Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 47

Is there a rule of thumb on whether to describe baseball venues as "baseball park" or "baseball stadium." Back Bay Barry has made this^[1] change^[2] on a few venues. It's probably a good idea to remain consistent. Has this been discussed before? I couldn't find anything in the archives, but I could have missed it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the Baseball park article answers your question.

"A baseball park, also known as a ballpark or diamond, is a venue where baseball is played. Larger venues where baseball is played are usually referred to as baseball stadiums."

I believe that baseball stadium would be the best way to describe Major League venues. Skipple (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Skipple, thanks for contributing. The above definition was just added^[3] to Baseball park by the same user. It previously read:

"A baseball park, also known as a ballpark or diamond, is a venue where baseball is played. A baseball park consists of the playing field and the surrounding spectator seating. While the diamond and the areas denoted by white painted lines adhere to strict rules, guidelines for the rest of the field are flexible. The term "ballpark" sometimes refers either to the entire structure, or sometimes to just the playing field."

So I'm not sure that change is that helpful. The old definition would have accommodated calling Major League venues parks. I'm comfortable with this change if that's the consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk)

FWIW, those descriptions are unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A ballpark is a venue for baseball. A stadium is a place with tiered infrastructure to allow a large number of spectators to watch events. MLB venues are both and so both terms apply. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that since "stadium" is more specific, calling every MLB venue a stadium in the first paragraph is the way to go. Not all ballparks are stadiums, but every MLB stadium is a "ballpark", in the sense that baseball is played on a field inside the stadium. High school ballparks, for example, would probably not be described as stadiums. Argles Barkley (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Many of these MLB venues are already called "parks." Calling Fenway Park a stadium just seems confusing. If ballpark and stadium are interchangeable calling the venues "ballparks" should be something used for baseball venues. Nemov (talk)

The terms are not interchangeable per se; they just both apply to MLB venues. Fenway Park's not an outdoor park as someone unfamiliar with baseball might think, so clarifying that it's a stadium is helpful. I think most editors would prefer not to describe a multi-purpose stadium as a ballpark, though there are only two remaining MLB teams who fit that category (three if you count whatever Tropicana Field is; it was built for baseball but has been the home venue for teams in other sports and hosted college football bowl games). isaacl (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the major league baseball venues were called ballpark before this mass change. I posed this question originally because I was curious if there already was a guideline in place. If there isn't a guideline it seems like these venues were organically called ballparks by editors. I realize there are some multi-purpose stadiums in the major leagues (although less now) so those cases can be managed separately, but it seems like most people call these venues ballparks. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you started this discussion to see what interested editors think (and thanks very much for doing so!), so we can see what they say. Through this discussion, I'm coming around to the view that "ballpark" is a description of function, while "stadium" is a description of the type of structure. Given that all MLB venues are, by definition, ballparks, having a description of the type of structure in the opening sentence may be more useful. isaacl (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think places that Major League Baseball games are held are called "stadiums" in most places (newspapers, news websites, people talking). Also, virtually no one uses the term "baseball park" - they just say "ballpark", and that's if they're trying to be quaint. It's like calling TD Garden a "Barn" - the Boston Garden wasn't a barn either, but people referred to it affectionally that way. But anyway, no one says "baseball park" and that's why I changed it. I vote that places with a baseball diamond primarily used by MLB teams should be called "Stadiums". Back Bay Barry (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Ballpark" is baseball-specific and more descriptive than "stadium", which is commonly used by many sports and evokes multi-purpose use generally. And "ballpark" is specifically about facilities with permanent spectator seating, by the way. If there's no such seating it's not called a "ballpark", but simply a (base)ball field. So I vote "ballpark" as being the most specific and correct descriptor. oknazevad (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Baseball stadium FWIW, I disagree with Oknazevad here. Saying "baseball stadium" is more specific than "ballpark" - like Isaacl said above, "a stadium is a place with tiered infrastructure to allow a large number of spectators to watch events." So the articles on MLB stadiums should say "baseball stadiums". JimKaatFan (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Ballpark" or Baseball stadium Thanks for all the feedback so far. After reading through the responses I'm not sure there's a set rule since it depends on the venue. I'll stick to Truist Park for this example since that's the venue article I know well. The article uses ballpark and stadium in the lead.

The use of ballpark or "baseball park" makes sense for baseball only venues. It wouldn't make sense for mixed venues or multi-purpose stadiums. This is probably best left to the editors of each venue article. Nemov (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Where do I sign up to become "the editor" of a particular venue article? Back Bay Barry (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No need to sign up. Just open up the topic on the article you're editing. The way it's currently written on Truist Park works for me (others could disagree), but stadium may work better on other venues. I hope this helps. Nemov (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Back Bay Barry that "baseball park" is unidiomatic, and is thus confusing. Personally I would prefer calling it a baseball stadium in the first sentence, leaving the second sentence to call it the home ballpark of the Atlanta Braves. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been 11 days and there's been no new comments for 4 days. Skipple, isaacl, Argles Barkley, JimKaatFan, and myself all think that "baseball stadium" is the best way to describe Major League venues. Back Bay Barry (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I just rewrote Rakuten Seimei Park Miyagi from the ground up and I think describing it as a "baseball stadium" in the first sentence of the lead is important, but referring to it as a "park" or "ballpark" throughout the article every once in awhile is also acceptable. --Torsodog^Talk 06:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

These's still not a clear consensus. Please exercise patience before making widespread changes. The goal is get this right. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Stadium seems most associated with professional baseball, where's Park seems associated with amateur baseball. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

