Talk:Major League Baseball/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What kind of entity is MLB?

The article defines MLB as "the organization that operates the National League and the American League" but it doesn't anywhere tell what MLB is. There are many kinds of organizations. Is it a corporation? If so, who owns it? For profit or non-profit? Or is it a partnership of the teams or the leagues? What does it own? Is it governed by a corporate board of directors? (I couldn't find the answers to these at mlb.com either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.165.165 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ANSWER Your questions cannot be answered because there it is either: 1) obvious, 2) would provide too much detail to what is a general topic, or 3) there is no general consensus.

A) Is it a corporation? Likely, but that kind of discussion is detail, and needs to be in some subtopic, like, "the business of baseball." Not everything can, or should, be discussed in a general topic. The truth is that the legal basis for MLB is irrelevant. It is a business but, legally, it is considered a sport. Keep reading, and read the article, specifically when it discusses SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US).

B) Who owns it? There is no general consensus and, depending on who one talks to, lawyers or accountants, one might get entirely different answers. Like most professional, sporting leagues in the USA, baseball is not truly "owned" by any single entity. Operationally, it is an equal partnership among participating teams. In truth, it acts more like a fraternal organization with an all-encompassing dictator who has ultimate authority. The difference between a partnership and a fraternity, when it comes to MLB, pretty much answers your question. Everyone has a financial stake, but no one "owns" MLB. MLB exists as itself as a separate entity, which controls the actions of it's fraternal members--both teams and players--through adherence to what it dictates.

C) Is it for profit? It is a business that earned $8-billion in 2010. It is a professional sports organization, which means the players are paid athletes. I think you need to go back to my last two bullets.

D) What does it own? MLB Advanced Media, which does a number of things, including the streaming out-of-town broadcasts to paid subscribers. It negotiates TV contracts. It collects taxes from teams that spend too much on payroll. It "owns" the baseball hall of fame, though it is really a separate, not for profit entity by itself. One could argue that the league owns the teams as well. Go back to my second bullet for the rebuttal. Outside of MLB Advanced Media, there is no general consensus, unless one wants me to start listing buildings that are deeded to them...

E) Is it governed by a corporate board of directors? Each team has an equal vote on decisions involving issues like labor, expansion, rules, and transfer of ownership. But outside of those issues, MLB is a friendly dictatorship that tells fraternal members what it wants.

F) I couldn't find the answers to these at mlb.com either. I know, because there is no consensus to your question. --71.62.86.48 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Is The World Baseball Classic considered a "World Championship"

An editor has in good faith been attempting to add the following text to the last sentence of the opening paragraph of this page:

"...(MLB also manages the World Baseball Classic), a major world championship for baseball."

Although it isn't by any stretch of the imagination something awful, both I and another editor have reverted this entry because we (separately) do not consider the WBC to be a "World Championship" for baseball. My opinion is that it is treated as akin to the Olympics - ok if we win, but since we rarely send our best players, it doesn't matter if we win or not. Although MLB has moved the WBC to March, none of the participants get ALL of their best players and since it is played in the spring, none of the MLB players are at the top of their game anyway. It appeared to me that Bud Selig and MLB were trying to make what was basically a "good will" tournament into something bigger, but it still isn't a true "WORLD" series. What do you all think? Ckruschke (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'd say it definitely is not a "major world championship". Spanneraol (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on it. However, World Baseball Classic defines it that way, citing the [[IBAF] (http://ibaf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Files_-_world_rankings/4221-IBAF_World_Rankings_Notes.pdf); it also appears in List of world championships.

To clarify Spanneraol, the line says it is a "major world championship for baseball," not a "major world championship." It ain't the FIFA World Cup, no.

Regardless, I think we ought to at least cursorily explain what the WBC is, as it's mentioned nowhere else in the article. Perhaps it should be moved from the lede and expanded in another section. Woodshed (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically it is the official world championship according to the IBF. Do people look at it that way yet, no probably not. But officially it is a world championship. I would also note a number of various world championships in other sports don't always send their best players either. Hockey is a very good example because the world championship occurs during the NHL playoffs so only players on teams that have been knocked out of the playoffs already tend to go. That doesn't mean its not the official world championship of the international federation of the sport. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the word "major" i have a problem with I guess... a world championship.. yea... major... i dont think so.Spanneraol (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I have two questions.

1. What do the sources say? As who cares what we think, only what the sources can confirm.

2. Shouldn't this be discussed at World Baseball Classic? Not sure that this is the right place for this discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Having read over the Baseball World Cup and associated articles, there is an interesting (and completely believable) comment that noted that many in the media mistakenly referred to the WBC as a "Baseball World Cup", with many probably not realizing that one already existed. I agree with Jojhutton in that sources should act as a guide, but it seems to me that a great deal of care has to be taken when looking at sources, as many of them may be mistaken in their assertions when they called the WBC a "World Cup" level tournament. For what it is worth, I don't think that the WBC is a world championship. It is not claimed by the IABF as such. It appears to be an international exhibition that was started by MLB to allow some of the better players to play. MLB looks like it has consistently denied its players an opportunity to play in the actual World Cup because of its timing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean there is a World Cup of baseball?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See Baseball World Cup; its a biennial tournament held in odd-numbered years. This year's is in Panama. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from the above cited source (which is from the IBAF), it appears they do consider it a world championship. oknazevad (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So if the IBAF calls it a World Championship, then there should be no reason to not be referring to it as such in this article.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The IBAF web page on the World Baseball Classic does not call it the world championship, which would be odd if IBAF did indeed consider it as such. The PDF link lists three "Major World Championships", indicating that the IBAF does not consider the World Baseball Classic to be "the" world championship, but just one major tournament that is contested by global participants. Unfortunately, without context, using this phrasing alone is ambiguous in this article, as it seems that the WBC is being compared to world championships of other major sports. If it were to be worded as one of a number of major baseball world championships, or some thing similar, this would clarify the statement. isaacl (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think however it's worded, it should be done carefully and with respect to the World Series, as teams that win that still also call themselves World Champions. Beyond495 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of digression

This edit seems to be a reasonable one; it removed an off-topic digression that is not very significant for the subject of this article, Major League Baseball. Thus I propose that the edit be reinstated. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was about to delete this entire "bunny trail" myself but I got busy and blew it off. I don't understand either the point of the section or why it is even here as it appears it is making some backhanded comment about Bush and has zip to do about Montreal losing it's team. Ckruschke (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think I reverted reflexively on that one (an IP edit tagged "references removed" does set my vandal-sense tingling). I removed the digression, but didn't restore the rest of the edit, as mentioning the markets that haven't had teams since the 19th century is not a digression there. oknazevad (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Current franchises section

I have three issues with this section as it stands. Firstly, why is such an important aspect of MLB, namely the teams that it comprises, so low down in the article? The see also and refs sections are the only ones below it. Also, as the section is "current" franchises, why do the footnotes try to give the entire franchise history? None of the other major leagues have such excessive notes, they leave such details to the individual team articles. Finally, it seems obvious from looking at the main article linked in the hatnote that it was a larger section that got split off into a separate article. The problem is it was done poorly.

