Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Bolding team name in team season articles
I've been told that linking the bolding team names in team season articles, is no longer allowed. If this is so? it hasn't been applied evenly. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID says to not have links in bolded text. It's on my to do list to break out AWB and go through the thousands of incorrectly formatted articles at some point. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
RFC
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Re-grading the Nick Solak article
I would like to request a re-grading of the
GA Reassessment
I'm just seeing this now. I don't know if I'm able to take the lead on getting this GA-ready again, but I'm happy to help as I did with the original GA nomination. The reassessment nomination is a bit lean on detail, but it seems like we might be able to start by looking for unsourced statements, if anyone is interested. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
My nomination of Max Fried for FA
I have nominated
- The FAC is closed, so this discussion is now moot. --talk) 20:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Players' Tribune edit request
Hi editors, I'm M and I work with Minute Media. I had made some requests over at The Players' Tribune and a few other WikiProject talk pages and haven't heard anything. I was hoping someone here might be willing to take a look. I think this is of interest to WikiProject Baseball because The Players' Tribune was founded by Derek Jeter and a lot of baseball players write for the site. I know I can't make changes myself because of my conflict of interest. I'd really appreciate the help! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
MLB Little League Classic articles (proposal to reduce)
Currently, there is a base article for
- I agree.. the individual games are not notable on their own. Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mostly agree. Yes, they're promoted as a special event, but they don't even have a special broadcast, they're just part of the regular ESPN Sunday night broadcast time slot. The games themselves don't have any special stakes, being just regular season games played in a special venue. The same is true for the Field of Dreams game now that that's become an annual event. That said, the same can be said for the NHL Winter Classic and other outdoor games, and we have articles for every single edition one of those. oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Individual games probably don't get ) 02:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Adding pings to other editors found in History of the articles: @Esolo5002:, @Jellysandwich0:, @Lawnmowerchair58:, @GalaxyFighter55:, @BigDawg50:, @DeAllenWeten:, @Sue Kastle:, @Cclark0:, @Muboshgu:, @Ruhrfisch:, and @Dale Arnett:. Dmoore5556 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
As I believe we've reached a consensus, this looks to be a
2022 New York Yankees season
I've requested protection for the 2022 New York Yankees season article, due to a vandalising (ever changing) mobile editor. Do be on the look out, should this mobile editor start targeting other team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Ronald Acuña jr World Series champion
What’s the arguments against him being classified as a world champion? Other than being on the WS roster? Understandable for players who really didn’t play or contribute much but he played like an mvp and the braves needed every win they got. He carried the team the first half of the season. Also CBS sports and other sports writer have named him a world champion. 2600:1700:89B0:1920:D10D:78E5:52D:ECC5 (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I invited the IP editor to come here from Acuna's talk page. It is the WP:BASEBALL consensus to only include in the template and infobox WS championships for those who are on the WS roster. However, editors are often changing the infoboxes, as many are not aware of the consensus, and those who become aware of it don't agree with it. Is this a battle to fight? Acuna did play half of the regular season for Atlanta last year. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Briefly digging thru the archives, I found discussions from talk) 19:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would advise against that as RFCs tend to be more trouble than they are worth... and this is just an IP trying to cause trouble. The main reason it was set the way it was is that anything other than a bright line for inclusion invites too much subjectivity. Spanneraol (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Briefly digging thru the archives, I found discussions from
- I don't think the IP is "trying to cause trouble". It's not a guideline that makes sense to many people, and seems to be different than what other Wikipedia sports projects do, which is part of the confusion for this user and many others. Ronald Acuña is a well-known player, and many people don't understand why he's not included. The situation isn't helped by a vague heading in the infobox about "awards", which is how many see a World Series ring. Perhaps that needs to be changed. BilCat (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
(
Courtesy notice: RSN discussion on BR/Bullpen
FYSA: RSN discussion on the Bullpen subdomain of the baseball-reference.com site. I realize this has been discussed here often before, but wanted to make sure there are no lingering concerns before I start going through 3000 links. Kuru (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball all-time leaders in home runs by pitchers
This was nominated for deletion, so I'm inviting the project to the discussion.Neonblak talk - 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Naming conventions
- Are you saying:
- The guidelines don't make sense and should be changed to...
- The guidelines are fine and the above examples should be moved back to match the current guidelines
- You found the inconsistencies in the guideline, and only want new examples, with no other changes
- Some combination of all of the above
- —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some combination of above. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. The Lee Kings clearly need to be replaced by another example if we have deemed one to be a utility player. For the Bill Blairs, if we are not disambiguating based on their league, then we should remove that line entirely. I'm unclear on whether the Chad Smiths should be dab'd by 2010s pitcher/2020s pitcher or baseball born 1989/baseball born 1995. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- For the Chad Smith's, WP:NCBASE is pretty clear that birth year is the least preferred option:) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
If all previous steps are still insufficient, then use the players' year of birth.