And yet MLB calls their app for managing electronic tickets the Ballpark app. "Park" alone may mean an amateur field, but "ballpark" is synonymous with "baseball stadium" (that is, one that has permanent seating) at all levels. Even the industry coverage uses it, as seen by the name of the website Ballpark Digest. oknazevad (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you are seriously suggesting that the name of an app is the most reliable source for this argument is probably evidence that "baseball stadium" is the right term. In any case, the previous wording was "baseball park", not "ballpark". I don't even understand how the article is called baseball park. Nobody says that. "Ballpark" is used for small fields with limited seating, and it's sometimes used as a colloquial term for a stadium, but using colloquial terms in the first sentence isn't something an encyclopedia should strive for. Using the name of an app as a basis for the same is even crazier. Back Bay Barry (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

All baseball stadiums are ballparks but not all ballparks are baseball stadiums. Seems to me that it would be more informative to use baseball stadium. --Torsodog^Talk 23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to ask if all of the editors in this discussion (Torsodog, oknazevad, JimKaatFan, Skipple, isaacl, Argles Barkley, GoodDay) please take a look at both Truist Park and Baseball park. Nemov is very resistant to anyone changing those articles if their name isn't Nemov. Personally, I think "baseball park" is the wrong name for that article because no one says "baseball park". It's a "baseball stadium", or, colloquially, a "ballpark". Since an encyclopedia shouldn't have a colloquialism as the title, I propose that the article be renamed to "baseball stadium". Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The definition of "baseball park" in the baseball park article isn't really under discussion here. That's probably best to be left at the TALK page for that article. This was a discussion about reaching consensus about applying a standard towards all MLB venues. Reviewing this discussion there's really not a strong consensus, but there does seems to be support for "baseball stadium." I've already left my opinion about it and support whatever is decided. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

7-2 is a "strong consensus". Stop it. Back Bay Barry (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I just created a draft for baseball historian Rob Ruck. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thriley, to be an article, this would need to have more than just a list of works. When was he born? Where is he from? Where did he go to school? Is he married? Etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just thought there may be someone here who was familiar with his books and wanted to work on the article. I have a bunch of other articles to flesh out before I get back to him. Thriley (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Inquiry, are the Montreal Expos & the Seattle Pilots the only articles that are not in the "History of team" article title form? GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yea, cause the Expos fans shot down every attempt to make their article consistent with the other ones. Spanneraol (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As you are aware from multiple times you've asked in the past, Talk:Montreal Expos/FAQ has a collection of various articles of teams that have moved. I've updated it for a few that have changed. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a compelling reason why those two pages aren't "History of" articles? Much of the Expos information should be rolled into the Nationals page if it's not there already. I suspect that a franchise is eventually going to move to Montreal. Even if that franchise adopts the Expos name that history belongs with the Nationals franchise. Nemov (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The FAQ summarizes the arguments that have been made from both perspectives on a number of related questions, including the name of the article. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the FAQ that in many cases those conversations are over 10 years old. I wasn't part of the conversation all those years ago and if this keeps coming up it probably means the consensus to carve an exception to the rule could be under threat if it's reopened. These articles should be handled consistently and as the FAQ demonstrates that's not happening. I don't see a logical reason why the "history of" articles and articles like Montreal Expos exist. Pick one or the other. Nemov (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change. And it should. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, either go with the "History of..." style, or don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It's been quiet for years, because no one had any new arguments to add, so there was no point in rehashing it. I was just responding to your question regarding what the arguments have been. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(←) Consistency should reign over these articles. I really don't see what the benefit of the "History of" pre-fix is other than saying the franchise abandoned your city, nyah-nyah. If the franchise is completely defunct, we make no "History of" declaration (see all of the early NL & AA teams). I believe a stock sentence in the lede for relocated franchises, & maybe an enhanced infobox, would suffice. For example, the infobox could be a slightly different background color & where the current teams have the "current season" link, the relocated teams could have a "relocated to" tag right under the team name. I really never got the whole "History of" scarlet letter. Someone open a RfC. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bison X, there are "history of" articles for the existing MLB teams: see Category:History of Major League Baseball by team. The category has one for each of the 30 existing teams (plus three more for the Cardinals, who have it split in four), plus one each for these "defunct" teams: Boston Braves, New York Giants, Philadelphia Athletics (not KC), St. Louis Browns, and Washington Senators (the future Twins only, not the future Rangers. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The one use for "History of" that could work is if one of these teams return. The first example I thought of in US sports is the Charlotte Hornets who have the same name, but are a different franchise. There's a History of the Charlotte Hornets for the original franchise. This could happen in Montreal. There's a good possibility a MLB franchise moves there and they become the Expos again. Nemov (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thankfully, the MLB & the NHL don't treat this topic the way the CFL & NFL do. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct, the history of current teams do have their own articles, but they also have a stand-alone article. You have 4 "History of the St. Louis Cardinals" articles, but you also have a "St. Louis Cardinals" article. You have a "History of the St. Louis Browns" article, but where is the article "St. Louis Browns"? You don't need a "History of" article. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