What I propose is that the "current franchises" chart, and the attendant map on the separate article, be moved up higher in the article and be stripped of the excessive historical notes, while the separate article be renamed History of Major League Baseball franchises, and become the repository of those details. oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

MLB Organizational Structure

The phrase at the end of this section is out of place. It is also entered in some strange, sneaky way so that it is hidden from view on the editing page.

Someone with lots of experience may want to fix it. I just accidentally stumbled upon it and cannot figure out how it was entered onto the page. 68.95.48.249 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The offending phrase was reverted by ClueBot, probably a split second before you entered the editing page, which would explain why you didn't see it there.--JayJasper (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Necklaces the players wear

Just wondering what the meaning behind the braided necklaces the players are wearing if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.181.80 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They're called Phiten Tornado Titanium Necklaces, and apparently it's some sort of new-age hippie bullcrap. The players believe the titanium makes them play better. ಠ_ಠ --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Future realignment

These edits are the latest set to modify the table of current major league franchises, placing the Astros in the AL West and reverting to the old name for the Oakland stadium. Given that the Astros will not move prior to 2013, this table should continue to reflect Houston's current division, the NL Central, until the end of the 2012 postseason, with a clarifying note specifying that the Astros are expected to move to the AL West in 2013. Also, the new name of the Oakland stadium should be used. I propose that the changes introduced in the referenced series of edits be reverted. isaacl (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Relegation

(copying from user talk page to article talk page)

I'm happy to discuss the edit relating to relegation. No major North American professional sports leagues do relegation, so I think that should be spotlighted.

Also, I don't understand the "closed shop" comparison since

A. - The European soccer pyramids are fairly similar in reality -- most of those Level 13 teams on the English soccer pyramid are never going to be in the Premier League, so those "professional levels" are fairly closed.

B. - Many of the large European teams are owned by multimillionaires, similar to North American sports franchises (see Malcolm Glazer)

C. - In theory, it's very difficult to get a new professional major league team in North America, but expansion has occurred multiple times, and if someone had several hundred million dollars and wanted a new team, it's not impossible that the leagues would accomodate them. Beyond495 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The current article does mention the absence of relegation. I don't believe a general comparison to the rest of the world is necessary though; it would require citations to back this up and I think it is better discussed in the relegation article.

I'm not well-versed in this, but I suspect the issue with the various Collective Bargaining Agreements for the major North American leagues as they are currently written is that they don't support the revolving door for union membership that relegation would require. Because this is unsourced, perhaps it should also be stricken from the article. Let's see what others think about both these points.

(On a side note, I'm not familiar with them, but I assume the European soccer pyramids consist of independent teams. With the minor leagues not being free in North America, there is no easy path for an owner to ramp up their investment spending on a club such that, for example, a triple-A facility could be easily comparable with an MLB facility. Until that happens, and there is a smoother continuum of revenues made at each step in the hierarchy, relegation would be financially impossible for owners.) isaacl (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment First, its not true that No North American professional sports league do relegation. They do in Mexico's Mexican Primera División. Last I checked Mexico is in North America. Second, why does the article have to state that the league doesn't do something? It doesn't serve tea and crumpets in the club house, but the article doesn't say that either.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, fair enough. No leagues in the United States or Canada.

And I agree on the second part. I don't see how the relegation part is even necessary to the article, I think it's self-explanatory that the 30 teams are the same teams year after year. If there was an article comparing U.S/Canadian sports leagues versus European sports leagues, then it would make sense, but here, it's POV. Beyond495 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your openness to discuss this matter. Just to clarify: have you changed your mind about spotlighting the information about relegation? If so, then we can float a proposal to remove the sentence on relegation from the article. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always happy to compromise if possible. I think you're right, removing the sentence is best in this situation to avoid confusion. I think MLB and European soccer are basically apples and oranges, the best way to compare might be not to compare at all, or at least in another article. Beyond495 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with the discussion above, I propose removing the last sentence from the first paragraph in the section "MLB organizational structure", which starts with "As is the case for sports leagues in the United States and Canada ..." isaacl (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No reason for that sentence to exist.. most people in America probably dont even know what relegation is and it has no relevance to baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought we put this to rest already? No need to mention something that is not done. MLB doesn't sell tacos in the bullpen either, but should this be mentioned in the article? Probably not.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just giving the opportunity for more people to comment, with an official proposal in place (since there was a dispute originally, I prefer to have an explicit proposal made on the talk page and consensus reached). I already considered your previously expressed opinion as being in favour of the proposal, but thanks for chiming in again. isaacl (talk)

I have implemented the proposal. isaacl (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Scheduling pre-1969

Did the teams on either leagues played each other the same number of times? –HTD 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to the Golden Age of New York Baseball, with 8 teams in each league, each team played every other team in its league 22 times each season for 154 games.50.10.90.15 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The header for this section is "Scheduling pre-1969", but the AL expanded from 8 to 10 teams in 1961, followed by the NL in 1962. (See: Major League Baseball #Expanding west, south and north.) Thus, it seems probable that the 154-game schedule was last used in the AL in 1960 and in the NL in 1961. Eagle4000 (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Technology in Baseball

Is there a section for instant replay under Major League Baseball? Kossmatt (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

World Series Champions

It's a chart on the MLB page (World Seris Champs). I've noticed that they have NFL teams listed on the chart-Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Ravens and Green Bay Packers as winning the most MLB champonship, PLEASE correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.211.156.2 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Navigational templates

Just as the {{Players' League}}, {{Federal League}}, and {{Union Association}} have there own templates, couldn't the American Association, the American League, and the National League? Allen (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that between {{MLB}} and {{MLB Ballparks}}, we've got that covered. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

History gap

The history section of the article skips 20 years from the dead-ball era to WW2. Perhaps this is intentional because nothing interesting happened for 20 years, but it reads oddly. --65.92.2.108 (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Listed Worlds Series Champions

Someone (probably and overzealous redsox fan) has placed the redsox total World Series wins at infinite, placed their penants at 40, removed the yankees world series wins, and altered the dates of world series wins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.197 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Black out map

THe black out map needs updated to have 'miami' instead of 'florida' 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Attendance information

This edit changed the last sentence in the lead section for this article to refer to MLB's total attendance, rather than its average attendance, with respect to other sporting leagues. I restored a reference to average attendance as I believe it is a relevant comparison of the relative popularity of different leagues that normalizes for the differing lengths of seasons. My edit was reverted. Although different teams in different leagues have different sizes of venues, this is not a cause, but an effect: if an MLB team felt it could generate more profits with a larger venue, it would build one. Thus I propose restoring my edit. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Both would be good to have, I think, but then the bigger problem is that there's no context for either figure anywhere in the article. Without that, putting any such figure in the lead could be misleading. -Dewelar (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify further about the additional context you are thinking of? The referred to article, "List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues", contains additional explanations and qualifications, and it is probably a better place for this information, as it is not specific to any one sport but spans all of them. (Another possibility would be adding a section in the Sports league article to discuss the relative popularity of different leagues.) As one of the most attended sports, I believe there is value in providing readers some information on MLB's relative ranking. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As you note, the context is in another article, and rightly so. Therefore I would propose that neither attendance figure be in the lead paragraph, since they require that context to be meaningful. Elsewhere in the article, yes, but not the lead. -Dewelar (talk)

