Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk
Special projects talk
Resource Library talk
Article Improvement Drive talk
Requested articles and todo talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Cleanup listing talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → Article alerts talk
Article assessment (Log) talk
 → Featured articles (60) talk
 → Featured lists (216) talk
 → Good articles (569) talk
Outreach talk
 → Newsletter talk
Portal talk
Notability guidelines talk
Style advice talk
 → Naming conventions talk
 → Player style advice talk
 → Season article format talk
Handling transactions talk
Popular pages talk
Active editors
Project organization
Participants talk
Large userbox talk
Project userbox talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Major League Baseball
Team specific
Atlanta Braves talk
Boston Red Sox talk
Chicago Cubs talk
Cincinnati Reds talk
Los Angeles Angels talk
Los Angeles Dodgers talk
Minnesota Twins talk
New York Mets talk
New York Yankees talk
Philadelphia Phillies talk
San Diego Padres talk
Seattle Mariners talk
St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects
Players talk
College baseball talk
Leagues and teams talk
Little League talk
Old-time Base Ball talk
Negro league baseball talk
Hall of Fame talk
Umpires talk
Geographical
Australia talk
Japan talk
Korea talk
Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Misidentifications?

[edit]

I think this file rename request is possibly correct File:Buttercupdickerson.jpg. That same user has also made this edit. And this one and that. Does anyone know if they are correct? I know literally nothing about baseball. Polygnotus (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

[edit]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Ed Edelen

[edit]

Is there anyway we can retool the infobox on this player? I just found a rather lengthy journalist written obituary on Edelen that didn't even mention he played pro baseball. It was entirely focused on his career as a doctor, which included being president of Physicians Memorial Hospital (now University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center). I would say his 40+ year-long career as a physician is probably more significant to his biography than his very brief period playing pro ball (just two games in August 1932). The info-box should reflect that; particularly since his obit makes it clear he was a notable doctor. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible to use Template:Infobox person and embed Template:Infobox baseball biography therein. For a somewhat similar case, see article Jack Kemp, which uses Template:Infobox officeholder and has Template:Infobox NFL biography embedded. Dmoore5556 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Template:Infobox medical person which may be appropriate for Edelen. I'll try to revise his page, time permitting. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove WS Champion in Infobox?

[edit]

Given the recent discussion over at Talk:Clayton Kershaw, I feel like we need to have a discussion as to whether or not WS champion should be mentioned in the infobox. For one, every season there's some form of discussion over this - though nowhere near this divisive as CK's has been. For another, WS champs are in execs infoboxes, coaches, managers, and there's a new complication with the RFC closure being three-times for CK even though he wasn't on the postseason roster in any instance in 2024 and had very little contribution to the team in the regular as well.