{{MLBHistory}} has more of these links. We get mostly links to subsections on the "history of" pages for "relocated" teams (such as History of the Baltimore Orioles#Milwaukee Brewers, History of the New York Yankees#Background: 1901–1902 Baltimore Orioles, History of the Atlanta Braves#Milwaukee, but also some individual "history of" articles like History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, History of the Philadelphia Athletics, and "non-history" titled pages for the Montreal Expos and Seattle Pilots. Then, for defunct teams, it's all just the article itself (such as New York Mutuals, Louisville Colonels, Cleveland Spiders). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"History of" without a regular article goes against WP:PRECISION, no? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe so. Philadelphia Athletics is more concise than History of the Philadelphia Athletics. Is there any place where a past consensus for this was formed? We should probably have an RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps too, separate articles for the Kansas City Athletics, Milwaukee Braves, etc, could be created. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The concision argument has been raised in the past (by me and others). If I recall correctly, there have been discussions in the context of the Expos and New York Giants. If any more general conversations took place, it predates my awareness of the baseball WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe in the past the decision was that those were not separate teams, but split outs from the existing team history articles. The Brooklyn Dodgers are not a separate franchise from the LA Dodgers and there is no reason to duplicate information on two different articles. I recall there being a decent size discussion on the issue along time ago. Spanneraol (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize as I'm not following. Are you saying the Montreal Expos and New York Giants articles are split outs from the existing team history articles, or the History of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the History of the Philadelphia Athletics articles? When you say there was a decent size discussion on the issue, are you referring to the use of "History of..." in general? (I agree it sounds like a topic that would have been discussed in general; I just don't recall.) isaacl (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The history of the brooklyn Dodgers was split out from the history of the LA Dodgers article.. and the Athletics was split out from the Oakland article. There was a discussion that led to the creation of those history articles... I did the Brooklyn split so I remember the discussion... but can't remember exactly when it was.. it had been many years. Spanneraol (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even realize there was a History of the Atlanta Braves article until today. I've been editing the Atlanta Braves article for years and never noticed. It might make more logical sense to name articles like that "History of the Atlanta Braves Franchise" since it includes the history of Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta. I suppose these "history of" articles exist because the content would clutter the main Atlanta Braves article. In theory the franchise history in "History of the Washington Nationals Franchise" could include much of the content that's on the Montreal Expos article. Trimmed version of articles like the Expos could remain, but with the basics without all the franchise history. It's confusing right now because there doesn't appear to a standard being applied here. Nemov (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The point of the history articles is to prevent the main page from being bogged down in season by season summaries which has occurred on some of the pages... it's better to just have a general overview of the franchise on that page and then have the detailed breakdowns on the history page. Spanneraol (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct, I mentioned that. Nemov (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Sooo, was this just a drive-by comment, or did you have a proposal in mind? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Either move the Expos & Pilots to "History of the Montreal Expos" & "History of Seattle Pilots" or change all the other "History of..." articles to team names, "Brooklyn Dodgers", "St. Louis Browns" etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Expos move isn't going to happen. I'd (most likely) support moving the other articles away from "history of" (in all sports), but I'm unsure as to where the best place would be to hold such an overall discussion. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

For sure, the Expos article will get special treatment, as it always has. I will note that the NHL does not use "History of..." articles, but rather regular team articles for defunct or pre-relocated teams. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What is "pre-relocated?" Asking for a friend. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Previous locations of current franchises: Examples - Quebec Nordiques, Brookly Dodgers, San Diego Chargers, etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the Pilots article. Namely, I removed mention of a self-published book about the team. WP:DUE, WP:BOOKSPAM pretty much covers it. Amazon isn't here to promote people's books....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to leave the articles about "Montreal Expos" and ""Brooklyn Dodgers" but the history of those club should be the "history of" articles. Articles like "Montreal Expos" and ""Brooklyn Dodgers" shouldn't been very big. It should just the basics of there was a team with this name on these dates. Anything relating to the history of the team, retired players, uniforms, logos, etc, should be on the "history of" article. People who search for "Montreal Expos" will learn the basics and if they want a deeper history can read the franchise history. Is there a more logical way to approach it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The general approach for English Wikipedia articles is to only introduce a spinout history article when the main article's length would be too unwieldy with the history included. Team articles have followed this pattern. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What would be your definition of unwieldy? There's 48 paragraphs of history on the Montreal Expos article and almost all of it could be at the History of the Washington Nationals article since it exists. We should apply some kind of consistent model. If "Montreal Expos" is going to stay then History of the New York Giants (baseball) will need to be updated to "New York Giants (baseball)." Once this is decided we could have a broader discussion about what is included in the aricle, but much of the history belongs on the franchise "history of" article if it's going to exist. Nemov (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact policy, but WP:CONTENTSPLIT seems good. It might seem good at Washington's history section, but Montreal's distinctness would justify a separate article. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I still don't think we should have separate articles for the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Boston Braves, etal.. as those are not separate franchises that are distinct enough for them to be separated like that. The teams just moved, they retained their franchise history and it would be confusing to have them separate.. it's the same team. The Expos are unique enough of a situation but these other teams are not. Spanneraol (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are the Expos unique? MLB history is littered with teams moving to other cites. The Washington Senators were a club for 59 years before moving to Minneapolis to become the Twins. I understand the recency bias, but logically speaking there's no difference between the Washington Senators and Montreal Expos. It doesn't make sense for one to be the former club name and one is the "history of." There does appear to be some fear of upsetting the apple cart when it comes to the Expos page. I'm failing to see a reason why. Nemov (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Because the Expos had a unique cultural connection to their Canadian fans that the US based teams don't have. Spanneraol (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Expos article would've been moved to "History of the Montreal Expos", years ago. Except that there was enough editors (likely Canadians) who opposed its re-naming. As for the Pilots? they only had 'one season', so that's likely why it was never moved to "History of the Seattle Pilots". GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There are some people who think season articles should have brief mentions of every game and summaries of every series, and the History of the Washington Nationals article (fyi, your link went to the Giants article) is along those lines on a rolled-up per year basis. Personally I think that's too much detail—I'd roll it up into groups of seasons—but either approach could be followed. With that level of detail, spinning out season descriptions from the main article helps guide readers to the level they're interested in. The Montreal Expos article, however, is not broken down to the same fine degree. I think it remains suitable for inclusion in a team's main article. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)#RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

An RfC relating to relocated teams' article titles using "History of" has been opened and may be of interest to this Wiki Project. The RfC will add language to the WP:GUIDELINE and will affect multiple article titles. Please join the discussion at the above link. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated J. R. Richard for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, most of the Year team season articles copy their article - Year Team season. But, I've noticed that (in last few months likely), that someone's went around many of these team articles & changed the intro to Team Year season. The result? is inconsistency across teams & with the same team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

To me, the worst part of the season article intros has been the failure to note MOS:BOLDAVOID. There should be no links in the bold text, like this random season article has. Inconsistency in wording sounds bad too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

We need consistency for these intros, no matter what format is implemented. The intros to the 1993 Cincinnati Reds season, 1994 Cincinnati Reds season & 1995 Cincinnati Reds season articles, are prime examples. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if people could weigh in on what they think is a better way to describe the after effects of yesterday's failed deadline? Should we mention the amount of games that the season was cut down to (even though it is still fluid and could change), or should we only mention the amount of series that were canceled, or a combination of the two.