MLB has already built new stadium in Miami this year and try to expand or build in Boston and Oakland. Look at their pages. And with small or big stadiums, the most important thing is MLB has far more attendance than 3 times of NPB, the second most attendance in the world. This is the most obvious datum for MLB to describe in this page without note. On the other hand, the average information is so much controversy to compare with other leagues, like Australian Football League, which has over 100,000 seats in their stadiums and their average is only 6,000 more than MLB. That's not proper to write on this MLB page.Sincerelywikis (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the attendance information was now deleted, since the only discussion here (though still at a very preliminary stage) seems to be in favour of retaining it. Perhaps any interested parties can help us reach a consensus on the matter? isaacl (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement that I deleted was "Major League Baseball has the most attendance of any sports league in the world." Since MLB has by far the longest season in any major league, this is a meaningless statistic and is borderline trivia. Thus my point. The previous statistic that was in this place was that MLB had the fifth largest average attendance of any major league. Again I'm not sure that this is anything beyond trivia because obviously MLB are not constructed to hold 60-100K spectators and thus they can't compete with the venues that the NFL and any of the soccer leagues play in. Having this stat is an apples to oranges comparison and has no meaning. Thus I deleted both sentences and chose to kick it officially to Talk to discuss. Ckruschke (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

As I mentioned, the venue size is a result of the sport's economics, and not an inherent limiting factor on attendance: if an MLB team could make more money with a larger venue, it would do so. Of course there are many differences in the different sports leagues that make a direct comparison of average attendance tricky, but as a general indicator of the relative popularity of the sports, I believe it has value. Total attendance also has some value as an indicator of the aggregate interest in the sport (if there weren't sufficient interest for MLB to have a 162-game season, it would have a shorter one). isaacl (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Australian Football League is 3rd average attendance with 36,428. But some of their stadiums have more than 100,000 seats. It's not about economics at all. Fenway Park has many of sold out games but their maximums per game is 37,067-37,495 seats. And total attendance is characteristic datum of MLB with many games and their attendance in the world. finally, you should discuss the meaning of attendance in "List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues" page as they did. This is the page for what MLB is, not about other leagues.Sincerelywikis (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In order to foster a collegiate editing environment, can we reach a consensus before making any further edits? Your specific example illustrates that the economics for some Australian Football League teams apparently does not warrant moving to a smaller stadium. The turnover of MLB stadiums over the past 30 years has made it clear that each owner has set the size of the ballpark to the desired size for most profit within the market. Yankee Stadium, for example, was made smaller not due to a lack of demand, but to maximize revenue from ticket sales. isaacl (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that MLB attendance is reported as tickets sold, not actual people in the ballpark, so figures are skewed by that as well. It's not rare to see a game that is reported as a sellout to have thousands of empty seats. I'm not sure how other sports report their attendance, but it does throw shadows on pretty much all MLB attendance figures, unless we want "attendance" to be a stand-in for "ticket revenue" rather than its traditional meaning. -Dewelar (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So the comparing the average attendance is not obvious with the size of stadiums or empty which you referred, because the gap of MLB and La Liga is only 77 on that list. On the other hand, the total attendance of MLB is more than 3 times of NPB the second most in the world. That's the obvious datum to describe MLB has most total attendance in the league from that page without note or discussion.Sincerelywikis (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

About empty, in many sports, some attendance don't enter the stadium from the beginning of the game. And some leave the game towards the end because of weather, the score or extra innings. So you maybe see those seats empty but we cannot judge here. And these discussion about attendance should be in attendance list pages as describe "note". Sincerelywikis (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As discussed by the other editors, I think both average and total attendance figures require appropriate context to understand. As discussed (briefly) on Talk:List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues, both in combination provide a better picture of the number of followers for a given sport. Taking a step back, I think it is helpful to give readers a rough idea of how popular MLB is with respect to other prominent leagues around the world. This can be through attendance figures, TV viewership, revenue numbers, or anything else that seems relevant. Perhaps a "Popularity" section could be added to discuss this, and the attendance information removed from the introduction. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. -Dewelar (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Those trivia must be in other articles to compare with different sports. This page is for MLB. Here is not an comparison page. From that link, what MLB has most attendance in the world is the accurate and objective datum and stands how this league is working. If you want to compare revenue or other trivias with other sports, you must do in other articles, not here anymore. Sincerelywikis (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand: by saying that MLB has more total attendance than any other sports league, the article is comparing MLB to other sports. By your logic, this comparison doesn't belong in the article. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is not an comparison page with other sports. If you want to add comparison section, you must write in other articles. Why you need to make comparison page in this MLB page? That doesn't make any sense at all. There has been that link, List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues, and total attendance is proper data for MLB, with triple more than NPB, the second most as they talked.Sincerelywikis (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How about we discuss this from another direction: why do you want to include a comparison of MLB's total attendance to the total attendance of other sports leagues? In what way do you believe this is informative for the reader? isaacl (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is obvious that MLB has most attendance in the world from that link. MLB has most attendance in the world. It is nothing but truth from that link. MLB has triple more than NPB, the second most. Any other leagues cannot compare with MLB in total attendance. it is not even comparison but objective data for MLB with their largest number. Isaacl, if you cannot understand this basic data between MLB and NPB, you don't have the intelligence to edit this article. By the way, the comparison of different sports should be the minimum in individual articles of each sports leagues as they are.Sincerelywikis (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel that your chosen comparison between MLB's total attendance and the total attendance of all other sports leagues is suitable for this article, while other comparisons are not? Do you feel that a comparison of MLB's attendance versus that of NPB is suitable? isaacl (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at the pages of other sports leagues. In the page of NFL, they only refer to average. In Premier League, they count only within Association football leagues. NBA doesn't refer at all. By the way, MLB is the sport for total attendance as they pointed out in the comparison article. Even with small stadiums, MLB has most attendance in the world. It is the truth by that link. Finally, You don't need to compare MLB with other sports at all because MLB has most attendance in the world. That's data from that link. Sincerelywikis (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not able to determine the distinction you are making between comparing MLB to other sports leagues for total attendance, and other comparisons. As you've pointed out, the NFL article compares based on average attendance, and the Premier League article has discussions on relative average attendance and revenues. If you are intending to illustrate MLB's relative popularity with respect to other leagues, such as the NPB, then I believe it is suitable to include other measures than total attendance. isaacl (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. And I have to fully disagree with your comments. That link is only about attendance since long before. If you want compare with other sports of revenue, you can make revenue pages in other articles. NBA doesn't compare with other sports at all. And Premier League doesn't compare with MLB, NFL, AFL at all because they don't need to compare in their sports page. You are completely wrong in this page. You should join comparison pages like "List_of_sports_attendance_figures". I don't know about revnue compared article but if you want, you should start those pages there, not here. This page is for what MLB is for viewers. if someone wants comparison, they read comparison pages from links.Sincerelywikis (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sincerelywikis, I presume English is not your first language, so I hope you do not take offense if I say that I find your arguments very difficult to follow. Since I have already noted my preference, I will bow out until some further development. -Dewelar (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dewelar, i hope that you finally understand this article is about MLB and not an comparison page.There are some comparison pages in wikipedia.List of sports attendance figures,List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues. You can discuss about attendance or something there. MLB has the world record of attendance from those links and we don't need to compare with other sports here.Sincerelywikis (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sincerelywikis, in order to promote a more co-operative editing environment, please follow Wikipedia's guideline on discussing changes after they have been reverted, rather than simply re-introducing your changes. It would be greatly appreciated. I see no advantage in not linking directly to the main article discussing the attendance of sports leagues. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues saying that Main article is List of sports attendance figures, too. List of sports attendance figures has better article than the other one, which needs cleanup or improvement. By the way, you can also use List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues for the link, which I would agree with.Sincerelywikis (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted my change, then, if you agree with using the link to List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues. This article is a spinout from List of sports attendance figures, so the content related specifically to domestic professional sports leagues has been moved out to List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues (which in turn points back to the article from which it has been spun out). I will reinstate the link. isaacl (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Because as a viewer,List of sports attendance figures has more detail and organized article than the other one, which has the controversy section of Indoor or Outdoor sports. (Some leagues have dome stadiums as they pointed out.) By the way both articles have similar lists so that you can select the latter but needs improvement or cleanup in that page.Sincerelywikis (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Astros

