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 (216) talk  → Good articles (577) talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Style advice talk  → Naming conventions talk  → Player style advice talk  → Season article format talk  → Team style advice 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

Remove infobox team/league guidance from player style advice?

This Wikiproject's player style advice includes this line:

• teams – for all post-integration era players who played in one of the following leagues, list only teams that a player has played for in these leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League

This causes us to run smack into issues with WP:DUE and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. For instance:

• Mike Hessman is the American minor league home run king, and has his minor league career better covered in reliable sources than his major league career - but the style guide says we can't include his minor league teams in the infobox, because he played parts of five years in the majors.
• Omar Linares is one of the greatest Cuban baseball players of all time and, unsurprisingly, reliable sources focus on that - but our style guide says we should only include his three years in the NPB and we can't put his 20 years of playing for Cuban teams in the infobox.
• José Abreu played ten years in Cuba, including "one of the greatest seasons in Cuban history". Yuli Gurriel played fifteen years in Cuba. Their careers in Cuba appear to be well-sourced, but the infobox style guide gives us no leeway to determine whether they should be included.

WP:DUE requires us to violate our local style guide for infoboxes for players like Hessman and Linares, as their careers have to be given due weight per reliable sources, and the reliable sources are weighted towards their time playing outside NPB, KBO, and the major leagues. Placing Hessman's major league information in the infobox, but not his minor league info, is WP:UNDUE. Not summarizing Linares' 20 year Cuban league career in the infobox in favor of his three-year NPB career is WP:UNDUE. I suggest we remove the offending line from the style guide entirely and let the weight of reliable sourcing sort it out.

Further down in the "highlights" section of player style advice,

• highlights – the following achievements have received consensus for inclusion:
  • season league leader / award winner for the following categories, prefixed with "AL" (for American League), "NL" (for National League), "PL" (for Pacific League), or "CL" (for Central League) as appropriate:

I suggest that the section beginning with "prefixed" also be removed, for similar reasons. I did a search through the highlights consensus discussions and could not find any consensus to limit highlights to those four leagues, so it should be trivial to remove (unless I missed where it was discussed).

Finally, even further on down:

• For leading the league in a statistical category, if the player has done so only in one league, prefix the achievement with "AL", "NL", "PL", or "CL" as appropriate. If the player has led both the AL and NL or PL and CL, do not prefix the achievement and list the total number of seasons led by the player across both leagues.

This would have to be reworked to reflect the above changes. SirParzifal (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the prefix, it isn't intended to impose additional limitations on league leader categories, but to allow for a way to distinguish between a leader of one of the constituent leagues of MLB or NPB, and a leader across all MLB or NPB. It is likely true, though, that most people were considering an MLB context when considering what highlights to include. For players who played in MLB, NPB, and KBO but whose highlights are in a different league, and those highlights warrant inclusion, then I think it is reasonable for their accomplishments to have a distinguishing prefix. This will help readers identify in which league an accomplishment occurred. A full expansion of the prefix should probably appear in the lead section. I think this approach is also reasonable for players with significant careers across multiple leagues.

The general guidance on which teams to list was based on the assumption for most players, participation in MLB, NPB, or KBO generally becomes the dominant characteristic of a player. However this assumption is worth examining more closely. Is there some relatively straightforward way to distinguish between players with that type of career path, and those who do spend some time in the top leagues, but whose career in other leagues remain a key characteristic of their career? isaacl (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Reading back now, I was not completely clear in my post - I agree that a prefix is important. I simply meant that the list of league prefixes would need to be expanded to include other leagues. It would probably be a good idea to have a full list of standardized league abbreviations (or, at minimum, standardized major leagues prefixes) especially since we already have standardized team abbreviations. In fact, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and create a subpage for league abbreviations, add in all the major leagues (using their MLB.com abbreviations, to match the MLB.com team abbreviations we use), and link it in the style guide.