WS MVP or the like are individual awards so those make sense to keep in the infobox. Of course, they are mentioned in the intro of the article and in the article itself. It would be more clear to explain in the article that "this player was on the roster of two WS teams" than call him a three-time champ in the infobox which is a bit misleading and complicated. Just feel like it's something worth discussing and clarifying. Of course, this applies to MANY other players, most recently before Kershaw being Jacob deGrom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that close was correct. I totaled 12 support to 12 oppose, just counting !votes. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTVOTE: "...the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important." PK-WIKI (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a vote. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strenght of the argument was fairly equal too. Both sources were reliable as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the closure was correct, please open an RfC closure review. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your comment though, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd just put a note that says "Various independent sources describe Kershaw as a 3-time World Series champion although he was only on two World Series rosters". That's all that can be done right now unless people change their minds or get the close overturned. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that was closed in that manner.. it should have been "no consensus" if anything. Spanneraol (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did remark to the closer on their talk page as well that the sources he sites as primary aren't primary at all but secondary - since that was their reasoning in why it was closed as 3x - so not sure either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna ping @Bagumba since they requested closure and probably know more about how this works. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: Talking directly to the closer, like you did, is preferable when one has concerns. Otherwise, there is Wikipedia:Processes § Formal review, if needed. —Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link! I have talked directly to them about their reasoning since they closed it based on what I think was misinterpreted info. Just waiting for a response. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair but this whole discussion has been weird and based on just one player and I'm not sure how it applies to other pages if at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't list career highlights/awards (like Stanley Cup championships) in the infoboxes of former/current NHL players. Maybe exclusion here, would be best. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the infobox was changed by the project I don't think it would override situations like the Kershaw article where the outcome of the RFC would overrule any project recommendations. Nemov (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this change, agree with WikiOriginal9. Don't know why the NHL project has a very different infobox format but NBA and NFL all list awards and championships in their infoboxes. Natg 19 (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily this change but what to do after the RfC closure. Like do we treat only Kershaw differently given this has only been raised about him or do we apply this elsewhere as well? It's quite a vague closure too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, the evaluation of consensus applies the viewpoint I have been supporting: follow what a consensus of reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable sources say. Accordingly I feel it is appropriate to apply the same reasoning for other players. Whether or not a given fact warrants inclusion in the infobox is a separate question in theory. My instinct, though, is that if the question were posed to the general Wikipedia community, there would be a consensus that being identified by appropriate sources as part of a World Series team is an essential aspect to mention in a concise summary of a person's biography, and thus should be kept in the infobox. An explanatory endnote explaining how a number of championships is determined when it isn't evident is, in my opinion, a reasonable way to provide context for readers. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first step to challenging an RfC closure is to discuss at the closer's talk page (which appears to have been started by Omnis Scientia and Bagumba). If that yields an unsatisfactory result, the next step would be to appeal at the administrators' noticeboard using {{RfC closure review}} to allow for community review of the closer's judgment. Left guide (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Left guide, thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, World Series champion should stay in infobox. Im confused by the outcome of the Kershaw discussion myself and whether it effects all players, but if it does, it would be good to continue adding notes next to players who weren’t on the World Series roster (like in Kershaw's article). I also agree with Natg 19, always thought it was weird there were no awards and championships for NHL players, but hey different project. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've looked at NHL players and I have no idea why they are super sparse, but I assume that was a project consensus. Natg 19 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in need of more eyes from the wider community. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removing World Series championships from player infoboxes per that accomplishment's treatment in reliable secondary sources.
Strange that the NHL pages are so sparse; the infoboxes at Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, and Alexander Ovechkin do not adequately sumarize the articles or their accomplishments. PK-WIKI (talk)
It's a fair thing to ask IMO, to at least start a conversation about this. It's a team achievement as opposed an individual one and, in interest of treating players equally rather than giving one player preferential treatment, there has to be some way to show that. Indeed even the sportswriters point out "he was not on the roster of the 2024 WS". We can't say "it's his achievement so it should be there" for one player but then deny the same of another player. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to link the RfC review link here if anyone wishes to weigh in who have weighed in here. I had assumed it was already notified here when I started it but I see that wasn't the case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RfC review failed to clarify whether it's conclusion applied to CK's article only or to all articles. I guess it wasn't the exactly the right way to clear up the confusion caused by this whole discussion but I still say we have to see if there is a fair and unbiased way to apply this to all players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't agree with the results of that discussion, but I would just go with applying it only to Kershaw at this point.. The discussion focused on what various sources said about him... and most players in that position don't have a bunch of sources calling them a champion. Spanneraol (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would agree that is the best way, for the time being. At some point there would be a revisit for a general review of this particular thing, I imagine, given it's just one player.
As an added note, I did look for guys like deGrom but he has very few mentions from 2023, most from social media posts from the time but not since. The further back, there are none I could personally find for players in that position. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC was an affirmation that sports Wikiprojects must follow our policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Following those guidelines is the fair and unbiased way to apply this to all players. No more WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, informal or directly written, to only use specific sources for particular pieces of information in the article or infobox.
That of course did not need to be established in an RFC, but the findings at WP:KERSHAWRFC are a welcome case study to link in the future if project members again attempt to limit citations to only certain favored sources.
Opening up sports biographies to all reliable sources will surely result in some changes to other articles. But, like Kershaw, any changes should be decided on a case-by-case basis according to our policies and guidelines. We have already made the same change at Alex Vesia and other players should be investigated as well. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you continue to make arguments that are not in good faith about this topic and those who disagree with your opinion. Kershaw wasn't on the roster that's not in dispute. The fact that he's being reported to be a World Series champion on a team he didn't play on is just the product of poor reporting. Fairly or unfairly, poor reporting is enough if it's reliably sourced to justify inclusion on an article. The RFC was closed by someone who was willing to find a consensus, there's at least one experience closer who agreed they wouldn't have closed it as consensus. We must respect the process, but it was hardly an affirmation. In the future it could be reported reliably that he wasn't on the roster and isn't a World series champion and the whole thing gets revisited again. That's how tenuous that consensus was. Nemov (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that one must be on the World Series roster to be a World Series champion is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Who are you to say that the reporting from 30+ top-tier reliable sources is "poor"? The RFC was an affirmation that we must follow the preponderance of reliable sources, not just Baseball Reference. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been already pointed out to you several times that the articles are mostly from people who covered Kershaw for almost two decades and there is a bias towards him as a star who spent his career in one city. They noticably treat him differently from his own teammates who were in the same situation. So yes, there is a flaw in the reporting.
Additionally, the roster rule is not original research because there ARE sources backing it - you just disagree with those sources and even said they aren't reliable because they are all businesses. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you thought this was a an invitation to reopen a debate. I'm not interested in beating the dead horse further, I am curious why you think you speak for "we" when you obviously only speak for yourself. Happy New Year! Nemov (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We have already made the same change at Alex Vesia and other players should be investigated as well." I don't see any sources in that article calling him a 2025 WS champ. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Reference does I believe because he was on the other playoff rosters as per their criteria. But yeah he wasn't referenced as such by any articles as far as I could see, even though his absense was noted several times before the WS began. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So Baseball Reference is good enough for Vesia but not Kershaw? I don't see any news headlines explicitly calling Vesia a 2025 champ. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vesia is kindof a special case because of the circumstances involved with him missing the series... we still mostly follow baseball reference except in the kershaw case.. In any event there is an explanatory footnote on the vesia page that explains why he missed the series. Spanneraol (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we add 2023 WS champ to Jacob deGrom? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no cause he missed most of the season. Spanneraol (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kershaw did too. DeGrom played in six games and Kershaw played in seven. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for John Bowker (baseball)