Are they technically in the AL West yet, or still the NL Central till a set date, like the free agency period? I've seen that we've already moved them. Jntg4Games (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the MLB website is still listing them in the NL Central, presumably until after the World Series, which is accurate, as the 2012 season isn't over until the end of the World Series. Subsequently, the move here is premature as the move is not official yet. oknazevad (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

MLB and the Astros have a "Launch Party" scheduled for 2 November 2012 (the day after Game 7 of the World Series is scheduled). At that time the Astros are supposed to announce their new identity for the 2013 season, including logo, uniforms, etc. MLB may be considering that as the effective date of the league switch, although we will have to wait and see what actually happens that day.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Uniforms at first All-Star game

Can anyone confirm this edit, regarding the uniforms worn by the American League in the first All-Star game, or, for that matter, the uniforms worn by the National League? isaacl (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not correct. The Nationals wore special shirts, the Americans wore their normal uniforma shirts. Google-image [1933 all star team] for team pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansion franchises in 1995

This edit changed the following phrase:

In March 1995, two new franchises—the Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Devil Rays—

to this:

In March 1995, two new franchises—the Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Devil Rays (now known as the Tampa Bay Rays) –

As I believe the similarity between the names is sufficient to avoid confusion, I don't believe the future name of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays needs to be mentioned, and for conciseness can be omitted. Thus I have reverted to the original formulation. Does anyone have any feedback? isaacl (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would do it like this: Tampa Bay Devil Rays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Stick with the first way. When we talk about expansion in the 1960s, I imagine we'd refer to them as the Montreal Expos or Seattle Pilots, without explicitly mentioning why Seattle now has the Mariners and Montreal has no team. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it is standard to always talk about an entity as it was called at the time. The reason we have blue links is so they can click on it for more information which would then tell them the team name changed etc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Major League Baseball (the actual league) v. a major league (the quality/level of play)

I think it is worth noting, perhaps briefly at the beginning, that "major league" has two distinct meanings that have become somewhat clouded since the AL and NL merged in 2000. As noted in the article, prior to the NL and AL, Major League Baseball did not exist. Rather, the AL and NL existed as two separate entities that played at the "major league" level (as opposed to the various minor league levels). Once the AL and NL partnerships were disbanded and the teams merged into a new partnership, Major League Baseball, the separation between Major League Baseball (as an entity) and major league baseball (as a class of league) have been blurred. As most people believe that there is currently only one major league, the MLB, this point may simply be academic. However, it is likely worth pointing out that the Nippon Professional Baseball league may be approaching the classification of "major league." Even if NPB, is not yet at the level of a major league it is worth listing the prior major leagues:

National League (1876 - 1999) American Association (1881-1891) Union Association (1884) Players League (1890) American League (1901 - 1999) Federal League (1913 - 1914) Continental League (1959) (although they never played so they might not be included) Major League Baseball (2000 - present)

Two examples of my frustration between the merging of these two concepts (e.g. Major League Baseball as an entity and major league as a status/classification of league) are in the articles covering the Federal League and the Western League. The first paragraph of the Federal League's wikipage states that the league "operated as a 'third major league[.]'" Then 'major league' links to Major League Baseball's (the current entity) page. Likewise, the Western League's wikipage states that the Western League "was renamed the American League, and declared major league status in 1901." Just as with the Federal League's page, the Western League's reference to 'major league' as a status or classification links to the current entity, Major League Baseball.

These is not correct for a number of reasons. First and foremost, Major League Baseball did not even exist until 2000! Even if one acknowledges that the AL and NL merged into MLB and that those leagues existed in 1913 and 1914, the Federal League did not have any association with those two leagues beyond Wrigley Field and the Supreme Court Case. Both of the pages' reference to 'major league' aren't referring to the current MLB, but instead are referring to the status/classification of play.

At the very least I think the solution is to create a new page titled "Major League." In parentheses we can say: (Division), (Professional Baseball Division), etc. Something to distinguish it from Major League Baseball's page. Then link the articles for the major leagues (MLB, AL, NL, FL, PL, CL, AA, UA) to this new page. The new page can include sections that describe the difference between a major league and Major League Baseball (one is a classification/status while the other is an operating league), the history of the use of the term "major league," a list of the major leagues with links to their pages, and leagues that have the potential of attaining the major league status (e.g., Nippon Professional Baseball). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.9 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle that talk about the two type of Major Leagues (the "League" and the "level of play") is confusing, I'm not sure creating a whole new page is the answer as this would create somewhat of a cascade/snowball affect of required corrections on hundreds of Wiki pages (or the decision about whether a certain "Major League Baseball" Wiki link is really about the original page or the new page. The other problem is that most people don't understand the destinction which would just create work for those of us who do. Instead a suggestion "might be" to create a new section somewhere near the top of the page to discuss the distinctions between the two titles. This way we can include discussion on the distinctions between what a "Major League" is (i.e. how even though during the unaffiliated times in the 20's and 30's the Pacific Coast League was still not considered a ML despite having greats like Dimaggio, et al) while still keeping everything on one page. I would think if you proposed a draft section for what that would look like on this Talk page, it could be reviewed pretty quick.

As a caveat - I'm not sure who considers the Nippon League a "Major League" on par with MLB. If only the best of the best of the best can make it in the AL/NL as even an average player, doesn't this mean that it's essentially a AAA league at best? However, that's a side discussion and I don't want to hijack the overall thread. Ckruschke (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Clarify/comment. I agree with the points made by the IP, and even think it's an interesting argument to assess the quality of play of MLB vs. other pro leagues around the world. However: others reading this talk page should not be misled into thinking the proper-name term "Major League Baseball" dates to 2000 — it had been in use for at least a few decades prior. And of course, as the IP says, the general phrase "major league baseball" had been used for over 100 years.

But proving this has been harder than I thought. Here are a few things I found:

• The "Major League Agreement" was adopted in 1920, creating the Commissioner's office, which was the first step to joint governance of the leagues, though of course this doesn't use the "MLB" term
• the joint MLB pension plan was founded in 1947, though I'm unable to find a proper title for it
• through Google Books, I found an unrelated pinball game produced in 1948 that was titled "Major League Baseball"
• the MLBPA was founded in 1953
• a marketing institution called Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. was founded in 1966 [1]
• the Major League Baseball logo was created in 1969
• MLB had a webpage up as early as 1996 [2]

What happened in 2000 was a technical, legal joining of the AL and NL, but the leagues had been operated jointly in practice for a very long time. The proper-name term "Major League Baseball" was not created de novo at that time. Perhaps you could argue it was formalized. Woodshed (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of a city name ?