I'm not sure if there's a straightforward way to separate the two career paths. In my experience, there are some commonalities in the players with notable minor league careers (played before the minor leagues almost exclusively became a farm system, played for unaffiliated teams in the high minors, often staying with the same top-level team year-to-year, often has or had some sort of record). I would consider Perry Werden, Buzz Arlett, Nick Cullop, and Bunny Brief to be good examples of this. For players who played most or all of their career with affiliated minor league clubs, like Mike Hessman, there are far fewer cases and each situation is more unique. I think the best way is the hard way - by reading prose about their career and seeing how their minor league career is covered vs. their major league. SirParzifal (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think for reader convenience it would still be desirable to ensure that any league abbreviations are described within the lead section. I suggest changing the first bullet item to say something like "prefixed with the league as appropriate (see below)" in order to keep the guidance in one place, and changing the paragraph below to something like:

If a player led in a statistical category for the National League or American League but not both, or the Pacific League or the Central League but not both, then prefix the achievement with "AL", "NL", "PL", or "CL" as appropriate. For a player who led, in different seasons, both constituent leagues of MLB or NPB, do not prefix the achievement and list the total number of seasons led by the player across both leagues.

Use an appropriate prefixing abbreviation for the league when:

• A highlight in a league other than MLB, NPB, or KBO is included, and the player has played in MLB, NPB, or KBO. Ensure the abbreviation is explained in the lead paragraph.
• Highlights from more than one of MLB, NPB, and KBO are included.

(Note I made a mistake earlier describing situations when the AL/NL or PL/CL prefix isn't used. The suggested revision matches the current guidance on the player style page.) isaacl (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I concur with your suggested changes. SirParzifal (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the list of teams, the challenge is to keep it from being an exhaustive list of every team with which the person participated, thus causing the more significant ones to be obscured. I'm not sure how to provide guidance in a way to reduce the amount of back-and-forth disagreement with someone who wants to include a complete list, though. isaacl (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel strongly that if one minor league team is included in the infobox, then all the minor league teams a player played for should be in the infobox, because the reader will assume that a player only played for the listed teams. Perhaps we could, for applicable players who played for a large amount of minor league teams, separate the infobox teams list into three sections, titled: majors, "high minors" (teams in whatever the top level minor league classification was at the time), and "low minors" (all other minor league teams, which would be a collapsed list by default). Most notable minor leaguers are most notable for their time playing in the high minors, so it'd show the more significant teams more prominently. SirParzifal (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think once there's a complete list for some players, readers may expect the list to be complete for all players. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it will be a change and lengthen infoboxes. I'm not sure that collapsing categories of teams is a good idea. Beyond the issue of arguing about the categories, it would interfere with a chronological listing of teams, which I think would be a natural choice for a comprehensive list of teams. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worthwhile considering a redesign of the infobox to be more information-dense? This might still run into the issue of the more important points being drowned out, but at least it'd make infobox lengths shorter. Looking at an infobox like Babe Ruth's, there's a large amount of seemingly unnecessary empty space that could possibly be eliminated with a different design. Then, depending on much space is saved, it could be more practical to include minor league teams. SirParzifal (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that reducing white space within an infobox is a good solution to squeeze in more information. White space is needed for legibility. (Personally, on a desktop browser, I don't see any extraneous vertical white space in the infobox on Babe Ruth's page, and I don't see any horizontal white space that could be used without making the infobox wider, which I don't think is good tradeoff.) isaacl (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I was looking at the page on mobile; the whitespace is far more egregious there. My fault; I should have compared to desktop.

Here's another idea: what about putting all league specific info (debut, teams, stats, achievements) into a league-level collapsible infobox section (like the collapsible section Arnold Schwarzenegger has for his bodybuilding career)?. So for a player like Ryan Vogelsong, he'd have one collapsible section for MLB, one for MiLB, and one for NPB, and then we could use our editorial judgment to have only the MLB section uncollapsed by default, since it's by far the most notable one.

I think this solves a lot of issues: it keeps the infoboxes short (shorter than now, in some cases!), it clearly delineates the more important part of the player's career (by having that infobox uncollapsed by default), and it also makes clear to the user that the player did play in other leagues, since they can see the headings on the collapsed sections.