I feel like the second option would be better just because we don't know how many games will actually be played this season. I also feel like it would make more sense to focus more on the amount of series canceled than the games that could still happen because the first fact is not up for debate or discussion. We know for a fact that 2 series have been canceled for each team. With the game amount, there is still quite a bit of discussion and debate about it and it is likely that teams are going to get 155-156 games in (meaning there are more cancellations on the horizon most likely) which seems like tedious work to have to make more edits. I just feel like it would be better to use set in stone facts on these team pages rather than facts that can still fluctuate. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The 155-156 is where a bunch of teams are already at. It does not mean more cancellations are likely--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Until there is confirmation on a deal or even rumors that a resolution is in sight...more cancellations are still possible. A small piece of advice...I would suggest that you change the wording in this line "As of March 1, the season has been reduced to 156 games, following the cancellation of the first two series." I think that it is correct for the most part, however not all teams are at 156 games like you eluded to. Some are at 155. So perhaps something like "As of March 1, the (enter team name) season has been reduced to 156 games, following the cancellation of the first two series." I am just trying to help you out since I see that you are newer around here than me. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about whether there's resolution in sight. Because if more games are canceled that means more series are canceled. Adding the team name to the sentence is superfluous because the team's season has already been established as the subject, therefore we don't need to keep repeating what season. But that's not even the point of the discussion you started--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we will just have to learn to agree to disagree on this. I won't be able to change your thinking on this topic and I don't think you can really change mine. To me, it's a little vague and so I changed it slightly. Clearly, you disagree and that is fine. That's your right. We each have the ability to edit pages. I am done with this discussion. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The team pages could just make a generic mention to the lockout and link to 2021–22 Major League Baseball lockout, leaving the details to that centralized page. Once the lockout is over, some expansion with high-level details can be placed in the team pages. That seems the most efficient, but some may want "their" team page to have more details now. I'm not really editing any of this though.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba: That seems like a reasonable compromise especially since this situation is extremely unique and the information is already in one centralized location. If it is okay with you (Bagumba) I would like to try that out with my teams. What do you suggest that I say for the generic mention? GoWarriors151718 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s not compromise if I don’t agree. If you’re going to “try things out” use your sandbox--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not following the lockout that closely. Perhaps something roughly like the league began a lockout on Dec 2, and the start of the regular season was delayed after the league began canceling games. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba that given the changing situation, for now it would be more efficient to centralize lockout details to the main lockout page. Exactly how many games will be played later is subject to negotiation (both sides have financial incentives to squeeze in more games into the final schedule), so I think the individual team articles don't need to give prominence to this aspect right now. isaacl (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: Seems to me that consensus was to not include the number of games. Your edits last week that indicated that "the season has been reduced to 156 games" were apparently not true in hindsight given that, as I stated in my edit summary to 2022 Tampa Bay Rays season that you reverted, 162 games was still on the table. For all we know, it still is. Which is my point, that none of us know what the length of the schedule will be as of right now. The source you gave from CBS Sports literally says "The number of games played ... and the schedule itself are all subject to bargaining" and does not explicitly say how many games will be played. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Not true in hindsight" is 100% false. The passage said AS OF MARCH 1, which means it was true until it wasn’t. Canceling more games doesn’t make it retroactively wrong. And there is no visible consensus here--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

'''AS OF MARCH 1''' it's evident that it was still on the table that 162 games would be played based on today's news. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I really think we should wait on messing with the schedules till we know what the actual schedule will be... they could still play an entire season... no matter what they say today. Also don't like including things like "as of" because it is not encyclopedic. Spanneraol (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree and I think there's a big difference in saying "as of X the season has been reduced to # games" which can't be verified, and saying "the maximum number of games that could be played under the originally released schedule is #". Even the latter still may not be encyclopedic but at least isn't speculatory like the former. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

While the second option is better than the first, which is unacceptable to me... I still think there is no reason for either text yet... what is the hurry? Wait till they reach a deal and then put down what the result is when it is a fact that can be verified. Spanneraol (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree entirely with that. Will it be removed or would an effort continue to get reverted until the lockout actually ends? That is the question. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Tampabay721 (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, NBASEBALL has now been modified such that playing in MLB no longer gives rise to a presumption of notability. Thoughts on how NBASEBALL can now be rewritten? Here are some discussion points for a new NBASEBALL:

• Increase the number of games required to trigger a presumption of notability. Maybe 10 games? Maybe 20? Or five?
• Limit the years (e.g., post-1900, post-World War I) as to which playing in specified leagues would trigger a presumption of notability.
• Limit which leagues qualify a player for a presumption of notability (maybe just American and National Leagues?).
• Shift from a "game played" standard to a "game started" standard.
• Adopt a series of performance-based markers. Examples might include:

(1) Ranked among the leaders in a major statistical category in any given year or on a career basis

(2) Chosen for the All Star tam

(3) Inducted into relevant halls of fame

(4) Won a significant award (MVP, Cy Young, Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, or others listed at Template:MLB awards)

(5) Others?

I'm not advocating at this point for one particular approach, but this is a discussion that needs to happen. Cbl62 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the best place to hold this conversation. If so, it should be cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports).