What exactly is required for players to be called "New York" or "Houston" or whatever?

I do not see any residency requirements, birthplace requirements, etc.

What is their actual connection to the claimed cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The players are employed by the baseball team that is based in the city. That's the connection. - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks bilcat. can you clarify the relationship between a team and a city? initial formation, financial splits etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's more or less typical "private enterprise" as practiced in the United States, as with any business. The teams are owned privately by a person/group of people or sometimes a corporation. In the modern era, when leagues "expand" (add teams), it's such ownership or investment groups that bid for and are awarded the teams. The league selects geographic territories where it chooses to operate. The original franchises were traveling teams or recreational clubs based in a citythat acquired financial backing, usually from the local business community.

In recent decades, it's been more popular for these teams to seek partial or complete public (government) financing of their new stadium projects through direct investment or tax incentives by the local city. Depending on the size of the investment by the city, in some cases the city may technically wind up owning the stadium and/or the land, while the team pays a fee to the city to manage or operate the facility. There aren't really "financial splits" per se; cities are supportive of such projects because they believe that having a pro sports team will lead to economic development in the area and increase tourism, resulting in more tax revenue to city businesses and attractions. Woodshed (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Consistent Use of Pennants in World Series Record Box

I believe the World Series Record info-box uses "pennants"/"world series appearances" inconsistently. The purpose of this box is, presumably, to give at a glance the relative successes of various currently active MLB franchises. As it stands, this is not the case. The San Francisco Giants include pennants won in the pre-modern era (predating the American League), giving SF a total of 22 pennants, while making it appear that their post season record appear rather worse than it really is by making it seem as though they have played in the modern series 22 times while winning only 7. For other teams, like the St. Louis Cardinals and Las Angeles Dodgers, pre-modern pennants are not included in team totals. LA, for example, has won 22 pennants if AA pennants are included (21 NL, 1 AA), and St. Louis 23 (19 NL, 4 AA). Those "pennants" won while playing in the American Association are not counted. This does not appear to be the case for teams which changed leagues in the modern era such as the Houston Astros and Milwaukee Brewers, each of which has kept its pennant. If one restricts the numbers to modern (NL/AL) appearances, as the column header implies, the Giants have appeared 20 times (7-13), the Cardinals 19 (11-7 and one pending), and the Dodgers 18 (6-12). If the AA/NL series is included those numbers become StL 23 (12-9-1 and one pending), LA 22 (6-16), SF 22 (9-12-1). The current column heading appears to imply World Series records of StL 11-7, LA 6-15, and SF 7-15, of which only the St. Louis record is remotely accurate.

While the argument could be made that the American Association is not a part of Major League Baseball, the fact that many of the teams from the league later joined the National League mitigates against that. To wit, the following American Association teams joined the National League after leaving the AA: Brooklyn Bridegroom (later Dodgers), St. Louis Browns (later Cardinals), Cincinnati Reds (played as Red Stockings in the AA), and Pittsburgh Alleghenys (later Pirates); as well as briefly the Baltimore Orioles (AA 1882-91, NL 92-99).

Coupled with the number of National League teams that disbanded late in the 19th century it becomes clear that the National League of the late 19th century was a substantially different league from that of the 20th century and forward. Following is an approximate list of disbanded NL franchises: Buffalo Bisons 1879-85, Cincinnati Reds 1876-80, Cleveland Blues 1879-84 and Blues/Spiders 1887-99, Detroit Wolverines 1881-88, Hartford Dark Blues 1876-77, Indianapolis Blues 1878 and Hoosiers 1887-89, Kansas City Cowboys 1886, Louisville Grays 1886-87, Milwaukee Grays 1878, New York Mutuals 1876, Philadelphia Athletics 1876, Providence Grays 1878-85, St. Louis Brown Stockings 1876-77 and Maroons 1885-86, Syracuse Stars 1879, Troy Trojans 1879-82, Washington Nationals 1886-89 and Senators 1892-99, and Worcester Ruby Legs 1880-82.

The World Series record info-box total includes two San Francisco pennants from this early National League: 1888 and 1889, and implies that San Francisco played in the World Series in those years. While this is arguably true, it played against the American Association, whose records are not anywhere included in the info-box totals. Further, the info-box totals do not include those seasons in World Series win totals, else San Francisco should have nine, having won both the 88 and 89 series against St. Louis and Brooklyn respectively.

To my mind there are several reasonable solutions: We might modify the info-box to list "Series played" and "pennants" as separate columns. We could make pennants predating 1903 parenthetical. We could include pre-modern inter and intraleague championships parenthetically. Any change will require a careful and thorough examination of legacy team records, but the reward would be a cleaner and clearer info-box.

--SymphonicPoet (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well since that box you refer to is just "World Series records" I'd get rid of the "pennants" label that can be confusing and just make it series played as the main header already is. Spanneraol (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Pre-GA Review

Sportsguy17, EricEnfermero – here are my thoughts on what this article needs to achieve GA status, sorry for the delay. In somewhat sequential order:

• The lead section does not do a very good job summarizing the content of the article. For an article of this nature, I would suggest encompassing the most basic information, as well as a 2–3 sentence summary of sections one and two, then a paragraph summarizing the history section, a paragraph with 1–2 sentences summarizing each of the remaining sentences in order, excluding the current franchises section.
• The organizational structure section needs a few additional sources, namely one to cite editorial independence of MLB Network and MLB Advanced Media, as well as, well, pretty much that entire last paragraph. Much of the information in that section is likely encompassed by a single source, but a quick glance at it indicates that it is unsourced, even if it is. Make sure that it looks sourced, even if that means placing the same source in multiple places using <ref name="..."/>
• Next section: change it to at the beginning of the 2013 season, the league shifted ... the use of "as of" makes the article sound somewhat unprofessional. While the remainder of the paragraph is well-known information, it needs to be cited (one source at the end of the paragraph will more than suffice). Next two paragraphs look solid. Final ones, again, need sources.
• Make sure the history section is written in summary style—pedantry can be left to content fork articles. And again, there need to be sources here; that is the recurring theme.

• Last few subsections of the history section are excellent; that's what we want the remainder of the section to look like.

• The uniform section is interesting – cite the throwback uniform tidbit, and maybe give a prevalent early example of their usage.
• I love the season structure section; informative, well-sourced, well-written.
• MLB in Media section has adequate information, but needs more sources, again.
• Nothing wrong with final section.

