Lars Nootbaar makes little to no sense in my opinion. He is not a Japanese citizen nor was he born in Japan. His mother is Japanese, thus making him eligible to represent Japan in the WBC. Skipple ☎ 05:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think if the ethnicity is of significance to the subject, it can be listed in the lead, even if they don't hold the nationality. We do this all the with Indigenous folk for example. To me, Nootbaar is a Japanese baseball player because he plays for Japan, whether or not he even gets citizenship. To not even mention it would be egregious. Ortizesp (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the cases of Indigenous folk there is typically an official authoritative source that considers them an member of a tribe/nation/etc.. (ie. member of the Cherokee nation)
I don't disagree, that participation and representation on a national team is notable and absolutely should be mentioned within the lead. However, calling a player who is not, nor ever was, a citizen of Japan, a Japanese-American ballplayer makes little sense. Leaving the nationality of individuals to the purview of the WBC eligibility guidelines is a weird way of defining nationality, even if they are ballplayers. The WBC is not an arbiter of nationality outside of this specific tournament.
In the case of Nootbaar, this actually makes his participation more notable, as he is the first non-Japanese citizen to play on the Japanese national baseball team. But again, that does not make him Japanese-American. Skipple ☎ 05:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
...that does not make him Japanese-American: Technically, he is ethnically Japanese American, but I think your point is that you do not think it warrants inclusion in the lead sentence. —Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I have always assumed that when Wikipedia states American ballplayer (as in the case of Anthony Rizzo), Canadian ballplayer (as in the case of Josh Naylor) or, Australian pitcher 9as in the case of Liam Hendriks), etc. we are referring to nationality, not ethnicity nor heritage. Skipple ☎ 06:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, per MOS:NATIONALITY, the lead sentence is generally one's nationality. —Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Indigenous is discussed at WP:NATIONALITY: Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race Whereas, there is MOS:ETHNICITY. So some options are:
  1. List ethnicity in the lead sentence (e.g. Mexican-American) if their nationality does not match their national team
  2. No mention in lead sentence, but list the national team later in the lead (e.g. "played for the Mexican national team")
—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The more I think about this the more issues I have with defining players in this fashion. Following these logical conclusions, if Lars Nootbaar is Japanese-American baseball player, then Anthony Rizzo must be an Italian-American baseball player. His family is Sicilian and he represented Italy in the the 2013 WBC. What about Joey Gallo? His parents are also Sicilian, he certainly would have eligible to represent Italy, but he never played on the national team. Does that make him Italian-American, or simply American under these definitions? Skipple ☎ 07:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of players like Rizzo. The 2004 Olympic squad representing Greece (here) has numerous examples. Dmoore5556 (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There are two factors here: 1) Somebody's real-life ethnicity 2) MOS:ETHNICITY, and whether that is notable enough to be in the lead for a given subject.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If it's relevant to their career (ie representing a national team) I would list it, and if it's not I wouldn't per MOS:ETHNICITY. Ortizesp (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I side with Yankees10 here. Skimming the edits, a few of them seem a little questionable, like Taijuan Walker being added to the "Mexican people of African-American descent" category; given that he's an American with a half-Mexican mother, this seems like an unrealistic descriptor. There's clearly a fair bit of confusion implied by WBC teams (as evidenced by people adding "Brazilian-American" to Bo Bichette's article frequently), so I think our articles should be upfront on the player's actual nationality, while also specifying if they play for any national team. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Modifying article leads based on the 2023 WBC seems quite WP:RECENT. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fischer (baseball)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fischer (baseball). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Mass-TfD college baseball navboxes nomination

For those in this WikiProject interested: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 11#College baseball class-/position-specific award navboxes. Thank you. SportsGuy789 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

List Pages of Minor League Players Should Be Seperated

The pages that contain the information on the minor league players such as on the Miami Marlins minor league players should be separated into their own pages. The lists don't even include all the players in the minor-league system and some players are still listed, who are no longer part of the organization. The pages are too long and should be made into separate player pages. Rosters are already listed on the pages of the minor league teams. Batgirl-Awsomeness (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor league players who are notable (following WP:GNG) do have their own pages. ie. Jordan Walker. Individuals who aren't notable won't have their own pages as they would fail the GNG. It certainly looks like that page could use a clean up though! Skipple ☎ 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Seeing this brought up means that it's probably time for the annual cleanup of minor league ballplayer redirects - I've retargeted Jose Salas and Draft:Kyle Nicolas to the correct minor league roster pages for their new teams, and have opened Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 28#Robert_Matthew_Montgomery for a guy who hasn't played pro ball since 2014. Josh Hart (baseball) looks like it needs to go to, although the old history there might make an RFD awkward. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant, thanks. Obviously it makes no sense to make pages for non-notable players as it would just be deleted. I'll work on seperatingnotable players/cleaning up the minor league pages. Batgirl-Awsomeness (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested article