Either way, for posterity here is what was removed from NBASE :

Here's how it now reads:

Rgds. --Bison X (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think this is the correct forum to displace a potential replacement. If/when the baseball project reaches consensus on a proposal, then it can be presented to the broader audience at NSPORTS. Cbl62 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

So the result from that impossible to follow mess of a discussion was to gut the notability guidelines.. great... so now only hall of famers are notable? And every 19th century player will soon be up at afd? Spanneraol (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but the closure says The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article. By removing them, editors will need to demonstrate that other SNG criteria or the GNG are met. So it was removed so that consensus could be reached as to what the SNG for baseball should be, if I'm reading that correctly. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

They kept moving the goalposts and modifiying it to get exactly what a few want then leave the grunt work to the experts to figure out. This is why I don't waste my time working on articles anymore. Wizardman 22:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea, it's frustrating.. they kept adding new proposals until most of the people arguing against them got tired and stopped responding.. then they wore down the rest of them. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget the part where they threw tantrums whenever anyone tried to notify the editors who actually work on sports articles about those interminable proposals. It led to me seriously reducing the amount of time I spend on here. But hey, if they are able to delete a bunch of articles that they don't like, that will somehow make all the other articles better. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The bigger takeaway is this change:

Baseball figures are presumed notableSignificant coverage is likely to exist for baseball figures if they...

As worded, NSPORTS could be misinterpreted to no longer provide a presumption of notability. This would be a bastardized transformation from Wikipedia: Notability (emphasis added):

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Does anyone think that being drafted in the first round of the draft should be a criteria for the new NBASEBALL? Some of the other current guidelines at NSPORTS mention being a draft selection, e.g. Are a first-round draft pick of the NHL Entry Draft or Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. Natg 19 (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I randomly looked at 1980_Major_League_Baseball_draft#First_round_selections: 5 of the 26 1st round picks are red links, and 1 other wasn't linked at all. MLB draft is probably less of an indicator of coverage than NFL or NBA. —Bagumba (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Noting that a close review of NSPORTS was opened a few days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#NSPORTS closure review. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe Module:MLB standings needs to be update to reflect the increase in Wild Card teams in each league from 2 to 3. There is an existing module named wildCard2012 that handles two Wild Card teams; I think we need a wildCard2022 module to handle three Wild Cards teams (without breaking seasons that have already happened). Is there someone here with Module experience who could make such an enhancement? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This might not be the place to ask. But, is the new format gonna be Wild Cards #2 & #3 play each other & the winner then plays Wild Card #1? GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

per MLBtraderumors here "the top two division winners in each league receive first-round byes, while the worst division winner and the three Wild Card teams per league will play three-game sets to advance to the Division Series. The worst division winner will face the final Wild Card qualifier, while the top two Wild Card clubs will take on one another." Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Each a best-of-three, cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The season ending tie-breaker (aka 163rd Game), has been eliminated. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

As documented at Template:MLB standings, there is an optional parameter called "output" that currently accepts a value of "wildCard2012" which changes the output from the default. I created the "output" parameter to allow for future format changes (which I kind of thought would take less than ten years to happen). Now that the day is here, I can work on a change to support the new format. (The "wildCard2012" value would remain to support all current uses.) I'm still considering some different options in my mind on how to do it. isaacl (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I guess we'll need a Template:12TeamBracket-MLB (with two division winners getting first-round byes) similar to how Template:12TeamBracket-NFL is set up. The 2021 playoffs will be the last to use Template:10TeamBracket-MLB.Canuck^{89 (Converse with me)} 02:36, March 14, 2022 (UTC)

I've added support for |output=wildCard; the documentation has been updated accordingly. The module uses the |year= parameter to determine how many wild card teams per league to show, using data configured in Module:MLB standings/data. For backwards compatibility, |output=wildCard2012 is still supported. Please let me know if you see any issues with existing standings tables or new ones. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, please follow the documentation for {{MLB standings}} on how to create the standings templates. Highlighting of teams is not hardcoded within the standings templates, in order to allow each team season article to highlight its own team, and seeding information is also passed into the standings templates, so it is shown only on the relevant article pages. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify a bit more regarding seeding: when I created {{MLB standings}}, the seed information was only shown on the MLB season page, which I think is still the case. Thus there isn't a particular reason to centralize storing the seeds. isaacl (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks very much for following up, and for the above info. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone had an issue with not getting watchlist notifications? I have this page on my watchlist ("permanently"), but more often than not, I do not get a notification about new content. Any insight, or pointers to a better place to ask, would be welcome. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

When you say "notification", are you talking about an email notification? According to Help:Email notification, once you receive an email notification for a page, you won't get another email for that page until you visit it. isaacl (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and that's probably exactly what has been happening (I don't always visit a page after a notification)... thank you! Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The links to the MLB.com rosters are not working on the roster templates.. can someone who understands how that code works take a look at that? Spanneraol (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Each team's roster template will need to have the "|MLBcomName=" field changed to thier team nickname. For example, the Milwaukee Brewers would be "brewers" (lowecase) to match usage in NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

In the articles for the MLB divisions, like the American League East, in the Champions by Year and Wild Card winners produced, why are the World Series wins in red and losses in green? This seems counter to the common template, precedent set earlier in the article(in the Timeline , winners are in green and appearances are in yellow), and even this projects own quality assessment grading. Is there a color guide/template that someone could point me to? Or is there a different place to discuss this, as it is something that happens in the NFL conference pages as well. PetahBread15 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree the colouring is backwards. Winning should be in green & losing in red. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. That's completely bass-ackward. Heck, I don't think red should be used at all. Since the point is to highlight the years where the division-winning teams went on to win the LCS and the World Series, the LCS winners should stay green, but the World Series winners should be in gold to indicate championships. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, as this may not have gotten much publicity. I just tripped across it myself today. Story here.