Those are my initial thoughts - Go Phightins! 00:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Good feedback. My comments on the project talk page are a lot different - mainly in that I think it's easier to trim some things before beginning to source everything - but your comments make a lot of sense and give us a concrete place to start. Good job. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 05:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point – trimming what is not written in summary style is always important. This large topic has numerous content forks that split off, where more detailed information can go. I didn't mention that, but good point ... it is not a problem in every section, but is in some. Go Phightins! 10:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mostly doing the referencing. I probably did reference some trivial info, but for the better. I am a reference-formatting newbie, so I made two errors on references 9 and 11 from the Organizational Structure section. If someone could help out, that'd be great. I will primarily be copy editing and doing other maintenance tasks as well. Sportsguy17 01:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Go Phightins!, I've been really busy, but I have gotten around to making some edits, what's done and what's still on the plate. I apologize for doing this to you . 03:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been really busy with other stuff, but I will return to expanding the article tomorrow, as I have a day off tomorrow. Sportsguy17 (R.I.P Jackson Peebles) 23:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Go Phightins! -- I think it is probably ready. Please feel free to share any thoughts. Sportsguy17 (R.I.P Jackson Peebles) 21:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for being late to this. I'm working to add sources in some parts. Technically, not everything needs a source, but the "likely to be challenged" portion of the inline citation guideline is sometimes interpreted pretty broadly. Thanks for all of your work on this. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Major League Baseball/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article, barring any objections, as my contributions have been minimal, and have previously only participated as a pre-reviewer on the talk page. Please allow up to one week for me to complete my review, after which, for an article of this magnitude, I would be more than willing to allow two weeks for any issues to be addressed. Go Phightins! 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead does not adequately summarize the content of the article, particularly in relation to the history section, media section, and steroid use. Look to incorporate a brief one sentence summary of each section within the article into the lead, for a total of three solid paragraphs. See the lead in National Football League for an example. Layout, word choice, and lists are adequate as they stand. I am also concerned by the statement that the regular season is played in April to September, as there have been regular season games in late March or early October. I would suggest removing it entirely.

   Lead now looks solid.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References seem predominantly reliable, however some references appear to be missing key information, whether publication dates, access dates, works, publishers, etc. ... make sure they have everything they need. During my heavy scrutiny reading, I will look for original research and point out. A lot of items that are not currently cited need to be. Instances of original research noted in section-by-section analysis

   Looks much better citation-wise, which encompasses each of the final two above subpoints.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Definitely seems to hit major points, though cross referencing with NHL, NFL, and NBA would be wise, to make sure they do not include sections that this one misses. I will do that, but if you would like to, please do ahead. The length seems OK, but I will read through specifically to watch for tangential information. Length of sections is too long - ensure that it is written in summary style.

   Less tangential and more focused - in other words, there are still some tangential sections, but they pivot and focus on the main point ... in an FA review, some might be edited out, but they do not detract from the article being focused, which is the requirement for GA.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Have yet to read specifically for this purpose, but will update when I do. It is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Good here, although protection log is somewhat disconcerting, although not atypical for high traffic articles such as this one.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Have yet to investigate which if any images are claiming fair use (if you could point out, that could save me some time), but they all seem to be relevant illustrations.

   Images are informative, and best as I can tell, all are used legitimately.

7. Overall: A good start, but many issues remain right now, primarily related to drugs section, rampant original research/uncited material, ensuring it is written in summary style.

   Pass/Fail:

I recently ran a Checklinks report, and the findings are here ... there are quite a few dead links. According to Wikipedia policy, having dead links cannot, in and of itself, be a hindrance to achieving GA criteria, however it would be ideal if we could find archived copies of the articles or alternate sources to assist readers who may wish to corroborate or read for additional information, as well as for verification purposes. Go Phightins! 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's looking very close to ready. I am very busy on weekdays, so I may not respond swiftly to this. Go Phightins!, any lingering thoughts/concerns regarding this? Best, Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem - as mentioned, this is a huge topic, so I have no problem allowing at least two weeks for response to my comments. Let me know when you are all done and I will give it a final read through, and based on what I am seeing so far, we will likely be in pretty good shape. Thanks to both you and Eric for all your work on this! Go Phightins! 01:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I've been largely doing other things for a few days but still have this on my radar. I was thinking of breaking up League organization and placing its contents other places (largely within History). As is, I think it skips around quite a bit and it seems awkward to me that we discuss things like expansion in different places. Just wanted to avoid moving around a big section mid-review without some discussion. Will also work on some of the remaining items in the review. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, EricEnfermero, I apologize for not responding timely. It has been a busy week and it was my birthday yesterday (5 December), so between school, Indoor Track, and celebrating my birthday, it was very busy and I feel like I [accidentally] hung you dry for the past few days. Anyway, this page is disorganized at this point. Do you mind updating the section-by-section analysis for me? Also, I'd like to make note that this article came off semi-protection (1 month duration) on 3 December. There's only been one case of vandalism since, but if you notice an increase in vandalism, report it to RFPP immediately. Best. Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 01:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Section-by-Section analysis

Organizational structure

• The first two paragraphs could probably be combined into one cohesive one. --  Done
• How has the ruling been weakened? --  Done
• The third paragraph is an area of concern – first, citation for six executive VPs is necessary, especially in light of the latter information. A third party clarification would be ideal, otherwise, we simply must state that there are five EVPs. Also, write out months (just as a minor point). --  Done
• Cite that its charter states it holds editorial independence, yet is under same ownership group. --  Doing...
• Give a sentence or two history on MLB Network, as well, as presently, it just floats out of nowhere. --  Doing...

League organization

• It is best to, at all costs, avoid "as of" statements. Instead, give a historical context. For example, instead of "As of 2013, MLB is...", say something to the effect of, "Prior to the 2013 season, MLB reorganized its league alignment, moving the Houston Astros from the National League to the American League, which put 15 teams in each", so as a) to provide the reader with the tidbit, and b) to prevent a reader from questioning, wondering if as of the time of their reading, is that still true.
• First sentence of second paragraph needs a reference ... whenever a word that can carry a pejorative connotation such as "unilaterally" enters the picture, citations are key.

• Citation was added, but I removed "unilaterally" just to make it more encyclopedic. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Either remove or cite the last sentence of that same paragraph ... if it cannot be cited (it should be able to be, however, as I am 99% sure it is true), remove it, as it is not pertinent to the underlying concept of the paragraph.

• Removed it. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• I almost wonder if the first and last paragraphs could be amalgamated, as they seem to discuss the same topic, yet neither seems complete without information from the other.
  • All of this is  done.
• That's where I will stop for this evening. I will return tomorrow, Sportsguy17 and EricEnfermero. Go Phightins! 02:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

History

• Sources to substantiate the first part of the first paragraph would be ideal - there appears to be a good source in History of baseball in the United States called Total baseball: the ultimate baseball encyclopedia that may be available either online or via a local library - I can look around me if you cannot get your hands on it, that could substantiate much of the content, and perhaps also flesh it out some.
• In the last two paragraphs of the first subsection, clarify what NA stands for.
• "The agreement also set up a formal classification system for independent minor leagues that regulated the dollar value of contracts, the forerunner of today's system that was refined by Branch Rickey." - dangling modifier here ... did Branch Rickey refine today's system or the original system?
• Second paragraph of defunct leagues section needs substantiation.

• Removed, unable to source it. Left with a very short section, merged it into the previous one (Founding).

• Explain what the Baltimore Chop is in the dead ball era section.  Done
• How did the dead ball era materialize? There is a separate article that may be able to provide information on this. There is also a good quote set off in a quote box on the spin off article that provides a solid insight that may, if you choose, be suitable for inclusion.

• Added a little here, but will come back and look at the quote. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 01:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The World War II era section needs some context explaining why the seasons would not have gone on, and if any seasons were ever missed - as it stands now, we jump right into a season might not happen but it did. "Fleshing out" is necessary.