Larry LeGrande - a Negro leagues star (1957-59) who died recently (April 13). Sources for notability: I Found Someone to Play With (a full book on him), Roanoke.com, Negro Leagues Museum, Roanoke Tribune, Roanoke Times full-page feature story (p2), another Roanoke Times feature story (p2). Would qualify to be put on the main page in the ITN section, as it was first reported two days ago. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

He's notable. I started his bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I reverted a contribution from User:TDINBB and wanted to bring it up here as I don't have time to address all of the contribs at the moment. I would link to the user's contribs, but my new fancy computer won't let me paste a simple URL without changing it to a plain text description (the computer changes the copied URL to "User contributions for TDINBB - Wikipedia" - haha). I don't think this Wordpress-powered site is appropriate for the External Links sections of our articles but I thought I would ask here. See the history of Jesse Burkett for today's example. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#WordPress.com says WordPress.com is a blog hosting service that runs on the WordPress software. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. WordPress.com should never be used for claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated. I'd be against including it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC) EDIT: I just clicked on one of the TDINBB links and oh man it's bad. It loads slowly and looks to have copy/pasted its header from B Ref (at least the one I clicked). There doesn't appear to be any benefit from adding it and there's a downside to it. Plus the username makes it appear to be self-promotion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Astros–Braves rivalry

A new article titled Astros–Braves rivalry was created by @Ralphierce and added to the list of rivalries for the Atlanta Braves. I have removed it since there's not enough coverage (local or national) to list those two teams having a significant rivalry worth noting in the article. I'm not sure what the rational is for rivalry articles, but that one seems to be on shaky ground. I haven't nominated it for deletion because I wanted to ask here first. What do y'all think? Nemov (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Not significant. They haven't been in the same division in nearly 30 years, haven't been in the same league in almost 10, and have met once in the World Series. We have to stop with these junk articles pairing two random teams that are not independently notable. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel a little bad about taking it straight to AfD, but we should probably take it to AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astros–Braves rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested Move on National League

You may be interested in a conversation on the National League talk page. Skipple ☎ 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Seyfried

You may be interested in the deletion discussion on Gordon Seyfried. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Baseball-reference.com

Hi folks, I stumbled across an article for the Philadelphia White Stockings and I want to expand it. Question: Is baseball-reference.com considered a reliable source for baseball articles on Wikipedia? I poked around to find the answer, but for some reason couldn't find anything definitive. Maybe I'm overlooking something. Thanks! Vivatheviva (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Not its BR Bullpen page, since it is WP:USERGENERATED.—Bagumba (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree, however, it's a wonderful place to find additional references, such as the page you just linked. Skipple ☎ 18:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
There's not a lot of guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice § Reliable sources, but Baseball Reference is one of them (with a note about the lack of reliability of the bullpen section). Interested parties are welcome to add more reliable sources to the section. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I see Fangraphs is not listed there. Beyond that, there aren't any other resources that come quickly to mind. Maybe the Baseball Almanac? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Style_advice#Reliable_sources lists any third party websites as reliable sources, but here are a few that come to mind:
There are obvious ones that could be added as well. ESPN, CBSSports, Yahoo! Sports, etc. Skipple ☎ 01:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Just a note that the various sports news sites probably don't need explicit listing, since there isn't any contention about their reliability. In the interest of saving the effort in trying to make an exhaustive list, I suggest focusing on sites where there may be some uncertainty of the degree of editorial control (though of course it's no big deal if some sites don't fit this description). isaacl (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I generally consider SBNation (and Bleacher Report, SI's FanNation, etc) to be too bloggy. If it's important enough, the same information should be sourceable somewhere else.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
SB Nation pays their writers and has an editorial staff, i've found most of it's reporting to be pretty good. Spanneraol (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone! This is great stuff. Looking forward to digging in to see if there's anything to help expand the Philadelphia White Stockings article. Vivatheviva (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
SB Nation is a tricky case. It's an attempt to monetize the value of sports blogging through building a network of many blogs across many sports. It's part startup journalism, part crowd-sourced content, part community-of-fans building. For straight facts it's typically fine, though as Bagumba says, in those situations it'll be just one of many usable sources. But in a world where local sports beat coverage is becoming extinct due to a lack of profitability, thanks to so much free content being provided in audiocasts, blogs, and other media, we may need to figure out how to evaluate non-traditional sources in a more nuanced manner. "All SB Nation bad/good" is probably too broad a brush. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
On SB Nation, I've tended to take the approach of the main site is generally RS, but the team-specific sites not so much. If the KC Royals one I read regularly is of any indication, the articles there are under less scrutiny than at the main site, and tend to be more things like upcoming series previews, opinion pieces, and routine transaction notices that aren't either all that useful for article writing or would be covered in better outlets anyway. Hog Farm Talk 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
One of my biggest complaints on the quality of a lot of those sites is that they just dump random stats with not much insight otherwise. And the stats-inclined WP editors continue the cycle and cite those sources for their own random stat mention. About a decade ago, some notable print writers went to some of those sites, and I'd selectively say those writers' work would be exceptions to the rule. But I think those reputable writers now have moved on, some to the Athletic, start their own Substack, etc. so these bloggy sites seem to be less reputable again. —Bagumba (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
This is essence of the problem moving forward: if traditional local beat writing is no longer around to burnish reporter reputations (with cutbacks at local newspapers, the Athletic, sports radio networks, and so forth resulting in more self-published content), then Wikipedia editors will face an increasing burden in identifying appropriate reliable sources through discussion. The world of self-publishing removes filters between the reporter and sports fan, which can be good for spreading the word quickly, but isn't helpful for Wikipedia editors who rely on those filters to provide editorial oversight. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I see the problem as more about filtering unreliable sources, as a lot of editors seemingly cite online sources without regard to whether it's reliable. It'd be good to have a sport-specific version of WP:RSP. —Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the point is that "unreliable" has traditionally determined through the degree of editorial oversight, and typically newspaper editorial control for local sports beat writing. But as this fades away, it can't be used for the new modes of sports coverage. And "this person used to write for a newspaper" will only go so far, both due to a lack of new beat writers and because past editorial oversight is no guarantee that future self-published writing will be reliable. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I am in full support and would be willing to assist with standing up a reliable source entry over at WP:Sports. I know WP:VG has one that I use all the time and would love to see something similar for the sports world. - Skipple ☎ 23:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Career section in biographies