The rationale presumably being, "Most people don't know a player's exact birth year, but might sorta know when they played. The edit summary for the move ofPer Javy Guerra
is not applicable, since the Guerras' careers overlapped.—Bagumba (talk
- For the Chad Smith's,
- Some combination of above. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. The Lee Kings clearly need to be replaced by another example if we have deemed one to be a utility player. For the Bill Blairs, if we are not disambiguating based on their league, then we should remove that line entirely. I'm unclear on whether the Chad Smiths should be dab'd by 2010s pitcher/2020s pitcher or baseball born 1989/baseball born 1995. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Replacing Template:Infobox Negro World Series
Thoughts on replacing {{Infobox Negro World Series}} with {{Infobox baseball championship series}} which is used on World Series pages? I mocked up a sample for what it'd look like with 1924 Colored World Series. Here's a side-by-side look:
Proposed version {{Infobox baseball championship series}} |
Current version {{Infobox Negro World Series}} | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Feel free to discuss below.–Aidan721 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
KBO League AFDsHi. Please see AFDs here here here here here and here on KBO League players. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC) 'Year in Baseball' page content, concerning league recordsIn relation to the above two discussions. I've undone 'recent' unilateral changes to the 1920 in baseball to 1935 in baseball pages, concerning how to list the baseball leagues' records. IMHO, the American League & National League, should be separate from the other baseball leagues. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Negro Leagues Standings in MLB season pagesIs it time to add these standings to the season pages for 1920 through 1948? Baseball Reference considers these to be full major league seasons and lists them along with the American and National Leagues. For example, 1920 may look like this. However, there are a few outstanding issues:
Absolutely I think this should be done since MLB is clear and unambiguous that certain Negro leagues are to be considered "major," but I think there is too much uncertainty that needs to be nailed down before 1 editor just starts doing it unilaterally. Jhn31 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC) No, as the teams weren't members of Major League Baseball & none of the teams played for the World Series. Best we not try to right the wrongs. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
(ec) talk ) 20:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the template: the Defensive Runs Saved capitalization?The article on Defensive Runs Saved consistently capitalizes the fully spelled-out name of the stat (it's always "Defensive Runs Saved", not "defensive runs saved"). Is this correct? Compare with other stats such as Run batted in and Fielding percentage. Just checking. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
SABR as a sourceSABR player bios are obviously wonderful resources, particularly for historical players. I have two questions for the project:
Thanks. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Infobox baseball teamTemplate:Infobox baseball team has been completely changed the last couple of days by User:Aidan721. I haven't seen any discussion about this? Did I miss something? It has broken all of the NPB team pages (and I assume many others as well) and removed much of the information from these infoboxes. Also, now these infoboxes look completely different from Template:Infobox MLB. Honestly, I don't even understand why MLB teams have a separate infobox from all other baseball teams to begin with, but now the difference is even more glaring. Can someone shed some light on these changes? --TorsodogTalk 05:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Infobox baseball league championship seriesI've modified the sandbox of this {{ wrapper template of {{Infobox baseball championship series}} as they are largely the same. This will help the templates maintain consistencies in styling over time. See the testcases to see how the appearance remains the same. Join the discussion here. –Aidan721 (talk ) 15:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
MLB at Field of Dreams – split / no-split discussionThere is a discussion at Talk:MLB at Field of Dreams that may be of interest. It was opened September 2021 and had been idle since April; I posted to it today. Input should be placed there. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Chip Caray's high schoolHey all, I'm having difficulty finding a reliable source that Chip Caray attended/graduated from Parkway West High School (Missouri). All I'm finding online are the usual celebrity click-bait sites, and those don't usually meet WP:RS and WP:BLP. Can anyone help find a reliable source for this? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Aftermath sectionsAt 1981 National League Championship Series I removed discussion of future playoff matchups between the teams in question, as these are not a direct consequence of the 1981 series (in this case, the events occurred over 30 years later). A subsequent edit restored this info, in a reworded form. In my view, aftermath sections should be limited to events that are a direct consequence of the subject of the article. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
More feedback is welcome in order to help establish a consensus view. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Federal League records in the 1914 & 1915 Major League Baseball season pagesThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question: Should the Federal League records be included in the 1914 MLB season & the 1915 MLB season? GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Survey
DiscussionI don't recall any consensus to add the 1914 & 1915 Federal League records to the 1914 & 1915 Major League Baseball season pages. IMHO, they should be deleted from those two pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
References
I've been looking in the archives but can't find anything off-hand so I'm doing this from memory, but originally there was "1915 in baseball." Somewhere between 2007 & 2012, the MLB seasons were split from these articles for size reasons, I think. The "in baseball" pages were meant to house AA, UA, PL, Japanese, Korean, Negro and other major leagues. I don't think the intention was to move the FL. If the FL is included, then it should "1915 in major league baseball" (no caps) & then all post-WWII pages should also include Japan baseball, etc. But then what is the point of "1915 in baseball?" Rgrds. -- talk ) 21:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
So this discussion totally died, but I see that the Federal League standings were unilaterally removed from the 1914 and 1915, despite MLB considering the Federal League to be part of "Major League Baseball" in its records, and modern day sources listing it this way. Thoughts? Jhn31 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This ultimately feels like a semantic – or should that be syntactic? – issue: the difference between major league baseball (the concept) and Major League Baseball (the contractual agreement between the AL and NL, that ultimately united as one organisation in 2000). Feels like there's a vitally important distinction in that capitalisation. Personally, I lean towards omission, on three counts: one, the article title being in capitals means it was intended solely for covering Major League Baseball (the latter), not all major leagues (the former). No, MLB as a singular organisation didn't exist until 2000, but it was absolutely referred to in reliable sources as such before then nonetheless, and it's not our place to dismiss that, but rather to reflect and summarise it. Two, the given sources do not describe the FL as being part of Major League Baseball (the latter), but rather as being a major league (the former). Even the modern sources very deliberately use lower case. (Also, naming standards are such that it's "[Year] [Competition] season" for specific competitions, and "[Year] in [concept]" for broader concepts; it would be "1914 in major league baseball" if it were to include the FL.) Three, we don't include the Negro Leagues on their respective MLB season pages, despite their recent reassessment as major leagues, with the singular exception of 1940 Major League Baseball season for some reason. (Granted, this could be revised at any point on similar grounds, but still. (Edited later: I now see there's discussion about above, on this very page, heh.))