This would give us a complete list of teams, which avoids any debate about which to include. The complete chronological listing of teams would be lost, but this could be partially ameliorated by including the years the player played for the league in the collapsed section headings. Using Vogelsong as an example, again, he'd have (not necessarily in this order) a collapsed section with header "NPB (2007-2009)", an uncollapsed section with header "MLB (2000-2001, 2003-2006, 2011-2016)", and a collapsed section simply with header "MiLB" (because, in this case, rehab assignments would make it too messy). SirParzifal (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, I think breaking up the chronological listing of teams may be less intuitive for readers, and generally I'm not partial towards collapsible sections. To everyone else: what do you think? isaacl (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm opposed to adding minor league teams to the infoboxes as it would get way too busy... all this stuff is covered in prose.. the current practice with only the most important teams, in chronological order, works best I believe. Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

But there are some players for whom minor league teams are the most important teams, which is where the issue comes from. SirParzifal (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the minor league teams that Hessman played for are particularly notable to put in the info box... and i cant think of any players whose minor league teams rise to that level.. Spanneraol (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Perry Werden, Buzz Arlett, and Bunny Brief are three that come to mind. SirParzifal (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Widespread WP:BLPSPS violations from Baseball Almanac/Baseball Cube sources

It came to my attention today that both Baseball Almanac and The Baseball Cube are self-published sources, as shown by The Baseball Cube's history page "As a 1-person operation, building a useable site that balances content, revenue and accessibility became a challenge beyond my reach." and in this story about Baseball Almanac's creator "Holtz, 56, updates 3000-5000 pages per day but is basically a one-man show, aided only by php programmer Shirley Studebaker and an independent advertising agency, both of whom he has never met."

Per WP:SPSBLP, self-published sources are never allowed as a source for material about living people, unless written by the subject themselves. Baseball Almanac and The Baseball Cube are widely used in baseball articles as sources for material on living players. Many of the uses are from {{baseballstats}}, which is commonly used in the External Links section and has a parameter for Baseball Almanac.

A quick search for the domain names in articles categorized as living people shows about 8400 articles using Baseball Almanac and about 1000 using The Baseball Cube. How should this be handled? SirParzifal (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines must be taken into context, and they interplay with each other. How much research has been done on Baseball Almanac's use by others? Left guide (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

It does not matter.

Per WP:BLPSPS,

Never use self-published sources (including books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, or social network posts) as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves.

There is no exception given for whether or not the self-published source is a reliable source (which I would argue these two sources are, given their use by others). SirParzifal (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Then this means there's a problem with the policy language if it's actually this draconian, and what it says contradicts a common-sense notion of what ought to be done. I may raise a dispute on the policy talk page. Left guide (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea - or, perhaps more simply, invoking WP:IAR. I feel that I am not experienced enough with Wikipedia policy to ignore BLP sourcing rules myself (and that decision should probably be run past more people than just WikiProject Baseball), but doing so does not seem unreasonable. SirParzifal (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Both of these sites violate WP:SPS, not just WP:SPSBLP.

SPS is very clear that Self-published material, such as [...] personal websites [...] are largely not acceptable as sources. The only exception given is Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Have either of the authors been previously published by reliable, independent publications? That would involve something like the website owners themselves being the authors of traditionally published book or magazine articles... NOT the websites simply being quoted/cited by news articles. Neither Gary Cohen nor Sean Holtz appear to have been previously published.

I previously posted about the similar site College Poll Archive at the reliable sources noticeboard. After establishing that it was a self-published source, I removed all of the citations from Wikipedia. I suggest we do the same for these two self-published websites. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I do not read WP:SPS as strictly as that - it doesn't say it's the only possible exception, but rather that it is one exception. I do not have my finger on the reliable source pulse enough in order to know how this policy is commonly understood, though. SirParzifal (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The Baseball Cube was discussed about 6 years ago - here. The general consensus was that it shouldn't be used as a source. Hog Farm _Talk 22:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

For sports, I'd be more concerned if there were examples of Baseball Almanac having a conflict of interest or being factually incorrect or non-neutral. Still, if one remains concerned with BLP, WP:SELFPUB suggests to just find another source: Be careful when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Is MLB a reliable source for baseball statistics?