At the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice/Sample biography, the sample heading "Career" was changed to "Professional career". As based on my sampling of articles there is a wide variance in the headings used, I restored the "Career" heading and provided some guidance on using other headings as suitable. This change was reverted. Does anyone have any views on the guidance that should be provided? isaacl (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it honestly depends on the article. "Career" might not be specific enough. If the person had distinctive amateur or collegiate careers that warrant having their own main sections, then perhaps it makes sense having a "Professional career" section. But the change to the guidelines was also made by an editor with relatively few edits, so take that into account.
Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I looked through baseball FAs, and more seem to use "Professional (baseball) career" than not, whether or not there was also a college or minor league section. I tend to prefer uniformity, but exceptions can make sense depending on a specific bio's circumstances.—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
My quick survey of articles such as Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, Steve Trout, Vladimir Guerrero, and Vladimir Guerrero Jr. revealed a variety of styles. Note though that the sample biography is just a sample for an imaginary generic player. For a real player, more tailored headings can be more appropriate. As such I chose the most generic heading, and my recent edit added further guidance. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
For best practice examples, I tend to look at FAs and GAs, as they are (in theory) the project's better works. —Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I did that when I first wrote the player style advice. Let's see — two I did look at now but forgot to list: Babe Ruth says "Professional baseball"; Jackie Robinson says "Playing career". Those two FAs are in the top importance category. Looking at FAs in the high and mid importance categories: Bob Feller, Derek Jeter, Jim Thome, Sandy Koufax, Bob Meusel say "Professional career". Harmon Killebrew, Mariano Rivera, Ozzie Smith, Stan Musial say "Professional baseball career". Doc Adams says "Playing career". Rogers Hornsby, Thurman Tucker have "Minor league career" and sections for their various major league teams. Lee Smith (baseball), Moe Berg say "Major league career". Stan Coveleski, Art Houtteman have team-based headings. Orval Grove has "Minor league career", "Transition to majors", "Prime years", and "Later career". I've mostly skipped over players who became managers, but here are a couple of examples: Casey Stengel has "Playing career", "Early managerial career", and sections for his Yankees and Mets managerial tenures. Billy Martin has "Playing career" and "Managerial career". So excluding Stengel and Martin, just over half have "Professional career" or "Professional baseball career". Although personally I still prefer a generic heading (with guidance notes) for an imaginary generic player, it's a reasonable option to show the shorter commonly-used heading, "Professional career". isaacl (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that many players, after they are done with baseball, move into other fields and professions (e.g. Randy Johnson becoming a photographer), but those parts of their lives are likely to be segregated from their baseball careers into separate sections. That's why I thought "Professional baseball career" was a preferable option for how to title the baseball section, so there would be no confusion about whether details about other jobs/careers would be found in that section. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, although there's more (in the real-world sense) notable post-playing options today than before, most players still blend into the large number of undistinguished jobs/pastimes after retirement. For those who do have a notable career in another field (or another aspect, such as managerial or executive), certainly modifying "career" appropriately is reasonable. The sample biography is just a bare skeleton to be enhanced as needed. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

MLB Draft or draft?