It feels to me like the best solution here would be pretty much how it is already: not included in the MLB pages, but grouped together as major leagues on 1914 in baseball et al. (Note the non-capitalisation in the section header that covers their standings as is.) I don't think we should separate them on the yearly baseball pages, though, as that would be to ignore the absolute agreement of reliable sources that it was a major league. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The plain fact is that the 1914 & 1915 FL records are recognized as part of the MLB record book officially, as well as by significant outside bodies like SABR and Baseball Reference. And they have been for decades. We cannot insist on some sort of non-existent, WP:OR standard based on membership of its franchises in a decades-later organization. MLB as it is currently constituted did not exist in 1915. Nor did it exist in 1968. What did exist in the latter was the two leagues that came to a settlement with the Federal League owners in 1915. And that included giving them the option to recognize those records.
There is no good reason not to include them in the respective MLB season articles, where they had already been included for years. In fact, leaving them out constitutes a factual error. Period. I'm restoring the years old inclusion of them. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank goodness nobody's trying to put WHA teams in the 1971–72 to 1978–79 NHL season pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template:Major League Baseball and steroidsThe other day, I decided to be WP:BRD cycle, I am looking for community consensus to remove some of these items, and having those articles instead linked by the Template:Doping in baseball navbox that I created.
My arguments: (1) these articles were added to Template:MLB via WP:LASTING impact on MLB, and it's not in this navbox.
I agree with leaving Major League Baseball drug policy and List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs in the navbox, but I do not believe the other articles belong there. I welcome the thoughts of others. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
immaculate innings in the infoboxit appears that immaculate innings are not standard accomplishments listed in infoboxes for pitchers that have completed one. the only players who have immaculate innings mentioned in their infoboxes are the players tied for most in their career (sandy koufax, chris sale, max scherzer). historically, an immaculate inning is MUCH rarer than the no hitter (by an order of about 3x as rare). it should be included in career accomplishments and highlights, and while not necessarily well known amongst the general population or "casual" viewer, i'd imagine the difference between a no hitter and perfect game remains about as obscure as the concept of the immaculate inning. with these innings becoming more common, they should be addressed. 2600:1005:B0F0:6A9C:3D43:8A30:F493:7B72 (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Team hall of fame in infoboxShould induction into a team's hall of fame be listed in a biography's infobox? I believe there was never a formal consensus on this. However, I see many ) 05:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at |
Rank | Title | Size | Page views |
Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1932 Detroit Wolves season | 21,354 | 5,244 | EWL pennant, 29–9 record, featuring five BHOF inductees: Cool Papa Bell (CF), Mule Suttles (1B), Willie Wells (SS), Ray Brown (P), and Smokey Joe Williams (P) |
2 | 1919 Detroit Stars season | 62,286 | 2,011 | 44–18 (.710) record, starring three BHOF inductees: OF Pete Hill (.396), OF Oscar Charleston, and SS José Méndez |
3 | 1931 Homestead Grays season | 2,175 | 823 | 34–21–1 (.616), seven in BHOF: manager Cumberland Posey, 1B Oscar Charleston; C Josh Gibson; 3B Jud Wilson; P Bill Foster, P Smokey Joe Williams, and P Satchel Paige |
4 | 1936 Pittsburgh Crawfords season | 2,176 | 676 | NNL pennant, 48–33–2 (.590) record, six in BHOF: player/manager Oscar Charleston; CF Cool Papa Bell; C Josh Gibson; 3B Judy Johnson; and P Satchel Paige |
5 | 1935 Pittsburgh Crawfords season | 2,126 | 481 | NNL pennant, 51–26–3 (.656) record, four BHOF inductees: player/manager Oscar Charleston; CF Cool Papa Bell; C Josh Gibson; and 3B Judy Johnson. |
6 | 1942 Kansas City Monarchs season | 2,342 | 479 | NAL pennant, 35–17 (.673) record, three BHOF inductees: CF Willard Brown; PHilton Smith; and P Satchel Paige |
7 | 1937 Homestead Grays season | 2,735 | 455 | NNL pennant, 60–19–1 (.756) record, six in BHOF, including C Josh Gibson, 1B Buck Leonard, SS Willie Wells, 3B Ray Dandridge, P Ray Brown. |
8 | 1926 Chicago American Giants season | 2,462 | 446 | NNL pennant, 60–21–3 (.732) record, Rube Foster was owner/manager, RF Jelly Gardner (.331), Bill Foster (13–4, 1.63 ERA) |