There's an excellent post on Ty Cobb's talk page from a few years ago that I am indebted to for laying out the basis to this better than I could, but in summary, Major League Baseball has championed a fringe theory on Ty Cobb's statistics for years now. They have known since the 1980s that this total contained errors. Commissioner Bowie Kuhn said in 1981:

“The passage of 70 years, in our judgment . . . constitutes a certain statute of limitation as to recognizing any changes in the records . . . The only way to make changes with confidence would be for a complete and thorough review of all team and individual statistics. That is not practical.”

This is certainly not the attitude we wish to see from a reliable source. Refusing to make corrections because the mistakes happened too long ago is especially bad. If a history journal endorsed now-outdated historical theories from the 1800s and claimed that all of history had to be reviewed in order to change it, we would not give them the time of day.

I am not saying that any company that publishes baseball statistics that turn out to be wrong is an unreliable source - there is no database that large in any field that only contains correct information. It is the refusal to correct information that has long been known to be wrong and is, to the best of my knowledge, universally discredited by independent scholars. As the talk page post I linked above says, this was a business decision by MLB, rather than a research decision. If a company is willing to publish incorrect information as a business decision, how can we trust anything they publish in that field? SirParzifal (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that the reliability of a stats source should hinge on one stat. I don't see any practical advantage, for example, in not using MLB's 2026 season stats due to decisions made from a time where statskeeping was more murky than today. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

If they have, in one case, knowingly published incorrect statistics and continued to publish them until the current day, how can we trust any of their statistics? There's no way to tell if they've reached a particular number because of their research, or because of a business decision. One bad apple spoils the bunch. This was not a decision they made when statskeeping was more murky; this is a decision they made when the error was discovered and they have continued to make that decision every day they haven't fixed the error.

It's not about whether there's a practical advantage; it's about whether they are a reliable source or not. SirParzifal (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understood your reasoning. As I said, I disagree with the premise. I do believe MLB is, in general, a reliable source. isaacl (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

MLB does not maintain their own stats. That's Elias Sports Bureau. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chinese Professional Baseball League#Requested move 19 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chinese Professional Baseball League#Requested move 19 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:25, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

When used adjectivally, should we use "major league", or "major-league"?

As in, major league stats, major-league player, etc. The only preference I have seen described here is for major-league. I do not believe there is a wrong answer - the SABR style guide says both are acceptable - but I think it would be helpful to standardize to one or the other for the sake of consistency throughout articles. This would also apply to minor league/minor-league. SirParzifal (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Hyphens, a hyphen is used for a compound modifier. The oddity, of course, is that Major League Baseball is kept with its official name (and technically, major-league baseball should be hyphenated when referring to the general concept). isaacl (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, so there is a wrong way! Thank you very much; I'll add that to our style guide. SirParzifal (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer to rely on the manual of style, rather than duplicating information on the baseball style advice page. (Note it isn't labelled a guide, to avoid implying that it has received general community consensus approval as a guideline.) isaacl (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

My apologies; I typed it all up and added it to the guide, then came back here and saw this message. I think it's very helpful to have specific baseball use cases in our style guide - the MOS can be very dense and hard to find information in, and this is a very common phrasing that appears on a huge number of baseball pages. Does anyone else have any preferences on whether or not this should appear in our style guide? SirParzifal (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm OK with baseball specific examples that make reference to the main MOS, while being careful not to overly duplicate MOS content (a delicate balance). If it ever gets to the point where it's too large and unwieldy, it can then be judiciously trimmed (WP:CREEP). —Bagumba (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding all-time player lists

Hi. Regarding all time player lists for each team, is it worth standardising the lists in terms of what information they show? There's quite a large variance, eg Toronto Blue Jays all-time roster has players with their respective flags next to their name, Boston Red Sox all-time roster has the same but only for non-US players, and Detroit Tigers all-time roster has the players with their position and years played. Is it worth standardising these articles, and if so what is the consensus standard? I would say flags but I'm open to whatever is considered best. I know its only a minor thing but I'm more than happy to do this Edlectro28 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It would be really difficult to standardize these lists as there are vast differences between them with the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster being the most detailed and extreme. Otherwise, I think the years and positions are important and do not like the usage of flags as these are not teams in international competition. Many of these lists are substantially out of date however which is an issue that should be addressed. Spanneraol (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes certainly a large undertaking, and before we could even begin to do that there would have to be a general consensus, and there's no guarantee that could even be agreed on. I do think if there is an agreement, a group effort may make this more manageable. Point taken that there are still issues with the contents of these articles as is, though if the current contents were changed to the agreed standard, I don't see why that would affect the necessary additions to these articles. Edlectro28 (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The Phillies page was a labor of love from Killervogel5, who hasn't edited in over a decade. Best to leave it be, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright Edlectro28 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