Howdy. I may have missed it, but was there an RM on "Draft" pages? Were they created with "draft" in the title, or "Draft" in the title? If the latter, where/when was the RM held? GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this the article your referencing? Looks like it was moved here.[6] Nemov (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Year pages, 1965 Major League Baseball draft to 2023 Major League Baseball draft. I noticed that the capitalised "Draft" was in many of the intros & so got to wondering if an RM had been held to lower-case those page titles. Moments ago, I began matching the intros, but then stopped. I wasn't sure what the entire situation was, concerning usage of "Draft" or "draft". GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I reckon you can include the Major League Baseball draft page, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Currently I see 87 instances of "Major League Baseball (MLB) draft" and 53 of "Major League Baseball (MLB) Draft" in articles (I'm sure there are other contexts with similar inconsistency). Thank for starting to move toward consistency. I'd be happy to help, using JWB. Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I fixed over-capitalization on some of those in 2014. Books and news mostly use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sawol: moved some in 2015 – at least the 1965 one I checked (but looks like didn't do the cleanup edits to lead). Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave the pages-in-question alone for about 24-hrs. If folks are alright with the current (lower-case) titles? Then I'll complete matching the intros to those titles. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
If even ESPN is using lowercase,[7] this seems straightforward. —Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I've made the intros in sync, to the page titles. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

History of... articles

I'm a few weeks late in noticing this but it appears @Lennart97 redirected[8] many of the "history of" articles. Was this discussed anywhere? I'm not objecting, but I'm just curious if there's a guideline in place for this since there appears to be somewhat similar discussion going on at the NHL project about franchise vs. team articles. We had a discussion about this topic over a year ago, but I don't think there was a clear resolution. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: Hi, I actually performed those moves over a year ago, in April 2022, apparently as requested by another user at WP:RMT since I have no personal interest in baseball articles. But to be clear, I did not redirect any content, I merely renamed (e.g.) "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" to "Brooklyn Dodgers". Finding out who requested these moves would take some digging in WP:RMT's page history. Lennart97 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I did the digging, and it turns out the moves were requested by Bison X and based on this RFC. Lennart97 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! I contributed in that RfC. Completely forgot. So we have standalone articles for former clubs like the Milwaukee Braves and then History of the Atlanta Braves that expand on the current team's franchise location. Nemov (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Relocated sports teams

There's a discussion about relocated sports team's articles taking places at WT:SPORTS in case anyone is interested. Nemov (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

June 13 OTD errata

I have noticed and flagged an errata in the current Wikipedia "On This Day" which may be of interest to this group. see here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Good investigation! Perhaps you can move it out of the June 13 article to the June 23 article to try to prevent a re-occurence in future? (Since you identified the problem and corrected the info in Dodger infield of Garvey, Lopes, Cey and Russell, it seems appropriate that you make the change to the day of the year articles.) isaacl (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Isaacl, where/how are day-of-the-year articles coordinated? I'm not familiar with the process. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the process, beyond what I've read at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. isaacl (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The actual pages used for the Main Page are Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 13 and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 23. As with most eveything on WP, editors are encouraged to be bold. IMHO, OTD doesn't have enough eyes, so stuff slips through. As with any errors on the MP, WP:ERRORS is the place to flag it, because it will be fully protected for that day, and as admin will need to fix it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking that the page would be written from scratch next year anyway based on the June 13 page, but if that's not how it works, sure, changing the selected anniversary page now would be helpful too. The article was wrong until today when Dmoore5556 fixed it, so it's not surprising that June 13 is wrong, and thus so is the selected anniversary page. isaacl (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
It's basically set up as a repository of candidates. People come in each year and mix up what's displayed that given year. If nobody changes it, it's the same as the year before. —Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Could alternatively tweak the blurb to say they first played (not started) together on 6/13. Not sure which event is more prevalent in sources. —Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I moved it to June 23, in the "eligible" bucket there. Most sources seem to focus on their first start together, which was the 23rd. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

New stand-alone page

Might it make sense to make Keaton Winn into a stand-alone page now? He's just been called up by the Giants, and seems to have enough coverage reflected to meet GNG. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:9C56:A0E1:CEAC:F585 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

