Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Special projects talk Resource Library talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (62) talk  → Featured lists (211) talk  → Good articles (560) talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Style advice talk  → Naming conventions talk  → Player style advice talk  → Season article format talk Handling transactions talk Popular pages talk Active editors
Project organization Participants talk Large userbox talk Project userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball Team specific Atlanta Braves talk Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Mets talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk Negro league baseball talk Hall of Fame talk Umpires talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Proposed deletion of Noah Denoyer

The article Noah Denoyer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Left guide (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Playoff finish in team infobox

Is there any convention for filling in |misc= at {{Infobox baseball team season}} with teams' playoff finishes? Some anomalies are 2024 Atlanta Braves season and 2023 Miami Marlins season showing "National League Wild Card Winners" when they lost the Wild Card Series. Should 2024 Cleveland Guardians mention that they advanced to the ALCS? It currently only shows "American League Central Champions". —Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary... the "wild card winners" thing is something I have been trying to fix when it come across it.. those teams should just say "National League wild card" and not "winners". The info box should say if you won something... losing in the second round or the championship series is still losing. Spanneraol (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I was curious how this proj does it given a related NFL discussion on playoff finishes.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

One could argue that winning an LCS berth is similar to winning a wild card berth (I'm not necessarily arguing for inclusion or exclusion, just trying to understand the rationale). —Bagumba (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Wild Card berth gets you into the playoffs, same as winning a division title. That's why I think it should only be the division titles, wild card (not winner), league pennant and World Series championships in that field. Spanneraol (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata support for baseballstats

I've opened up an edit request and made changes to support Wikidata in {{Baseballstats}}, this would allow for data for this template to just be put into Wikidata and populate the template automatically. I would appreciate any comments or feedback regarding it on the template discussion page (or here), see Template_talk:Baseballstats#Edit_request_3_February_2025_2 for examples and discussion. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 20:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Portions of the ongoing discussion at WT:NBA#NBA Statistics Bot consensus may be somewhat related to this. There has been some mention of possibly using Wikidata to populate NBA basketball stats automatically. Left guide (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

World Series champion in infobox

I notice that for many World Series-winning players, in their infobox where it says "World Series champion", there is a link to just the World Series itself. Wouldn't it make more sense if World Series champion linked to "List of World Series champions"? The NFL infobox does this with List of Super Bowl champions, and so does the NBA with List of NBA champions. Obviously this would be a massive undertaking to change every single player's page, so I recognize at this point it might be too difficult. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't linking to the world series they won be a better option? Spanneraol (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The actual WSs they won is typically linked in the parenthetical list of years. —Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Whatever the consensus ends up being in terms of which page to point to, we should be careful to avoid an MOS:EGG situation. A link to the article World Series should simply be a direct link around the words "World Series", and a link to the article List of World Series champions should be a piped link around the words "World Series champion". FWIW, World Series champions redirects to the champions list page. Linking the words to the specific year they won would also be MOS:EGG, and in any case there's not an unambiguous target for multi-time champions (i.e. Derek Jeter, Madison Bumgarner). Left guide (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  ... there's not an unambiguous target for multi-time champions ...: FWIW, the NBA and NFL projs link both one-time and multi-time winners.—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think you may be misunderstanding the context. My comment was referring to the idea of linking the words "World Series champion" (and not the year number) to a specific year edition. For example, if Randy Johnson's infobox were to say "World Series champion" or in code [[2001 World Series|World Series champion]]. Left guide (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think I'm understanding what you are trying to say, but the NFL and NBA pages always link "Super Bowl champion" or "NBA champion" to "List of Super Bowl champions" or "List of NBA champions", respectively, no matter how many titles that player has won, they never link "NBA champion" to a specific NBA Finals, that is the point of the year number in parentheses. For example, if you see Jalen Hurts, he has only won one Super Bowl (Super Bowl LIX), but where it says "Super Bowl champion", it still redirects to List of Super Bowl champions, as is the same with Tom Brady, who has won seven. The one difference between these two players is that Tom Brady's page links to "Super Bowl champion", which is a redirect to "List of Super Bowl champions", which Hurts' page directly links to "List of Super Bowl champions", though that doesn't really matter since linking the redirect still displays a preview of the "List of Super Bowl champions" page.

  For example in the context of the MLB, to give an example of a winner of multiple World Series and a winner of one, it propose it would look like this:

  (Derek Jeter):

  5× World Series champion (1996, 1998–2000, 2009)

  (Kyle Schwarber):

  World Series champion (2016) Red0ctober22 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  ... though that doesn't really matter since linking the redirect still displays a preview of the "List of Super Bowl champions" page. MOS:NOPIPE says to link to the (shorter) redirect and avoid piping. —Bagumba (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Understand now, so "World Series champion" should link to "World Series champion", and the redirect will do the rest.

  Is this something that people would approve of doing? I am willing to update as many pages as I can, though I do realize it is a mammoth task. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I support, as it's consistent with NBA and NFL projs. —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, then I will get working on it. If anyone wants to help, just be sure to remember Bagumba's message above about WP:NOPIPE.

  The entry should be, for example:

  • 5× World Series champion (1996, 1998–2000, 2009)

  Red0ctober22 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with this style. Left guide (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:MLB Tokyo Series 2025#Requested move 18 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MLB Tokyo Series 2025#Requested move 18 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 00:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Template creep?