• I added a little bit about the war's drain on MLB players and the problems created by blackout restrictions that might have could have caused the cancellation of the '42 season. Let me know what you think. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Though must would understand this for obvious reasons, it might be worth explaining that prior to Jackie Robinson, MLB was exclusively white, as well as explaining the Negro Leagues, as there is nothing in the article about that.

• I added some sourced info. It actually starts in the WWII section (some less talented players got a shot during the war, but black players were confined to the Negro leagues). I think it makes a nice transition, but will tweak if necessary. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Add a source for last two sentences of color barrier section.  Done
• In the expansion section, there are citation issues - whenever you are discussing controversy, it is important to, if possible, quantify it, and especially if quantifying it is not possible, but in either case, it needs ample citations ... the expansion section has about half of the paragraphs without any source substantiation, and the first one is particularly in need of citations.
• Pitching domination and rule changes section is nice. Ample details, yet maintains summary style. Nice.
• While the second paragraph of the multi-purpose section is informative, it looks like original research, but could be substantiated with sources.
• Power age section is a little confusing - it seems to imply the power age is still going on, when in fact I don't believe it is. More sources are necessary ... it should be noted that of the pitcher listed only a handful are still active.

Uniforms

• Introduction to uniforms is nice as well as early history, however we need sources on road uniforms and alternate uniforms. --  Doing...
• Last paragraph also seems original researchish, so more sources are needed. --  Done

Season structure

• Some more original research here, specifically related to coinciding with spring break and autograph access. These should be relatively easily sourced, however.
• Regarding the CBS Sports source, that will likely be changed come 2014 spring training. Look to archive with an online archiving tool to prevent WP:LINKROT.
• In the regular season section, there is more original research, which is frankly becoming somewhat of an issue that needs rectification prior to this article being able to achieve GA status.
• The all-star game section, while informative, is longer than the regular season section - this is an issue; there already is a content fork that spins off the main article specifically on the all star game, so ensure that in MLB, it is written in summary style. A one paragraph summary should more than suffice.
• Postseason section is OK, though the first part of the paragraph immediately succeeding the numbered list could probably be removed, as it seems like that could be better covered in the content fork article.
• First sentence in paragraph after that needs a source.
• While I like the table, I am not 100% sure it belongs in this article, but I would lean that it should, as it talks about champions of the league in question, so yes, let's keep it.

International play

• The first source (currently number 97, though that may change) violates WP:CIRCULAR. We need a third-party source for that.  Done
• Remainder of that section suffers a little bit from recentism, but overall is OK.
  • All is  done

Steroid policy

• Needs background on methodology and reasoning for implementation of the steroid policy, which is not adequately covered at any point in the article. Think BALCO.
• I am not sure on this section, and would seek a second opinion on what should and should not be included. Look at the main article, which Resolute wrote; perhaps he could shed some light on what should be included on the MLB main article.

MLB in Media

• A "topic sentence" for the television section seems necessary, as we jump right into which networks cover what when.  Done
• Last sentence of TV section could use a source.  Done
• The blackout section is written rather confusingly, but appears to be reasonably well-substantiated, but more sources are always ideal.  Done
• Radio and internet section is solid, though it should be clarified that the radio policy of teams employing their own announcers is not exclusive to radio - they employ their own TV announcers as well.
• Each assertion that a network shows games occasionally internationally needs a source, yet not all have them.  Done

Current franchises

• That section is just fine.

That concludes section-by-section analysis. Go Phightins! 20:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the summarization stuff to EricEnfermero since he is much better at it than I am, and I'll find sources and do general clean ups on the writing. Also, the images appear to be good, but I want you to check for yourself. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 00:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking good! Good article good ! Thanks for all your work, and I will list this as a GA. Go Phightins! 12:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014

Just add a map of the location of the teams similar to the ones used on the NBA, MLS, and NHL pages. Sometimes accessing the Google Maps version doesn't work all the time. AquilaXIII (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

He's looking to add a map of team locations similar to this one, which appears with linked labels at Major League Soccer#Teams. There is such a map at Current Major League Baseball franchises, but it should be on this article. Actually, considering that article is rife with material that isn't about the teams but instead about scheduling, it's misnamed, redundant to other articles and incredibly poorly written. The utter lack of sourcing is also problematic. It is a rambling mess and should be remedied back into this article. The exceedingly small amount of distinct material, that is stuff that is actually about the teams and not the scheduling, is insufficient to support a stand alone article. oknazevad (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

World Series Rights

The article states that ESPN has rights to the World Series. That is false. The MLB reached a deal in 2012 with Fox and Turner and that the rights to airing the World Series would be Fox's.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/39362362/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwalterhcc (talk • contribs) 23:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The only place I see that is in the Radio and Internet section, which is true. Fox has the TV rights. - BilCat (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete article?

I scanned through the article and I can't seem to find a single mention of the rules of baseball. There doesn't even seem to be an oblique reference. Shouldn't such an important part of baseball get at least a mention, if not detail? I may have missed it but if I passed over it then it means many other people will as well. 174.71.22.117 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the organization known as Major League Baseball. The rules are covered in the baseball article, which is about the sport itself. Spanneraol (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Would add that the article alludes to a couple of important rule changes as they relate to the history of this organization. Baseball rules seems to be a pretty well developed entry itself. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 22:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Its true though. There are MLB specific rules that are hard to find. Mostly concerning "free agency" and other similar aspects of the game. Is there already an article about this? Or should one be created? --JOJ ^Hutton 13:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There are articles about almost everything. Major League Baseball transactions talks about free agency rules. Spanneraol (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree about incompleteness. The general article about baseball rules does not address those specific to MLB. More specifically, the new MLB rules for 2015 have been out for about two weeks, but I see no mention of them, even though they seem significant. I don't watch the game any more, but perhaps someone who still does might care to... Layzeeboi (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015

What does the Los Angeles Lakers have to do with MLB? Who is responsible for your content and why don't you have a run down on current scores and standings?

68.200.240.191 (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 13:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"Major League Baseball" vs "major league baseball"

The entity which is the subject of this article, known as "Major League Baseball", was founded in 2000 when the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs dissolved their own independent operations and formally combined to create a new organization called "Major League Baseball". The epithet "major league baseball" was not an official moniker prior to 2000, but was in usage as an informal designation referring to the formal relationship between the National League and the American League. The original National League and American League no longer exist; only their names have been carried on to describe the the two major divisions of play in the "Major League Baseball". The National Agreement of 1903 did not form the organization known as "Major League Baseball", it only described the relationship between the otherwise independent National League and American League. "major league baseball", lower case, existed prior to 1903, coming into existence in 1876 when the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs was founded; several other major baseball leagues existed prior to 1903. I propose that there be two separate article, one for "Major League Baseball" and one for "major league baseball" as there is a major, no pun intended, difference between those two subjects. The dissolution/combination of the NLPBC and ALPBC should also be noted in both articles. 174.16.222.2 (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Major League Baseball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110918184533/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/05/07/the_game_that_ruth_built/ to http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/05/07/the_game_that_ruth_built/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629174323/http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-mitchell1212,0,7812674.story to http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-mitchell1212,0,7812674.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Major League Baseball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071212060727/http://www.baseballprospectus.com:80/unfiltered/?p=324 to http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=324