He's made his MLB debut, and other editors have moved the content into a stand-alone page. That's the normal process that happens when a minor-league player makes his MLB debut. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Understood. I had thought that while one making an MLB debut automatically makes them wp notable, meeting GNG by itself also made them wp notable. And that we have a number of baseball players who have pages who have not as of yet made their MLB debut. -2603:7000:2101:AA00:4CE9:D761:F40C:E2E (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
My observation has been that whether a specific minor-league player meets GNG is quite debatable in most cases. It's probably best to wait for minor-leaguers to get called up (as happened with Winn) before splitting them away from the applicable "minor league players" page, unless they are already unambiguously notable (e.g. a first-round draft pick). Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I hear you. But my observation actually has been that a) it's a firm rule about GNG, and no more debatable where there is a sports related subject that presumes it may meet GNG .. which is simply an alternative; and b) there are literally dozens of minor league baseball player pages, with lesser indicia of GNG (and where the player, unlike here, was not on the 26-man roster), such as Roman Anthony, and Alex Binelas. This isn't an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem, because the fact that other stuff exists is not the sole rationale, as mentioned above. This seemed a no-brainer. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A035:B26E:B3B6:9257 (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order in infoboxes

Hi, I'd like to propose that all lists in infoboxes for baseball teams be changed from reverse chronological order to chronological order (e.g. lists of former names, leagues, stadiums, major league affiliates, etc). Earliest-to-latest ordering is the norm for chronological lists on Wikipedia at-large (see WP:SALORDER and MOS:LISTSORT), and also specifically for sports. It is used in the infoboxes of basketball teams (e.g. Brooklyn Nets), football teams (e.g Cleveland Browns), ice hockey teams (e.g Edmonton Oilers), all types of players, including baseball players (e.g. Lionel Messi, Babe Ruth), and all types of sports venues, including baseball parks (e.g. Madison Square Garden, Yankee Stadium). It is confusing that baseball teams are the only type of sports article using latest-to-earliest ordering. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

IagoQnsi, to make sure I understand the proposal, looking at the current page for Cincinnati Reds, for example, the "Major league affiliations", "Name", and "Ballpark" chronologies would run down-page rather than up-page, yes? Just checking. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm thinking. IagoQnsi (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
IagoQnsi, I tinkered with a copy of the infobox for the Cincinnati Red, to see what it would take to invert the chronology. Unfortunately, it's not simply re-ordering entries in an unbulleted list. Template:Infobox MLB has specific fields for name, current league, and ballpark; then different fields for pastnames, past league, and pastparks. Making a change to the chronology would require both changing the template, plus changing the way some content is passed to the template (e.g. the Reds have multiple entries in the "pastparks" field). Of course, "all things are possible", but this looks fairly complex, with a lot of opportunity for errors. Personally, I wouldn't want to kick this sleeping dog. Dmoore5556 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 14 June 2023‎ (UTC)
@Dmoore5556: Here's a copy of the template fixed to use chronological order (with the Reds and Brewers included as examples): User:IagoQnsi/Infobox MLB. The current league/name/park is placed below the past league/name/park now. Any team that has more than one past name/league/park would have to be manually updated to put the past entries in chronological order, but that's not too hard; I could do that no prob. –IagoQnsi (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@IagoQnsi: The examples look good. I don't have a strong preference either way (existing vs. proposed). I'd encourage you to give other editors who are frequent contributors in this area (e.g. @Muboshgu and Bagumba:) a chance to review and also provide comment. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@IagoQnsi: No obvious objections. I'd suggest having your changes at Template:Infobox MLB/sandbox, and then adding to Template:Infobox MLB/testcases to test/show the effects. —Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Butting in from nowhere (Left Field?): if you're contemplating such a change (which I would tend to favor), perhaps it would be courtesy to mention it for comment (thus averting reverts, edit wars, etc.) at Template talk:Infobox MLB.
In my experience it's never hurt to read and consider other opinions and suggestions (such as pointing to difficulties I hadn't thought or known of), even when I've still held to my own views.
@Bagumba @Dmoore5556 @IagoQnsi —— Shakescene (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No problem for completeness. In reality, few people watch and comment at templates compared to the project page. —Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Should these two cats be combined?

Arizona League Giants players

and

Arizona Complex League Giants players? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A035:B26E:B3B6:9257 (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No, we have different cats for each name change. Spanneraol (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Team nicknames in infoboxes

Is there a guideline for inclusion of team nicknames in their infoboxes? I just removed one from Baltimore Orioles here as a) it was described as a slogan not a nickname and b) that looks like a fan blog anyway. The remaining nicknames in the infobox include "The O's" (naturally) and "The Birds" (I guess) and three more recent ones that seem more dubious: "Why Not? Orioles" (1989), "The Buckle Up Birds" (2012), "The Birdland Power Co." (2016–2017). (years copied as presented currently) Two of the three are sourced (one to the same source that I removed above), but are there guidelines for inclusion regarding longevity or pervasiveness etc? Echoedmyron (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There's one for bios, MOS:BADNICK:

Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical.