• Triple-A: International League, Pacific Coast League
• Double-A: Eastern League, Southern League, Texas League
• High-A: Midwest League, Northwest League, South Atlantic League
• Low-A Single-A: California League, Carolina League, Florida State League

At least one editor has started revising articles accordingly. There's probably quite a few places that updates will be needed. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Aaaaand I see now there was an entire discussion on this topic earlier on this page. Sorry :-( Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In follow-up to a now-archived discussion about the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, I've drafted an article on player/coach/scout Jim Ridley, located HERE. Feedback on the article welcome, including Ridley meeting WP:NBASE / WP:GNG (I believe he does). Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The article Major League Baseball Wild Card Game is a tad messed up. Its title contradicts its intro & content. IMHO, we should have two articles. The historic Wild Card Game & the current Wild Card Series. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed in the recent RM. The closest equivalent I know of is NCAA basketball's First Four, which is one article. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is nobody interested in this topic. The aforementioned RM was prematurely closed & since then, the article content has been changed, to reflect the wording Series over the wording Game. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Article probably should just be called Major League Baseball Wild Card... and then it can discuss the different versions including the series, the game and previously when the wild card teams just competed in the division series. Spanneraol (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There's already an article called Major League Baseball Wild Card. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Then we probably don't need this article. Spanneraol (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A single Major League Baseball Wild Card article (with that capitalization) should suffice. It should crisply cover a) what an MLB wild card team is (and has been historically) and b) the results of all MLB wild card competitions (games and series). The two current articles include redundant content, and there is a fair amount of bloat in Major League Baseball wild card that should be removed (such as sections "Historic anomalies" and "Notable^{[according to whom?]} wild card team achievements", both of which contain zero references). I can help with editing, if there is reasonable consensus on a single-article approach. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Major League Baseball Wild Card" seems like it's about the wild cards themselves, not the game/series. O.N.R. ^(talk) 12:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The two are inexorably linked, though, and there really isn't enough of a distinction to need two articles. The amount of redundancy is inevitable and already rather present. I agree with the idea of merging them. oknazevad (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well at the moment, the article (due to content change) has the wrong title. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an established method to fix that: WP:RM. But as you were told there, several times, we were waiting on an official announcement from the MLB as to the name they'll use when the previous RM was closed. There's also a proposal on the table to keep the Game article separate from the new article on the series, whatever it's title. Now we have a separate proposal here to merge two articles, which just confuses the whole issue. BilCat (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to open an RM or a Split request. Was hoping someone else here did. Anyways, I don't seem to be getting anywheres here, so not gonna bother with it anymore. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You can always ask for help in making a move or split request. Perhaps that's what your comments here were intended to be, but if so, I missed it. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This morning, MLB announced that the minor leagues are reverting back to their original names. Seems it was a trademark issue that led to the placeholder names of last year. I imagine that we should be considering these leagues to have never ceased operations? Do we, say, merge Pacific Coast League with Triple-A West and etcetera? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd support that considering the new PCL logo says "est. 1903" on it. Off the top of my head as it pertains to infoboxes and wherever else applicable... The Buffalo Bisons as an example, is it retroactively "International League (1998–present)" or "International League (1998–2020), Triple-A East (2021), International League (2022–present)"? Tampabay721 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If leagues and the media/sources consider them the same leagues, then so should we. As to the infoboxes, I'd suggest footnotes, as the other option is too long/clunky. BilCat (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it looks like they are being treated as continuations. Regarding infoboxes, I'd try to stay away from footnotes as much as possible--I think our project gets carried away with their use. If anything, I guess footnotes could be used for teams that were in (for example) the IL > AAAE > IL, but keeping full leagues listed for teams that switched leagues? As such, the Buffalo Bisons would have a footnote, but the Iowa Cubs wouldn't. ... Also of note, "Low A" has been changed to "Single-A". NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point of overuse of footnotes. Also, several editors are eagerly doing their own thing with regards to the league articles, some of which are at cross-purposes. BilCat (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was unexpected. I remember last year people talking about the reason for the class-based names being that they didn't have the rights to the historic league names, and the announcement stated that was the case. I think treating them as continuous is probably the best, as thats how MLB and MiLB are treating them. Edit Changed my mind about that; legally these are different organizations, and the amount of realignment was substantial in terms of membership. Probably the clearest thing to do is state plainly what happened, like "the PCL was replaced by Triple-A West in 2021, which assumed the PCL name in 2022", for example, while keeping separate articles. And use similar phrasing for the individual teams, as well; for example, something along the lines of "the Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp were part of the Double-A Southern League, but as part of the 2021 MiLB reorganization they joined Triple-A East, which took the International League name in 2022". oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, this of course also reinstates the issues with the PCL having only two teams actually in Pacific Coast states, and the Texas League having only half its teams actually in Texas, but I digress. oknazevad (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