9 | 1943 Washington Homestead Grays season | 3,465 | 422 | NNL pennant, 78–23–1 (.770) record, five BHOF inductees: C Josh Gibson, LF Cool Papa Bell, 1B Buck Leonard, 3B Jud Wilson, and P Ray Brown |
10 | 1923 Kansas City Monarchs season | 2,706 | 397 | NNL pennant, 61–37 (.622) record, starring RF Oscar Johnson (.402 BA, .722 SLG, 120 RBI), SS Dobie Moore, P Bullet Rogan, CF Wade Johnston |
Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Spring Training Ballpark
Forgive me if this has come up before, but I couldn't find it in the archive. Would editors be opposed to having a spot on the MLB club infobox for the club's current Spring Training park? I wouldn't suggest showing the entire park history like we do for the home ballpark, but just show the current Spring Training park. This information would be helpful if it was in the same place. I notice some articles don't mention the Spring Training parks at all while some mention it in the lead. Nemov (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- The information you are looking for is on List of Major League Baseball spring training ballparks which has the current occupants of the ballpark. I'm not sure what value this would provide having it in Template:Infobox MLB. I highly doubt users are regularly looking for this information. Skipple ☎ 19:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- My personal rule of thumb for what ought to go into the infobox is what characteristics are essential for a concise overview of the subject? I feel the spring training location falls short of this criterion. I do think, though, that a section could be added to the team articles regarding their spring training facilities. I believe all of the current franchises have been around long enough to have some history with their spring training sites, in terms of investing in their upgrades, or being attracted to new sites. Some teams such as the Blue Jays have invested in making them key rehabilitation centres, and with impressive facilities to act as a recruiting tool for prospects as they cycle through (including visiting teams who see what's there). isaacl (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I added a section to the Atlanta Braves article for ballparks that briefly covers the home ballpark and the spring training facility. Some of this was already included, but now it's covered in the same section. Nemov (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- FYI there is at least one such dedicated article, List of Boston Red Sox spring training venues. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Justin Verlander
An IP has repeatedly changed the infobox to hide the fact that Verlander missed all of the 2021 season. Attempts to explain on the talk page that this is standard procedure for baseball articles have failed, so I am bringing it here to get more eyes on the situation.
IP is causing problems across other MLB pages. I think it's best we escort the IP off the premises. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I fully agree, but this is a protracted issue that keeps coming up. Blocking them now will only stop it briefly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW re: Verlander, the previous discussion at Talk:Justin_Verlander#Houston_Astros_(2017–2020,_2022–present) doesnt seem to show any consensus. Is the practice documented anywhere? If not, consider establishing a formal consensus for the project.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if it has been documented anywhere, that's part of why I brought it here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if it has been documented anywhere, that's part of why I brought it here.
- To be frank, I agree with the IP. He was under contract to a team, albeit on the IL, not an unsigned free agent, which is what the gap in the list looks like. Plus it takes up more room needlessly in an infobox, one place where space is at a premium. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- The effect on infobox size is very minor. If we make this change, then what about players who were under contract but stayed in the minors all season? I disagree that the gap in the list makes it seem like he was an unsigned free agent, but even if it does, the article itself will set the record straight. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- The effect is to show the years the player played with the team... lots of players are under contract but dont actually play with a team for numerous reasons. It shows that he was injured that year, which the prose in the article explains. Spanneraol (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- The effect on infobox size is very minor. If we make this change, then what about players who were under contract but stayed in the minors all season? I disagree that the gap in the list makes it seem like he was an unsigned free agent, but even if it does, the article itself will set the record straight.