This was discussed last June, it didn't die but just faded away.... Rgrds. --BX (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised, people do often seem not to care. I just like things to be uniform. Hope we can come to a consensus. Do you have any thoughts on what the standard should be? Edlectro28 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

If it's up to me, i'd go with the Tiger style (which is also used by the Yankees and Dodgers)... I hate flags in these articles. Spanneraol (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia policy on flags is that they should only be used if the subject is representing his country.Orsoni (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

There is no good reason to include flags on these pages. It is not pertinent to the purpose of the list.

MOS:FLAGCRUFT: Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Well the consensus seems to be position and years played. I suppose I'll get to work on making that change then. Help is more than welcome. Edlectro28 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I removed the flags from the BOS and TOR pages. Both included Rob Refsnyder with the Korean flag even though he was adopted by an American couple as an infant, demonstrating the limitations of using the flag of their birth nation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I support uniformity. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Point taken. From have discussion, I have seen multiple people saying these articles are too disorganised to polish in this why, and I would be inclined to agree. Maybe in the future, if the article section is brought to an improved standard, this change could be made. But I'd say all future lists be done with positions and years played. Edlectro28 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I think most of them could be fixed.. updated and adding the positions and years.. it would be time consuming but if people have the time it's do-able.. except for the Phillies ones.. I have no idea what to do with those. Spanneraol (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

'Bullpen game/day' article idea

I have gone back and forth over the last few days as to whether or not to write an article on this topic. My concern is that it would overlap too much with Opener (baseball). On one hand, they're pretty similar ideas, but on the other hand there is a difference, as a bullpen day involves using multiple relievers to pitch a couple innings each, where as an opener is followed by a long relief pitcher. Thoughts? Edlectro28 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

There's a very brief mention of the concept in Starting pitcher. What content do you envision including? Is it something that could fit within the starting pitcher article? isaacl (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Details of what a bullpen day is, the history/origins, structure of a bullpen game, difference from an opener, notable examples. That's just off the top of my head. Basically I wouldn't want to make an article and have it deleted for overlap reasons. I doubt that it would fit naturally into the Starting pitcher article. Edlectro28 (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion is to first try drafting it as a change to Starting pitcher. The concept is older than that of an opener and it's a different strategy for pitcher use, so I think it doesn't fit that well into the opener article. I think once there is a draft, it'll be easier to judge if it would fit into an existing article. isaacl (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright. I'll try and get the draft done sometime tomorrow (GMT) and then I'll link the draft here. Should the title be day or game do you think? Edlectro28 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean section title? I think I favour "bullpen game" as it better describes the pitching deployment strategy. "Bullpen day" focuses on how frequently the strategy is used. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I may have misunderstood the request, I thought we were saying make a draft article then see if that can be fit into the starting pitcher article. I would learn towards doing that personally Edlectro28 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, you asked for advice, and I gave my thoughts. I think the first sentence in my comment was clear? isaacl (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Well I think doing what I said would be better, no offence to you. Edlectro28 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Advice is just that. You can of course proceed with your plan if you're set on it. (It would be collaborative to take into account solicited advice, but the stakes are lower with a draft, in any case.) isaacl (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Well I wasn’t originally gonna go with a draft, so I guessed you pushed me that way, maybe best to end this conversation, don’t like where it’s heading Edlectro28 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Would your sources support a stand alone article? I would draft it up as a section first, IMO. Then see what you have. YMMV. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I feel like if opener can have a standalone article, bullpen game should be able to? They’re probably topics with a similar amount of information to write about Edlectro28 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that Opener and Bullpen game are variations of the same concept, so a stand alone article may be overkill. OTOH, WP would benefit from such information as a section. Again, write it up and see where it goes. Seems like a net positive. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I’ll get to work, put it in a draft article, and then see whether I’ll add the section to an existing article or publish it as a standalone. Edlectro28 (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Wild Card Championships?