It'd be good to have more objective criteria regarding "uncommon".—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
My 2¢ is that single year things like that belong more in the season article than the general team infobox. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Enterprise Wolves Baseball for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enterprise Wolves Baseball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Wolves Baseball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arizona Diamondbacks who have pitched a no-hitter

Template:Arizona Diamondbacks who have pitched a no-hitter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Unnecessary and lack information/can be misleading and confusing. Also incomplete; the user abandoned the project in the middle of making it, making them for only 11 out of 30 MLB teams.
While made in good faith, these templates are unnecessary. The main reason being there already is a template for team-specific no-hitters: Template:Lists of no-hitters by franchise AND there is already a page dedicated to no-hitters which actually details the no-hitters instead of leading to the page of a pitcher who pitched a no-hitter and gives little other info on the no-hitter itself.
These templates are also misleading with regards to combined no-hitters and teams which have long since moved from one city to another AND/OR have changed their names, ignoring the history of the team itself; e.g. Walter Johnson was a Washington Senator, not a Minnesota Twin; Addie Joss played for the Cleveland Naps, not the Guardians; Cy Young played for the Boston Americans, not the Red Sox - a few examples amongst many. The team-specific pages use the current names as well but tell the history of the team in the lede of the page. As for perfect games, that already has a template as those are special, rare occurances and each game has a page of its own.
Had there been one for each team, I would have let it go. However, since they are NOT complete and not updated either, it is easier to simply delete them; the above mentioned, better documented alternates are already doing the work of these templates. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Statlines for MLB players

Are statlines acceptable for MLB players and pitchers? I added two statlines for Manny Ramirez today that was deleted by Yankees10. Just want to know if statlines are acceptable or expressing career statistics in another form. Thanks for your time. Theairportman33531 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The key stats are listed in the info box.. and the articles contain links at the bottom to stat sites that provide that information. The body of the article should be in prose not tables of stats. Spanneraol (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Article "Modern baseball" needs to be made IMO

OK, so here's the deal:

  • The term "modern baseball" comes up a lot in articles books and all. A lot. "The most innings pitched in modern baseball" etc
  • I suppose a far number of people are like "Well what exactly is modern baseball"?
  • So they come here and search on "modern baseball".
  • But it takes them an article about a band, Modern Baseball, a defunct (2011–2017) emo band. They qualify for an article, but not by a whole lot. There's no hatnote and no Modern Baseball (disambiguation), because there are no other articles with that name.

I think that's a hard landing for most readers. So one thing would be to have the term take the reader to a section of one of the baseball-history pages. But the problem with that is:

  • There isn't any section that's appropriate, that I could find.
  • All things equal, I think it's confusing to take the reader to a section, especially since it won't be titled "Modern baseball", altho we do.
  • There's be no easy way to hatnote a link to the band from a section, I mean we do, but it's kind of clunky.

And beside, I think we want to explain the term "modern baseball" and there's no place to jam that into the middle of a history article.

So, article. I can write it I guess if nobody else wants to. But I want to get input from mavens before I do, or if there even should be an article, etc. IMO it'd be a short article of two parts: First, defining the the term generally, something like "Modern baseball is a term used to describe baseball since the time it began to be played essentially as it is in the present day. Blah blah blah etc. "Changes in the way baseball is played are usually incremental, so there's no one year that can be gives the change point. Various people say":

Then a reff'd list of them. Lot of people say 1900 or 1901, even tho nothing really changed as to play on the field that year. one guy said 1920. One guy said 1947, integration. One guy said 1969, start of divisional play. I haven't seen, but might if there's digging, 1893 (pitching distance) or or 1921 (start of "clean ball" era) or 1973 (last truly profound rule change, DH). Then some explano why.

Thoughts? Herostratus (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"Modern baseball" is just baseball... defining what era that is might be considered pov and I dont know if there is enough to make a real article about it. Spanneraol (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not an official term, so if someone reads it in a book or article, they'll have to refer to that book or article to understand what time period to which the text is referring. Once upon a time, people used 1901 as an easy dividing line (as History of baseball notes, it's when foul balls started counting as strikes, marking what most people would consider the last major rule change that makes baseball look and feel like how it is played today), but frankly it's more of a term of convenience for the writer, rather than something that can be discussed as an independent concept. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
A redirect of some form to History of baseball and a hatnote at the band article would surely be better than a stand alone article due to the ambiguity of the term. Hog Farm Talk 02:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • We have a similar issue in the American football context where sports writers refer to "modern football". The problem is that reliable statistics don't exist for the early years of the game, and so writers refer to "modern football" records in a rather vague/imprecise way. (Some would suggest that Walter Camp's revision of the rules defined the start of "modern football". Others point to the introduction of the forward pass c. 1905 or two-platoon football c. 1947 or the merger of the AFL and NFL.) I see a real problem in trying to define what would constitute either "modern baseball" or "modern football" without running into "no original research" issues. Cbl62 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Player infobox team affiliations for seasons missed due to injury