Omitting the year from the date range is the standard way we have handled any absence from playing in an MLB game in a single year. Look at the articles for any players who took time away to serve in the war (Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams). This is not something specific to Verlander and should be handled consistently as other articles, unless the consensus were changed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. For a more recent example, see Adam Wainwright, who did not play in MLB during the 2011 season (due to Tommy John surgery). His infobox reflects that, consistent with his page at Baseball-Reference.com. Salvador Pérez is another recent example (did not play in MLB during 2019, also due to Tommy John surgery). Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage
The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names nominated for deletion
The discussion is at
MLB postseason page infobox
I've removed the semifinalist losers & removed mentioning of how many times the World Series runner-up appeared in the World Series. We should limit the infobox to the World Series Champion (number titles) & the runner-up. For example at 2022 Major League Baseball postseason's infobox - Do we really need to know who lost in the ALCS & NLCS? Furthermore, do readers really need to know that it was the Phillies 8th trip to the WS? Isn't having the Astros 2nd title description, enough? GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I also don't understand why we list the defending champions at all, let alone higher than that year's actual champs. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 07:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Y2kcrazyjoker4:, it appears that @Alex9234: who may have originally added the info, has restored it. But, I've removed it again. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that bothers the hell out of me. Every year's postseason is a fresh postseason and not a tournament to determine a challenger for a defending champion. It's useless info. I'm removing it. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Though not required (as the parameter was removed), I removed the 'defending champions' from these pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Frankly, I removed the parameter because it was easier than removing it at each article. It's not needed for hockey pages either for the same reason, so I felt no qualms about removing it (it's only been in the box for a short time, having been unilaterally added without discussion). It's little weird that it's a hockey-specific template instead of being moved to a more general name, as it works for other sports, as seen here, but if it works it works. oknazevad (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody complains about this kind of content being on the NBA, NFL, and NHL playoff infoboxes, so I don't get the complaints for this. Alex9234 (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Though not required (as the parameter was removed), I removed the 'defending champions' from these pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- 100% agree with your take on this, GoodDay. Any additional information, such as you listed here is superfluous at best and confusing at worst. Skipple ☎ 02:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: what's your view on this. I could accept the addition of the semifinal losers. But do readers really need to know how many times the WS loser has been to the WS? We don't show how many times the WS winner has been been to the WS. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think given how the playoff format has changed many times, a parameter for number of rounds might be helpful, to complement the number of teams. I agree that the amount of times a team has been to a specific round of the postseason is unneeded for this infobox. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would lean against including it as it seems superfluous. But it certainly shouldn't be there if it isn't in the article text, as the infobox shouldn't contain anything the body doesn't convey. Anyway, this is a minor detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Alex9234, at @Nagol0929: & Muboshgu's talkpages, you seem to describe the MLB postseason pages as being your articles. Whether you created them or not, is irrelevant. They're now public domain & so anybody can make improvements. We don't need your permission. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia content is not in the public domain. However, all contributions to it have been licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL (see the notice that appears below the edit box when making a change), so no one can restrict someone else from editing an article in a manner that complies with community guidance. isaacl (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you guys were using a hockey infobox template like {{TFD to merge all of these numerous-looking sports tournament infobox templates across all these sports, I would like to diffuse any potential editing disputes among these Wikiprojects. Therefore I have temporarily replaced it on these MLB articles with one of your own, {{Infobox international baseball tournament}}, since you are currently using only the same basic parameters. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Winter baseball
Anyone know if there's been an effort to create an article about winter baseball leagues, or if the topic may already be covered somewhere? There are a number of active winter leagues, but I'm not aware of any article that provides an overview or context in the manner of, for example, the existing article about collegiate summer baseball.
Currently active are:
- Article Glossary of baseball (W). Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Standings templates
I've worked hard to make updates to Module:Sports table/WLHA so that it can encompass the details of {{MLB standings}} and standardize the standings templates across WP. Check out how it looks for the 1901 season on my sandbox page here and compare it to the current version here. Open to thoughts and ideas about any changes. I'll be testing how more recent standings templates transfer over as well, including WC standings. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- As I said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 45 § To Sports table, or not to sports table? That's the question., the advantages of changing are not evident to me. I designed the input of {{MLB standings}} to minimize the number of characters needed to represent the stats for each team. Both times it's been raised, no one has responded saying they were interested in changing to a new template with a new input format. I appreciate the time spent, but in my view it would be more onerous to have a more verbose format. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- The purpose of moving is to standardize across all sports. Right now, baseball is one of the few not using Module:Sports table. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- From the looks of the (minimal-participated) previous discussions, your main concern with the Module:Sports table was the lack of GB, home/away options which are all included now. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in previous discussions and above, the change in input format is a key concern. (There are more things that could be done to better align the output format, like displaying half games with a fraction as is typically done in baseball standings, but I appreciate there are ways to introduce this.) If the editors most interested in updating the baseball standings templates aren't interested in using a different input format, I don't see a compelling reason to change. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am opposed to moving away from the current template. It works, it is succinct, and there is not a problem to be solved. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's inconsistent with other sports pages. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- So? There is no requirement to do things the same way others do. Spanneraol (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's inconsistent with other sports pages. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
RfC regarding Ty Cobb's lifetime average
It is here: Talk:Ty Cobb#RfC: What should we give as Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average? if anyone is interested. Herostratus (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Editor warring over calling MLB stadiums "stadiums" in the first sentence
Months after it happened, I read (I did not participate, although I agree with the outcome) in this discussion about whether to describe MLB stadiums as "stadiums" or "ballparks". The way I read it, there's a clear consensus to go with "baseball stadium". That seems like the most specific term available, as not all "ballparks" are stadiums, but MLB stadiums certainly are stadiums. I'm borrowing a little here from @Torsodog:'s comment in that discussion. Now one of the editors who disagreed is apparently running to a bunch of those article's lead sentences and changing it back to his preferred choice. I feel, as a discussion already occurred and consensus was reached, that we should go with that result unless a new discussion reaches a clear consensus to do something different.