To my point above about the PCL logo, it seems like they consider it a continuance otherwise it would say "est. 2021" (or not have an est. date included at all) in the logo, no? Tampabay721 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't put much stock in that; league and teams, especially at lower levels, often market themselves as continuations to give themselves prestige. Doesn't actually make them the same legal entity. As an example, a few years ago the Washington Nationals were given permission to use 1905 as an establishment date because that was the year the now-Minnesota Twins first used the name; it was laughed at and dropped quickly, but it shows that those are marketing decisions, not facts. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems obvious, based on the PCL logo (and other founding dates given in the mlb.com and milb.com articles), that it's a continuance and that the 2021 names were a one-year trademark issue. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what the reliable sources state/report. To this point, it does appear that they are being considered continuations of the original league, and that's what we should go with. It may change again, but we can deal with that when it happens. BilCat (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I say merge the new league articles into the old ones but the old league articles represent two leagues with the same name. Example- I would have the Eastern League article represent both the previous Eastern League and the new Eastern League, the first section of the article would be titled “The previous Eastern League (1923-2019)” and the second section of the article titled “The current Eastern League (2020-Present)” and then state the current Eastern League was formerly known as Double-A Northeast. Granthew (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Granthew here. The easiest and least confusing approach to me seems to be to merge the Triple-A East article with the International League article, the Triple-A West article with the Pacific Coast League article, etc., for all of the leagues, and then in the history section for all the leagues have a header of something like "History of XX League as a NAPBL member (XXXX-2020)" and then "History of XX League as a MLBPDL (2021-present)" or whatever. Credit last year's champions as a champions of the leagues with their traditional names (e.g., Durham as champion of the International League for 2021) with a footnote stating "For the 2021 season, the league was known as the Triple-A East". It's going to be very confusing if there's a one-year gap in the articles for the historic leagues, while the articles for last year's leagues exist independently (and we can't say they're defunct in the infobox, since they still exist, just under different names). Lugubrious DBB (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Using the Eastern League name for example I would have the first header as “The previous Eastern League (1923-2019)” and the second header as “The current Eastern League (2020-Present)”, the leagues of the new MiLB are legally separate from the leagues of the old MiLB. Granthew (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like the most reasonable approach to considering the 2021 leagues as continuations of the previous leagues. Although, I'd try to avoid using the league name in each heading. Maybe use something more like "Previous league (1923–2020)" and “Current league (2021–present)" or "Original league (1923–2020)" and "Current league (2021–present)"... if the current league is indeed the original. I'd also stress trying to avoid using footnotes where possible and instead conveying such information in the body of prose. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest not using terms like "previous" and "current" since there were more than one "previous" Eastern League and the last one was not the "original" ... just refer to them by the date ranges. Spanneraol (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Previous league means what came before the current league, use “previous” instead of “original” since there are other previous leagues before the previous league. Granthew (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My header title suggestions give more importance to the former NAPBL leagues and their history, the NAPBL leagues were each unique, they were their separate organizations from the NAPBL organization. Granthew (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am leaning towards following whatever direction that MLB is taking which, for these leagues, would be to consider them as continuations with a 1-year name change. This follows the precedents of what was done for the Eastern League, which considered itself a continuation of the New York–Pennsylvania League, and the Southern League which did not consider itself a continuation of the South Atlantic League. However, the leagues in question have the additional circumstance of their previous governing organization (Minor League Baseball, Inc.) dissolved and are now being governed by MLB. I'm not sure that we need to be bound by a new organization's decree that their leagues are continuations of the old one's organization's. Waz⁸:T-C-E 00:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• From what I understand, the PBA agreement was to totally rework the MiLB structure; they scrapped the old leagues and started from scratch. If that is the case, then these leagues are not continuations and should have separate articles starting from the reorg of MiLB. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  You're suggesting, for example, the Triple-A East was the start of a new league, and its article be renamed either International League (...) with some disambiguation, or just International League with that league's current article getting a years-of-operation disambiguation? Waz⁸:T-C-E 02:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Have the International League article represent two leagues, have a section titled “previous International League” and another section titled “current International League”, do this for all the league articles. Granthew (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  There was no new PBA agreement. The PBA agreement was replaced by the new PDL concept. To replace the PBA agreement, the MLB had to create a new MiLB to replace the old MiLB, the new MiLB is called MLB Professional Development Leagues or MLBPDL, a division of the MLB. The old MiLB was the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues or NAPBL for short, so we have two MiLBs here. 117 teams from the NAPBL were invited to join the MLBPDL, signed the PDL agreements and joined the new MLBPDL. The MLBPDL agreements it seems defines the establishment and existence of an affiliation between an MLB team and not the establishment and existence of an MiLB franchise, so the MiLB franchises in the new MLBPDL may no longer be franchises and the term franchise is now only used in terms of marketing. The leagues under the NAPBL were their separate entities, so for example the Louisville Bats are not really a MiLB franchise but an MiLB league franchise under the old system cause the franchise can only exist in the previous IL, all MiLB franchises under the old system were MiLB league franchises. So applying the franchisee/franchisor system here which has always been applied to North American organized sports, all MiLB franchises from the old MiLB (except for the Pioneer League franchises) folded, so if you believe in the franchisee/franchisor system, you would put that the 120 organizations folded their MiLB and independent league franchises and replace them with PDLs, example- the Louisville Bats International League franchise was replaced by the new Louisville Bats Professional Development License, try using that for marketing, that would be failed MiLB marketing. Granthew (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  The more I think about this, the more I'm concluding that, technically, there should be separate articles for the old and new leagues. However, since our main sources of MiLB information are MiLB itself and Baseball Reference (original research, I confess!) -- both of which are considering the groups of leagues as continuations -- I don't believe it would be possible to do anything different and still be able to use those sites as sources. Therefore, I'll say this is our only practical option. Waz⁸:T-C-E 20:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I concur. If the reliable, secondary published sources disagree, as they may well do in time, then we can revisit this. BilCat (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  This does seem a good option. Thusly, we would move the 2021 league articles to the new name with disambiguators, such as Triple-A East > International League (2021–present). NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have a preference for what should be done with the existing level/geographically-named league articles. I do believe the only practical option (like it or not) that enables us to keep using the MiLB and B-R sites as sources is to add the 2021 and all new information to the historically-named league articles. Not sure that it would be possible to have separate articles while considering the leagues operating continuously as those sites are doing. My apologies, if I wasn't clear about that. Waz⁸:T-C-E Waz⁸:T-C-E 02:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  I see what you mean now. While it may have been easier to move the 2021 leagues, restoring the pre-2021 leagues to being active will match what MLB/MiLB is saying about the leagues. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  But the articles should represent the previous leagues and the current leagues, not lump the two leagues together and have them as one league in the articles. Granthew (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Remember, this is an encyclopedia -- not a news service -- and we must WP:CITE our sources. If we treated them as separate "previous" and "current" leagues, we'd need a source which stated this. Since MiLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com are lumping the two groups of leagues together and considering them as continuations, we must present the information this way, wherever we use either of them as a source. Waz⁸:T-C-E 03:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is what happened, there are two MiLBs, the NAPBL and the new MLB Professional Development Leagues, news articles usually are not accurate. It wasn’t a takeover of the MiLB, it was the MLB forming a new MiLB to replace the old MiLB. Granthew (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Given how sports leagues treat history as a tangible object that can be bought, sold, traded and left behind... I'd say they are the legal continuations. Like, using your argument as a basis, we would have to re-write the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens, so that the Ravens are the original team and the Browns the expansion, instead of the other way around as it is legally considered. Metropod (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's only been a day since the announcement, and there's a lot we don't know, but even if the leagues are different legal entities, it's abundantly clear that they claim the history of the old leagues. There's no reason to keep these split. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This piece put out today, March 17, by Minor League Baseball on the history of the International League makes it clear that as far as MLB is concerned, the league names used in 2021 were just one-year aberrations: they state the IL was founded in 1884 and was simply known as the Triple-A East in 2021. Hence, it seems clear to me that the 2021 league articles need to be merged with the applicable historical leagues, with last year's champions credited as the most recent champions of their respective leagues.