Are navboxes for MiLB league halls of fame a case of WP:TEMPLATECREEP (e.g. Template:Southern League Hall of Fame and Template:International League Hall of Fame)? I can't imagine these being significant enough to be mentioned in the lead of many bios, and many of the inductees are quite accomplished with many navs already. @NatureBoyMD: Courtesy ping as rthe ecent creator of the Southern Lg nav. —Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Not every HOF should have a navbox and these seem very minor.-- Yankees10 22:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on this.. personally the number of templates on an article doesn't bother me... but on the other hand I didn't even know the Southern League had a hall of fame and don't consider it that notable. Spanneraol (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If there's any modicum of support here for deleting these templates, WP:TFD seems like the logical next step. Left guide (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yankees10 @Spanneraol @Left guide: TfD is opened at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 April 12 § Template:Southern League Hall of Fame—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Going forward, it may be beneficial to add some navbox suggestions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice to manage large numbers of templates. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, but is there any common consensus? Let's see what comes out of this TfD at least. —Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• It appears to be template creep. I might defend the navbox for the PCL Hall of Fame. Before MLB moved west, the PCL was like a third major league for those who didn't want to leave the Pacific time zone. I created some bios on members who didn't play in MLB: Billy Raimondi, Brick Eldred, Cack Henley, Fuzzy Hufft, Lou Almada. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hyeseong Kim#Requested move 24 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hyeseong Kim#Requested move 24 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Updating List of Major League Baseball single-game records

I'm interested in cohesively formatting and updating this page, only looking at the talk page it looks like the format of the page has been up for debate for over a decade now. I wanted to know what the project broadly thinks would be best for displaying this information? I think the table format which appears sporadically is easier to read, but it was removed previously in favour of the bullet points by a previous user. PunkAndromeda (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

We had this similar discussion on the NBA page with Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan and the consensus was it was too close to definitively label either player the Greatest of all Time. Therefore to be fair is there a consensus agreement to keep this title for Babe Ruth? Currently it's labelled on his page at the moment Never17 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The page says that Ruth "is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time," which is 1) not a definitive label and 2) true; I see no reason that language should be removed. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Just posing a question, i have no problem with it but lots of people i see argue for Bonds and Mays so i just wanted to see what people here stand on the subject Never17 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that "considered by many" is often not sourced. Moreover, it's a weak statement; If 7 say he's the greatest, and 15 don't, that's still arguably "many". I'd argue that such a statement should be limited to cases where it's sourceable that someone is "widely considered the greatest", with the MOS:WEASEL guideline caveat on using "widely considered" and the like:

Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies.

It should also meet the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources ... Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources

—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's an overgeneralization. The Chamberlain discussion decided:

1. Wikivoice should not call him the greatest.
2. It's a dated opinion that he's considered the greatest.

The more general RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association § Request for Comment on use of the term "one of the greatest" in player articles is still open. —Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• I can see "is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of his time," but not "all" time; or maybe "is considered by many to be one of the greatest baseball player of all time." This needs to go away on every page it is on, even if it is some SABR poll or whatever, or even if Bill James comes up with an equalizer. It's all relative and not transcending. IMO. Why don't we just instill already existing policies as quoted by Bagumba and actually enforce them? Do we really need an RfC? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• As I said in the NBA project RfC, the video game project has a pertinent interpretation of WP:NPOV policy that has been authorized by broader community consensus as an official Manual of Style guideline. The second paragraph of WP:VG/POV reads:

  Avoid vague statements (weasel words) that sound authoritative but offer no substance. Rephrase Many think the game is great as a verifiable statement: The game received five Game of the Year awards (only count reliable sources). When sources and interviews use flattering or promotional language, maintain your professional prose quality and instead provide more specific and referenced facts about the project so readers can decide for themselves. Rephrase puffery (peacock terms): The game is the console's best into IGN and GameSpot listed the game as among the console's best.

  That guideline can be translated into a baseball context as needed. Left guide (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'll assume it's something specific with the nature of video games, because MOS:WEASEL is less dogmatic:

  The examples above are not automatically weasel words.

  Follow the sources. —Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Leave as is. Not only is Babe Ruth the greatest ballplayer of all time but is the most underrated baseball player of all time. Everyone here who hasn't read it, please read the book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs that highlights Ruth's dominance in the home run category. Nobody comes close, then or now. His career totals in RBI's, runs, batting average, slugging percentage, etc. etc. (not to mention his pitching career and where that could have led), in the era where less games were played yearly, were and are near or at the top of overall major league records. Again, read the book to understand Ruth's career and home run stats that were so far beyond anyone playing the game in his time (and after). Have any academic studies been done on why or how he was able to do what he did? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"World Series champion" order in infobox

"World Series champion" should be listed first in the infobox. It is the crown jewel of accomplishment for a player, and allows for achievements more likely to be repeated like All-Stars, All-MLBs, MVPs, (4x, 6x, 3x stuff) etc., to be grouped together more cohesively. It is listed first for NBA and NFL players, and FWIW it would make it easier to compare players between the leagues for a reader.

For example, Shohei Ohtani's infobox starts like this.

• 4× All-Star (2021–2024)
• World Series champion (2024)

But Jayson Tatum's starts like this.

• NBA champion (2024)
• 6× NBA All-Star (2020–2025)

I think the latter it is better overall. Wamalotpark (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Matt Cain

Matt Cain 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)