- Pinging the previous participants: @Back Bay Barry: @Skipple: @Nemov: @Bagumba: @Isaacl: @Argles Barkley: @JimKaatFan: @GoodDay: @Oknazevad:. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- The editor's recent changes should be reverted. Trying to force something into articles, never turns out good. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have the same opinion as expressed previously: refer to the venue as a baseball stadium in the first sentence, and as a home ballpark of its tenants in the second sentence. (See the previous discussion for my rationale.) isaacl (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. It appears that consensus was reached in general on the pervious thread. Unless Oknazevad would like to explain their rational for the changes and what has changed since the previous discussion, all edits related to stadium/park should be reverted. That said, I'm perfectly fine with having another discussion on the topic if someone else has new/refined arguments. Skipple ☎ 22:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- In his edit summaries he refers to a move discussion at the ballpark article, which was lightly attended and doesn't really justify the changes he is making to the individual articles.. He does have a point about linking to a general stadium article is a bit awkward.. but I think there should be a midground here between those two options. Should have discussed before starting on these changes. Spanneraol (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- It may have helped if the discussion was properly closed with a clear call to action. It's possible the editor just missed it. I think it's worth getting more comments so it's clearer. Nemov (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
===Should the term Baseball Stadium be used universally in the lead?===
Yes
No
"Baseball stadium" may be the best term for a majority of baseball venues, but I think there should be some flexibility per venue. Nemov (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC),
Discussion
I believe this should be withdrawn and reworded, as it's based on a false premise. There are ALREADY multi-use stadiums that are not designated as "ballparks" or "baseball stadiums". This Yes/No survey is, given the current state of MLB stadium articles, offering a false choice. In addition, it's not the same question, at all, that was offered in the original discussion. That discussion applied ONLY to stadiums that weren't multi-use. This question appears to lay a trap - of course you would not call multi-use stadiums a "baseball stadium", so forcing editors to vote for "No" opens the door wider for Nemov's preferred term - ballpark. It's a clever attempt to circumvent the previous discussion's consensus. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- I opened the last discussion and the general consensus then was to use "baseball stadium" on every park. So that is the choice. Either use it on every baseball park venue or not. Not sure how that's a false choice. Nemov (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Multiple articles were (until last week, when Oknazevad went on his crusade) not described as "park" or "stadium" - instead, they were called "multi-use stadiums" or something similar; those were stable and no one objected to that wording. You're posing a different question this time. I'm merely pointing out that if you want the question to have a definitive answer, you should limit the scope to stadiums that are primarily used for baseball - for example, there's no NFL team that had or has it as a home field. I think that would be a better question. I personally don't have a problem with Oakland Coliseum being called a "stadium" as opposed to "baseball stadium". But for Yankee Stadium, the phrase "baseball stadium" is more specific and more appropriate. That's one of the many that Oknazevad changed in the last few days in spite of the discussion from last February. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- The issue really with the current edits is that there is no article called "baseball stadium" as that links to the "ballpark" article. We should address the linking issues before proceeding with a vote like this. We have List of current Major League Baseball stadiums but the template is "Current ballparks in Major League Baseball".. we should have some consistency about all this. Spanneraol (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The Baseball stadium article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- That's the fundamental part of my issue and why I made the changes. "[[baseball]] [[stadium]]" as a linking pattern doesn't even link to the ) 00:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Multiple articles were (until last week, when Oknazevad went on his crusade) not described as "park" or "stadium" - instead, they were called "multi-use stadiums" or something similar
- Reviewing the discussion it seems like it was going to be used on all MLB venues. Apparently no one applied this to all articles. I know Back Bay Barry applied it to several articles, but that was the consensus at the time. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The
The big question(s) is. What do we call them & do we call them all the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Any stadium that is used primarily for baseball can be called a "baseball stadium" in the first sentence, as it's more specific than "ballpark", which includes everything from the scrubbiest dirt diamond all the way up to Dodger Stadium. For those, they can all be called the same thing. For stadiums used by multiple major sports franchises (like NFL teams), just use "stadium" - which was already the case. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really care what we call it, but there should be consistency and I agree that the "[[baseball]] [[stadium]]" linking doesn't make sense.. we should use the baseball stadium link instead if we are going that way. Spanneraol (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I split off the part of the Baseball stadium. That should satisfy most people. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Major changes in article scopes like that should wait for discussion to complete. Frankly, I think that's a terrible idea. Your insistence that there's a distinction between the terms is not borne out by the sources used in the article, or in common usage of the language. Even Merriam-Webster simply says "field or stadium used for playing basebal" (emphasis added). oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I split off the part of the
- I don't really care what we call it, but there should be consistency and I agree that the "[[baseball]] [[stadium]]" linking doesn't make sense.. we should use the