https://www.milb.com/news/international-league-then-and-now Lugubrious DBB (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Have the International League article state that the new International League follows the tradition of the previous International League and that the current International League is considered a continuation of the previous International League by the current MiLB head organization. Granthew (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The format followed by User:Lugubrious DBB in the Southern League (1964–2020) looks like the best way to handle it. It doesn't belabor the point, but mentions it in the lead, and has a separate section under "History" for the MLB takeover years. BilCat (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea, except the takeover didn't happen till 2021.. he has it at 2020. Spanneraol (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the heading for the section, which also covers the Covid cancellation of the minor league seasons. It can easily be tweaked. BilCat (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Right now, it’s been suggested that the Southern League was renamed Double-A South, that’s incorrect, the Double-A South league replaced the previous Southern League and is now renamed to the current Southern League. Granthew (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, as far as MLB is concerned based on their publicity on the minor leagues over the last few weeks, MLB is treating the "new" leagues that formed in 2021 as if they are continuations of their former leagues. We can nitpick about whether or not they're new legal entities (they are), but that doesn't change that as far as MLB is officially concerned, 2021 was a temporary renaming, nothing more. If we were to apply the legal entity standard consistently, we would have to say "Major League Baseball" didn't exist prior to 2000 when the American League and National League (formerly independent entities operating under a joint agreement) were legally dissolved and formed into the current legal entity known as Major League Baseball, even though the term "Major League Baseball" as a governing entity existed well before 2000. Lugubrious DBB (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do we stand on keeping/merging/deleting 2021 league articles and categories? I feel like the individual league articles should be merged with the 2022+ leagues and redirected. Lists of rosters and stadiums would be likewise redirected. Categories such as "Category:Triple-A East teams" should be kept since those teams did play in a league by that name. Otherwise, the categories for rosters, stadiums, etc would be deleted when empty. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging information from and redirecting the 2021 league articles (perhaps to an anchor that can provide an explanation) seems like the logical way to handle them. As for their categories, I'm in favor of deleting them all. I don't think the "teams" ones should get any special treatment, as it would just create confusion that the 2021 leagues were considered different than the traditionally-named ones.

There is another item that doesn't affect the disposition of those categories but makes use of them while they still exist. We previously had separate current (parent) and former (child) teams/stadiums/(maybe other?) categories for each traditionally-named league. Since the 2021 leagues' subcategories reflect the current states of all of those leagues, that hierarchy could be reinstated simply by moving the 2021 league subcategories and adding the proper parent category, though having child categories for the current ones. For instance, Category:Triple-A West teams could be moved to Category:Current Pacific Coast league teams, and Category:Pacific Coast League teams added as a parent. If a redirect were created in the process, it would have to be either deleted or changed. Waz⁸:T-C-E 04:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That all seems reasonable. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Waz8: Following up on the categories, do you think it would be satisfactory to have (for example) Category:Current Pacific Coast League teams for the 10 active PCL teams and let Category:Pacific Coast League teams be for all former PCL teams whether defunct or playing in others leagues? Thusly, teams at Category:Defunct Pacific Coast League teams would be moved to Category:Pacific Coast League teams. I made some category edits earlier regarding teams that moved to or from the PCL and IL placing some in the "defunct" league categories. I began to dislike it partway through but continued for consistency's sake. I think what you were saying and what I've proposed here is a better way. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is better to have a child Current category for just the current teams and the top-level category for all others, defunct or still playing in other leagues. Another option I've considered is to make the top-level category all inclusive with a non-diffusing subcategory for current teams and possibly one for defunct teams. The existing scheme of having the current teams (or stadiums) in the top-level category with former and defunct team (or stadium) subcategories did not seem optimal, but I also followed it for consistency when categorizing the 2021 reorganization. Since the vast majority of Minor League teams are affected with the return of their traditional league names, this would be the opportunity to make the switch. Waz⁸:T-C-E 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose behind having current or former team categories? Why not just have one category for the league.. the PCL Teams category and include all the teams in it? We don't have categories for former and current players... just one category for everyone who played for a team... let's keep it simple. Spanneraol (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe having a Current teams category is helpful for the reader to navigate among just those. I'm not sure a Defunct category is necessary, but I don't object to having one. The category scheme for every Major, Minor, and independent league I've seen has separate current and former team categories, though there's usually a Former subcategory for those, with just the current ones in the top-level category. Having an all-inclusive teams category with a non-diffusing subcategory for current ones is the simpler option of the two I've proposed.

As for players, I think having separate current/former categories would be too difficult to maintain. Minor league players get reassigned, released, and re-signed too often to make that practical. Waz⁸:T-C-E 01:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We have navboxes that track current teams in the various leagues... that is a much easier way to navigate than through categories. Spanneraol (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m starting to feel like one all-inclusive league category for each league may be the way to go. I don’t know if I’ve ever browsed through a category for any purpose other than trying to organize them. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)