[edit]

John Bowker (baseball) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Player ID

[edit]

Can someone have a look at File:Darryl Motley.jpg and confirm if it is Darryl Motley. We have had a VTRS enquiry which suggests that it's not Motley but U. L. Washington. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards Motley. Washington was known for always having a visible toothpick in his mouth, I don't see one here. No number on the front means the uniform is pre-1983. We see first base in the foreground, as the fielder heads into foul territory. Washington was mostly a shortstop, although he played some games at second. Motley played 39 games in right field in 1981. Given their positions, I think it's more likely to see him in this location on the field at that time than Washington. And the player resembles Motley more than Washington. Echoedmyron (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that's first base. The line shown in the picture doesn't line up with the bag, so it can't be a foul line. The player looks to be wearing home whites, so it's almost certainly at Kauffman Stadium, which also had lines running 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd. I think it's more likely to be second base as viewed from the first base camera well, putting the player in a typical position for a shortstop. SirParzifal (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I was perusing 2013 World Baseball Classic and noticed that all the boxscore links are broken. It appears MLB updated its website and changed all the links. For example, the final game between Puerto Rico and Dominician Republic was at "http://mlb.mlb.com/wbc/2013/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2013_03_16_purint_domint_1&mode=box", but is now at "https://www.mlb.com/gameday/puerto-rico-vs-dominican-rep/2013/03/16/361287/final/box". The links for the 2017 WBC and 2023 WBC appear to be correct, but those for 2006, 2009, and 2013 are broken. Mindmatrix 15:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the Wayback Machine for the link I noted above. It has entries from 2013 to 2025, but the most recent working entry is from January 2021, so the links have likely been broken for almost five years. Mindmatrix 15:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link rot is always an issue. Some alternatives are at Wikipedia:Link rot § Preventing link rot —Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Goodison Park

[edit]

Goodison Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red year-long focus on women in sport

[edit]

Throughout the whole of 2026, Women in red is focusing on women in sport. This provides opportunities for creating biographies of notable women in a wide variety of sports, including baseball. If you are not already a member of Women in Red, feel free to join up under "New registrations" here.--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Braves-Phillies Rilvary

[edit]

Another one of these articles has popped up and is up for deletion again after being deleted in January. Nemov (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think all the "rivalry" articles outside of a few well sourced historical rivalries (Dodgers/Giants, Yankees/Red Sox, Cubs/Cardinals) should be deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Seems like a for non MLB players, the Baseball ref links in infoboxes are broken. Is there some easy way to fix this? Esolo5002 (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did not know there were baseball ref links in the infobox. Spanneraol (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]