- The article about venues for playing baseball is at ballpark, as that is the most common name. We should use the term in articles about structures built specifically for baseball. That's my 2¢. oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- For context, though, you gave your 2 cents in the discussion last February, most people disagreed with you, and you waited 9 months, then went ahead a few days ago and changed it to what you liked anyway. So why is this discussion meaningful to you? The last one wasn't. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand this either because calling the home venue for a baseball team a "ballpark" isn't confusing. Maybe for non-Americans? Baseball stadium/ballpark are synonymous. It's why there's a Yankee Stadium and a Fenway Park. Nemov (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've no objections, if we use "ballpark". Mainly because when I think MLB, I think "ballpark". Where's when I think CFL & NFL, I think "stadium". GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- But, "baseball stadium" is more specific. Many baseball stadiums (but not all, as some of the MLB stadiums articles point out) are ballparks. But not all ballparks are stadiums, and we're supposed to be specific, especially in the first sentence of an article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Why mention either? For examples: "Yankee Stadium is where the New York Yankees play" & "Fenway Park is where the Boston Red Sox", should suffice. Just mention who uses the facility. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Because if it's an article about a baseball stadium, the first sentence should mention that it's a baseball stadium. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Why mention either? For examples: "Yankee Stadium is where the New York Yankees play" & "Fenway Park is where the Boston Red Sox", should suffice. Just mention who uses the facility. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Check out my compromise edits to the intros of the Yankee Stadium & Fenway Park pages. It avoids the dispute, entirely. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like that's created a third option that's still not right. The field is only one part of the stadium. The articles aren't about the field - they're about the stadiums. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
To repeat what I said in the previous discussion, a stadium is a place with tiered infrastructure to allow a large number of spectators to watch events. A ballpark is venue for baseball. If a stadium is designed to be used for multiple sports, then it is a multi-purpose stadium. If it is designed for baseball, it is a baseball stadium. All baseball stadiums are ballparks; not all ballparks are stadiums. Thus stadium is a more specific descriptor for a venue, and I think it is more useful to describe it as such in the first sentence. (If it is multi-purpose stadium, it should be described as such rather than singling out one sport that it hosts.) The term ballpark can be used and linked to when describing the stadium as a home venue. isaacl (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify what you mean, when you say tiered you mean that each row of seating is on a different level, not that there's necessarily multiple decks, correct? Because there's many stadiums in many sports (not the least some major college football stadiums like the Rose Bowl and Lambeau Field, for that matter) where the regular seats (not suites) are just one massive deck. If that is the idea you have in mind (the presence of stadium seating), then pretty much any ballpark with a few permanent bleachers counts as a baseball stadium, and the distinction is meaningless. Because there is no minimum size criterion for calling something a stadium. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I was paraphrasing from the "Stadium" article. In practice, given the etymology of the term, no one calls a field with a few bleacher benches a stadium. It's only used to refer to facilities with substantial infrastructure. Ballpark can be used to refer to the home venue for the local school team. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Where do we draw the line, though? Because there are some low-level independent minor league teams and collegiate summer teams that play in decidedly small venues that lack amenities that are still called stadiums, just as there are anmong English football stadiums. The key defining characteristic is that they're purpose built for baseball, not size or amenities, which makes them ballparks. It's why a split of the article is unnecessary, and why the word "ballpark" should be used in the leads of these articles. oknazevad (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, I agree with using "ballpark" in the lead. We differ on where to place this term. Reliable sources can be used to determine what venues are considered to be stadiums. Note reliable sources can still categorize a venue as a stadium even if the term isn't part of the venue's name/PR coverage. isaacl (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- My point is using both "ballpark" and "baseball stadium" is redundant and that there is no clear line above which a venue is specifically a stadium (which not a phenomenon limited to baseball). So we don't really need to use "baseball stadium" at all, or should do such in passing, the way actual sportswriters do, where they casually use the terms synonymously, switching back and forth. oknazevad (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a one-or-the-other decision, and it's common in Wikipedia articles to switch between terms to describe a subject, as you indicate. I prefer mentioning stadium first as I think it provides a more immediate picture of the type of structure, whereas ballpark describes the venue's use, so covers a wide variety of structures. Baseball stadium covers both. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- My point is using both "ballpark" and "baseball stadium" is redundant and that there is no clear line above which a venue is specifically a stadium (which not a phenomenon limited to baseball). So we don't really need to use "baseball stadium" at all, or should do such in passing, the way actual sportswriters do, where they casually use the terms synonymously, switching back and forth. oknazevad (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, I agree with using "ballpark" in the lead. We differ on where to place this term. Reliable sources can be used to determine what venues are considered to be stadiums. Note reliable sources can still categorize a venue as a stadium even if the term isn't part of the venue's name/PR coverage. isaacl (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Where do we draw the line, though? Because there are some low-level independent minor league teams and collegiate summer teams that play in decidedly small venues that lack amenities that are still called stadiums, just as there are anmong English football stadiums. The key defining characteristic is that they're purpose built for baseball, not size or amenities, which makes them ballparks. It's why a split of the article is unnecessary, and why the word "ballpark" should be used in the leads of these articles. oknazevad (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I was paraphrasing from the "Stadium" article. In practice, given the etymology of the term, no one calls a field with a few bleacher benches a stadium. It's only used to refer to facilities with substantial infrastructure. Ballpark can be used to refer to the home venue for the local school team. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Article spilt subdiscussion
Fred split the article. I see no consensus here for such a split. Can else get a straw poll going?