Hi, I think the infobox should reflect that a player's affiliation with a team continues through one or more seasons in which they do not appear due to injury when they remained under contract with the same team both pre- and post-injury and appeared for that team pre- and post-injury. Obviously those players are considered part of their teams in both contractual and MLB roster terms, but I think adopting this convention would also better accord with common usage among reliable secondary sources and people who talk about baseball; for example, I am confident you won't find any source other than Wikipedia characterizing Chipper Jones's affiliation with the Braves as comprising two distinct periods in 1993 and 1995-2012. It also matches the reality that players out for a full season due to injury continue to be paid by the team, are under the care of team doctors and trainers, often work out with the team, and often watch from the dugout in team uniform.

To address a couple of follow-on points:

1. I don't think that the practice needs to necessarily be uniform among other reasons a player may miss a full season, such as a suspension or military service. Uniformity might work, but there are also important distinctions in that the player's affiliation with the Major League team is much less active in circumstances other than injury--e.g., pay, sitting in the dugout, practicing with the team, among other things.

2. I realize that this wouldn't fit with the treatment of players who are traded to Team A in the offseason but then end up with Team B for the following season and never make an appearance for Team A. (Or similar circumstances; the player who gets traded twice two days around the deadline.) But again, it's a different situation, and I think that's reflected by differences in common usage when discussing such players.

Interested to hear others' thoughts. SS451 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The info boxes are for the years someone played with a team.. years missed due to injury can easily be ascertained from the body of the article. One of the reasons for doing it this way is that it is really difficult to track seasons like that for older (pre-internet) players and we stay current with the key sources like mlb.com and baseball reference in how they track players careers. Spanneraol (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding pre-Internet players, we could at least verify whether they appeared exclusively for the same team immediately before and after the missed time, and pre-Internet there are generally fewer issues with contractual/organizational status due to the reserve clause. I agree it may be difficult or impossible to verify whether a lesser-known pre-Internet player missed a season due to injury or some other reason, but I think it would be fine to leave seasons out of the infobox if the reason is unknown. For players where we do know, I think capturing a continuous span is clearer and less confusing, particularly because injured players under team control are treated as part of the Major League team and often the focus of team communications and roster moves regarding their expected return (even if they ultimately don't end up ever appearing in a specific season). SS451 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I concur. A player that spends an entire season on the 60-day IL is still a meme era of the team, just off the active roster. There shouldn't be a gap in their years with a team. oknazevad (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
There also players still in the organization but in the minor leagues. —Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea. The standard that one should appear in a game is a good one, and I don't agree with exempting it for injuries but not suspensions/military service/opting out. The Chipper Jones example the OP criticizes I really don't find fault with. He made a brief appearance in 1993, injured himself in spring training, and then finally re-appeared with the Braves the next year. I don't think anyone would realistically say his career began in 1993 and continued for another season, so the infobox to me is fine. I also don't think it makes sense to blank out players who missed multiple years with injuries, when in that case it can be a notable aspect of their career. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I concur with the others who have identified this as a bad idea. Our current system has clear, straightforward criteria, and it works. It ain't broke, so don't fix it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this Pat Bailey notable? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:F168:8127:FB49:B85C (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

World Series results, inconsistent background colouring

I've noticed in the American League's West, Central & East division pages, that WS winners have 'red' backgrounds, while the WS losers have 'green'. Meanwhile in the National League's West, Central & East division pages, the WS winners have 'green' backgrounds, while the WS losers have 'red'. Also, in the American League pennant winners page, 'red' is used for the WS winners, while in the National League pennant winners page, 'blue' is used for WS winners. Would it not be 'best' to use green for all WS winners & red for all WS losers? It would make it less confusing for readers in general, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the pages in question? isaacl (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
American League East, American League Central, American League West, National League East, National League Central, National League West, List of American League pennant winners & (has more then two colour backgrounds) List of National League pennant winners. There's likely more pages, just haven't found'em yet. Concerning 'red/blue'? I suspect that's following the AL is 'red', NL is 'blue' idea. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I was just writing that it's probably related to colours traditionally associated with the leagues. I agree that this is not readily apparent for tables keyed only by teams from one league. A legend would be helpful. The pennant winner articles have legends; the NL pennant winner article has different background colours depending on time period for winners so a single winner colour wouldn't be possible. isaacl (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
So it's best to have legends in the division pages, to explain what the colours mean. I was considering switching the 'red/green' to 'green/red' for WS winners/losers, in the AL's divisions, to match the NL's divisions. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
It's always best practice to have legends to explain any encoding system, whether it is background colours, boldface, superscripted symbols/letters, or something else. Perhaps consistency with the table in the "Season results" section further down on the division pages would be best regarding the background colours. (Or no background colour at all.) isaacl (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest route. I've gone ahead & changed the 'green/red' colouring for the WS winners & losers in the AL East, Central & West pages, to match with the NL East, Central & West pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Ownership of the Atlanta Braves