Looking at the infobox of Oakland Athletics (for example) & there's a list of 'Wild Card Championships'. Is there such a thing?? GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

This mistake seems to have been on only the Oakland Athletics article. I've removed them, as I don't see this being done in any other team infoboxes. The others simply have "Wild Card berths". GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

PS - I attempted to change 'Wild Card championships' to 'Wild Card berths', but the infobox configuration is different. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

It definitely should be wild card berth or just wild card appearances.. its certainly not a championship. Spanneraol (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I tried fixing the infobox in the sandbox, but it has been a looong time since I tinkered with one. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Loosely related articles, fixed up

I've moved info from List of Major League Baseball tie-breakers to Major League Baseball tie-breaking procedures, as the former is about tie-breaker games & series only. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

PS - The last two 2024 regular season games between the Mets & Braves, likely doesn't belong in either article. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Robert Nutting#Requested move 25 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robert Nutting#Requested move 25 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 16:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

College Baseball Hall of Fame included as an achievements on player wiki pages.

Recently, some entries for players elected to the College Baseball Hall of Fame have been removed by members of the community who do not see the College Baseball Hall of Fame as a noteworthy achievement.

the College Baseball Hall of Fame has been in existence for 20 years now and enshrined over 130 players as well as over 50 coaches. it has brought awareness of the achievements of college baseball history in which it hadn’t in the past. It hasn’t been until recently years that college baseball has gained popularity. So the accomplishments of many student athletes have gone unnoticed until now thanks to this new hall of fame.

Wikipedia already recognizes the college football hall of fame, the Canadian baseball hall of fame, the Caribbean baseball hall of fame as well as other baseball hall of fames as major accomllishments. Considering this, and given the growing popularity of College Baseball, it’s time Wikipedia recognize the College Baseball Hall of Fame as a legitimate individual achievement as it celebrates peak athletic excellence at the collegiate level. Cowboycurtis98 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

At WP:BASESTYLEPL there is guidance on what awards should be included in the infobox, and if something is not included there that generally means it gets removed. That said, I do not see any guidance there on which Halls of Fame qualify, but note that all awards listed there are professional. Echoedmyron (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

do think it would be a good idea to get the College Baseball Hall of Fame recognized to prevent any confusion? Cowboycurtis98 (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

In my regular reading of baseball press I cannot remember a time that enshrinement in the College Hall of Fame was mentioned, so I can't imagine it being too notable, Cowboycurtis98 — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 14:34, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I think this could be because they just were not aware of it. Had it been on the Wikipedia page for players (such as Robin Ventura who set many college records) it would create more interest i. What he did in college. Plus the college baseball really hasn’t become huge until recently and is gaining more momentum every year.

for players who didn’t make a big splash at the MLB level (like Brooks Kieschnick who is considered by many to be one of the greatest colligiate baseball players of all-time) it’s an opportunity to bring positive attention to their careers. Cowboycurtis98 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Had it been on the Wikipedia page for players (such as Robin Ventura who set many college records) it would create more interest: Be careful with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS:

You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion.

Wikipedia reflects the weight of reliable, independent sources. Its primary purpose is not necessarily to influence sources. —Bagumba (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

There hasn't been any established consensus yet. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Which Halls of Fame belong in the Hall of Fame section of player infoboxes? for the latest discussion thread. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It should be included in prose for all of the members. For the infobox, I think we need to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis. For a player like Dave Winfield, we probably have too many highlights to include and it probably won't make the cut. For a player who was not as successful professionally, like an Eddy Furniss, then it's one of their top highlights and should be in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps dont list college HOF if also a member of National Baseball Hall of Fame? —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I 100% agree with that. Cowboycurtis98 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Case by case per Muboshgu. A career-defining honor for one player may or may not be for another. For college coaches inducted into the CBHOF (e.g., Mike Martin, Augie Garrido, Gordie Gillespie, Gene Stephenson, Ed Cheff, Rod Dedeaux, Larry Hays), it's almost certainly career defining and should be included in the infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  100% agree. Cowboycurtis98 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

100% agree with you. Seems like others also agree on this. Cowboycurtis98 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2026 (UTC)