- Oppose split. The terms are synonymous for all practical purposes and are used as such in all the sources. A split is unjustified and ) 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Are you seriously suggesting that the Little League field down the street from me should be referred to as a "baseball stadium"? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support split. The term "ballpark", which means any venue for baseball, from your local dirt field in your neighborhood on up, and the term "baseball stadium" are not the same. Many baseball stadiums are ballparks. But not all ballparks are stadiums - not even close. Most of the Ballpark article was about professional baseball stadiums. Clearly that amount of text warrants its own article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a project for baseball. For baseball venues I have never referred to a MLB ballpark as a baseball stadium. In the context of a baseabll venue it immediately understood that a team's baseball venue is their home ballpark. Nemov (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- 3,420,000 Google results disagree with your assessment that no one refers to baseball venues as a "baseball stadium". Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose.. I don't think we should split the article but the redirect should be used on some of those articles.. On the other hand, I really think we should revisit that move request. The term "ballpark" can refer to any park where ball games can be played, not just baseball... and it also has other uses such as a "ballpark estimate" for prices... The article really should not have been moved from Baseball park. Spanneraol (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Baseball stadium. They're both full of information about the specific topics. If you saw those two articles for the first time, would you think they needed to be merged? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW there was a move discussion on that topic. Seemed pretty clear cut at the time. Nemov (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I saw it, exactly four people participated, one of which opposed the move.. not exactly clear cut.. which is why I suggest revisiting the move. Spanneraol (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm looking for reliable sources that talk about other games besides baseball being played at a "ballpark", but I am not finding any. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I saw it, exactly four people participated, one of which opposed the move.. not exactly clear cut.. which is why I suggest revisiting the move. Spanneraol (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Baseball park" is a term made up for an article title because some thought that "ballpark" was a quaint colloquialism that lacked specificity for this unfamiliar with baseball. It is not, it's bog-standard idiomatic English. oknazevad (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Baseball park" just isn't an idiomatic phrase in use. It makes me think of an academy complex with multiple baseball fields. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Then it should be Ballpark (baseball). Spanneraol (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Why? No other sport calls their venues "ballparks". Except softball, which is technically a code of baseball (same international governing body). That's unneeded disambiguation, as the plain word "ballpark" is unambiguously about baseball and all others on the disambiguation page are already naturally disambiguated and, for that matter, derive from the baseball use of the term either directly or metaphorically. Its already clearly the primary topic by a massive margin. oknazevad (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Then it should be Ballpark (baseball). Spanneraol (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- @
- I don't think a split is necessary. A lot of the content in the current ballpark article is related to professional baseball venues, which have evolved to stadiums to accommodate more spectators. Thus keeping the history of professional baseball venues together provides a more cohesive narrative. isaacl (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Split. There are separate articles for ice rink and Ice hockey arena. Also Football pitch and Soccer-specific stadium. Same logic. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The analogous term for baseball, baseball field, is a separate article. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I just noticed that. Reading ballpark, the "General characteristics" section is text that could all be in baseball field. The rest all describes MLB stadiums and should be in an article called "Baseball stadium". Then redirect "ballpark" to either. Maybe a disambig page. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - My goodness, we don't want to create confusion. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Conclusion
- So where are we in this discussion? ) 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think if a baseball stadium is described as a stadium by reliable sources, we should use "stadium" in the first sentence. Ballpark, as I've said before, can mean a wide variety of places where baseball is played. Stick with stadium. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still think we should stick with "ballpark" as the common term (something we already acknowledge with the article title), but would be okay with "baseball stadium" if it was linked to the specific article on ballparks either by piping or the redirect. The [[baseball]] [[stadium]] linking pattern is just lousy, being it links to the non-specific article instead of the specific one at the most definitional point, and runs onto ) 02:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not about to read all that's been said about this, but with that being said, is there a reason we don't just link to "baseball stadium" since it redirects to "ballpark" anyways? It seems like the obvious compromise. --TorsodogTalk02:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- This does appear to be the easiest way to deal with it. The two terms are interchangeable and calling it "baseball stadium" at the start of the lead would remove any confusion (I'm not sure there is any) and it can be called a ballpark or baseball stadium after that. Nemov (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not about to read all that's been said about this, but with that being said, is there a reason we don't just link to "
- Are there reliable sources that discuss these terms and any distinction between them?—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's kind of tough... let's take Atlanta Constitution says
"day turns into evening as the sun sets on the ballpark while the Atlanta Braves take the field in an exhibition game against the New York Yankees in the first game in the new SunTrust Park stadium.
[5] Associated Press saysas the Braves opened their new stadium.
[6] - Ballpark and stadium are used together and interchangeably. Nemov (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's kind of tough... let's take
- Just saw the ping so I'm late (I don't log in much anymore) but my opinion is the same, and matches the outcome of the last discussion - all baseball stadiums are ballparks, but not all ballparks are stadiums. Use "baseball stadium" or "stadium" in the lead. "Ballpark" is more of a colloquial term and is used by writers when they're being flowery like in the above quote about the Atlanta stadium. Works as nostalgia. Doesn't work for an encyclopedia. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)