The Braves are kind of a odd case when it comes to ownership in MLB. Liberty Media spun off the team as Atlanta Braves Holdings Inc.[9] Liberty is doing this to likely set up a sale further down the road. My question here how should the owner be listed? Right now it's listed as Atlanta Braves Holdings Inc. which I believe is technically correct, but wanted to run it by here in case other think differently. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, the new company is the owner now, so I don't see any other feasible option. As of the split, the shareholders in the two companies can start diverging. isaacl (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Problem?

For some reason, when I do a google search for "wade meckler wikipedia", it does not bring me to where the pages has been moved as a standalone. Not sure how to fix that. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:4CA9:6B0D:E90D:8972 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Just search for Wade Meckler on wikipedia itself. Spanneraol (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Understood. I'm thinking of all the users of wp who just do a google search looking for the article. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:4CA9:6B0D:E90D:8972 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, your specific query worked for me. At any rate, it's an issue to take up with the specific search engine.—Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It now works. Thanks.2603:7000:2101:AA00:2980:DF82:44B4:A169 (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Kyle Harrison

Since MLB.com has reported that Kyle Harrison is being called up to pitch Tuesday, and his article at San Francisco Giants minor league players meets GNG in any event, perhaps it is time for him to have a standalone article before everyone google searches for him tomorrow. https://www.mlb.com/news/kyle-harrison-giants-callup 2603:7000:2101:AA00:89CA:151A:4635:2E43 (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

All-Stars in expansion draft selections tables

At 1976 Major League Baseball expansion draft, I've noticed inconsistency in how players are designated as All-Stars in the table. There are some, like Steve Hargan, who were All-Stars well before this draft. Others like Ernie Whitt, who became one later. Bill Singer was a two-time All-Star before the draft but is not designated as one here. In order to know how to address this, what do people expect to be the criteria here: a) someone who was previously an All-Star, ergo you are drafting a Star player b) someone who later became an All-Star, showing it was a great pick like a later Hall of Famer might c) someone who was ever an All-Star, before or after. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Game log question

Would someone mind taking a look at 2005 Chicago White Sox season#Game log? The parameters for the game logs appear to be out of order. The logs appear to be being created by a template, and I'm not sure if the error has to do with the template's format or the way the parameter information has been added to the template's syntax. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Looked like it was using an older template and somehow it got edited along the way to change the order of the titles... I switched it to the current template which allows more customization. Looks like some of the other white sox seasons may have the same issue... i dont have time to go through them though. Spanneraol (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
A belated thank you Spanneraol for identifying what the issue was. Now I know what to look for. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding a discrepancy in stats

So I'm working on John Montgomery Ward's perfect game and I noticed that is a discrepancy regarding how many strikeouts Ward had. Baseball Almanac and author Ronald Mayer state there were two, author James Buckley states there were 6, the scorecard at the bottom of a SABR article seems to indicate there were seven, and the Wikipedia article itself says there were five. Quite frankly I have no idea where the 5 strikeout number comes from, no source I can find states there were five. What should I do? Famous Hobo (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a dilemma. It appears with my old eyes that the SABR article boxscore credits 5 putouts to the catcher Emil Gross. That may be the root of the 5 strikeouts.Skilgis1900 (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Mark Baldwin (baseball) nominated for FAC

I have nominated Mark Baldwin (baseball) for FAC here, feel free to leave a comment! Therapyisgood (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Philadelphia Athletics 18, Cleveland Indians 17 (1932) nominated for FAC

I have nominated the above article for FAC here, feel free to comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What do we do with teams that get eliminated from postseason contention?

I need a refresher. Do we delete 'eliminated teams' from the AL & NL wild card race tables, in ongoing MLB season pages? GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Gas Plant Stadium proposed

Draft:Gas Plant Stadium is in the works; should this be approved or redirect to a section on Tropicana Field until groundbreaking is done? Please discuss at talk:Tropicana Field. Thanks. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_49&oldid=1181210504"