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrative district names

Regarding these changes: I'm unclear if administrative districts should be listed. It is true that New York City's boroughs have a certain degree of greater prominence than analogous areas in other cities do, but I'm not convinced this is sufficient to warrant inclusion of district information only for New York teams. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just being consistent with the team list on NBA. - BilCat (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well the NHL does the opposite so....And the discussion is currently ongoing for the NBA ones. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed as I was at the NHL discussions and the NBA discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

See related discussion at Talk:Brooklyn Nets#Home city location for the Brooklyn Nets. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is welcome on any good underlying reasons for including district information that is applicable across multiple articles. But personally I don't see any compelling need to be consistent with other sporting league articles just for the sake of it. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opionion the matter doesn't need to be handled with exact consistency across the three sports. Both "New York City, New York" and "borough, New York City, New York" are technically correct. Rikster2 (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Map is a problem

The map showing the team locations needs work. The links for the teams are not correctly located for most of them (Cubs, for example, is showing up in Minnisota). This is likely a browser dependant thing, possibly aggravated by mis-use of "relative" and "absolute" positioning. In any event, as it stands the map is of dubious value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Team locations are still way off. The poor White Sox are in the middle of a Kansas wheat field and Lake Michigan has 6 teams at its tip but none of them are named Cubs or Sox. Buster Seven Talk 22:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. Seems that the dots are rendering in the right locations, but because the labels (even at only three letters) are so close together they are being pushed into incorrect locations, such as the Cubs winding up in Minnesota, which in turn pushes the Twins into the Dakotas. So off as to be useless. oknazevad (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Major League Baseball team locations.PNG exist already. Can't we just use that? It looks accurate to me, though I haven't got out my paper atlas and ruler to make sure.a - BilCat (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That was actually the file being used as the underlining of the map. As I said, the dots are in the right place. The problem is the labels won't render properly. oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So it turns out there's already a template with proper location labels at t:MLB Labelled Map. Don't know why a erroneous second version hard coded into the page was needed. Found it at Current Major League Baseball franchises, an article that frankly I don't think needs to exist; the essentials should be merged in here, and a big chunk of trivia axed. oknazevad (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually meant to suggest {{MLB Labelled Map}}, but got the link wrong. I see you've found and added it anyway, so thanks! - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Now, about the other thing I said: Current Major League Baseball franchises is an unsourced mess with a title that is utterly incorrect for the content (it's actually mostly about scheduling, which isn't something that needs a separate article). I strongly suggest we merge the little bit of usable material on scheduling here (with sources) and nuke the separate article. I can think of no legitimate reason to have a separate article. Really and truly. oknazevad (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Major League Baseball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080607094652/http://www.thesportjournal.org:80/article/role-antitrust-laws-professional-sports-industry-financial-perspective to http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/role-antitrust-laws-professional-sports-industry-financial-perspective
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203014147/http://www.independentmail.com/news/2011/jul/01/nothing-more-irritating-playing-one-set-rules-one/ to http://www.independentmail.com/news/2011/jul/01/nothing-more-irritating-playing-one-set-rules-one/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130628015406/http://www.jackierobinson.org:80/about/jackie.php to http://www.jackierobinson.org/about/jackie.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130521002248/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1998/08/04/1968_pitchers/ to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1998/08/04/1968_pitchers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051004000615/http://voanews.com/english/2005-03-03-voa35.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-03-voa35.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130603071522/http://www.espn.com.au/baseball/ to http://www.espn.com.au/baseball/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

I was once told that since baseball is traditionally the most important sports in the U. S. (now second to football, however, the football league is called NFL and not "major league"), the Major League baseball is the Major League, and "baseball" is not a part of the name, but just a describing epithet, and hence written with a lower-case b. Is that correct? Or outdated and used to be correct?--2001:A61:216F:7501:5DE4:5D7F:431C:79E2 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

At the very least it's outdated, as the organization has been formally and properly known as "Major League Baseball" since at least 2000, when the individual league offices were disbanded. But the use of capitalized form long predates that as well. While a case could be made that the all lowercase "major league baseball" as a descriptive phrase (derived from the NL and AL being the "major leagues", or "majors", in contrast to the minor leagues; note the plurals) may have been originally correct, it hasn't been used like that in over 50 years, as the sources show. As for the use of "Major League baseball", that has never been correct, as there's never been an entity known as just the "Major League". So whoever told you that in the first place was incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Major League Baseball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090113182959/http://info.detnews.com:80/redesign/history/story/historytemplate.cfm?id=162 to http://info.detnews.com/redesign/history/story/historytemplate.cfm?id=162
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120826001422/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082211/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082211/index.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090124174356/http://www.baseball-reference.com:80/postseason/20036WS.shtml to http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/20036WS.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071216050643/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071212report,1,5400599.story?ctrack=1&cset=true to http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071212report,1,5400599.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090122085742/http://www.hispanicprwire.com:80/news.php?l=in&cha=5&id=11918 to http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&cha=5&id=11918
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080509162709/http://www.minorleaguenews.com/history/baseball/2005/04/06/01.html to http://www.minorleaguenews.com/history/baseball/2005/04/06/01.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080419015157/http://armchairgm.com:80/index.php?title=MLB to http://www.armchairgm.com/index.php?title=MLB
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140812065244/http://baseballthinkfactory.com:80/ to http://www.baseballthinkfactory.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100724215645/http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-03-voa35.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-03-voa35.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Age of MLB

The article states, right off the top and accurately, that "Major League Baseball" was founded in 2000 with the formal merger of the American and National Leagues and the elimination of those leagues as nominally independent entities. That there was a compact and an organizational structure linking those leagues for many years is true, but that wasn't "Major League Baseball." Beyond that, claiming 1869 as a founding date for MLB is absurd; that was when the first professional baseball team was founded, but the organization sure wasn't founded then. Before you change that edit, provide sources for them. Ravenswing 17:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That is simply not true. "Major League Baseball" as a term and an organization existed long before 2000! Their was a change to the organization to more closely link the leagues in 2000 but the organization has existed since 1903...[3] What is your reasoning for changing things like this without an original discussion. There is no justification at all for listing 2000 as the founding year. Spanneraol (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Raven is right that 1869 is incorrect. Changing it to 1903 would be better. - BilCat (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I didnt add the 1869 date.. but 2000 is definitely wrong.. I've put it 1903 which seems to be what most sources list. Spanneraol (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Spanneraol, given that you violated 3RR with three reverts in less than an hour, with edit summaries of "Huh?" and "Don't be absurd," I really don't think you get to demand discussion before making edits. In any event, we all know -- and the articles even admit the same -- that a league called "Major League Baseball" sure as hell doesn't date from 1903. That's when the National Commission -- the predecessor to the Office of the Commissioner established in 1920 -- was created, but that's not the same entity. The NBA doesn't claim a start date of 1937 just because that's when a predecessor league was founded, and the NHL doesn't claim a start date of 1898 just because that's when the first of its predecessor leagues was founded. Ravenswing 03:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Each organization is free to choose its own delineation point to mark the start of its evolution. There is a continuum from a point where "Major League Baseball" referred to the establishment of a tiered system, with the top professional baseball leagues no longer competing with each other for players and participating in a common championship, to a point when the AL and NL were governed in concert as essentially two parts of one organization, albeit with a certain degree of autonomy, to the present-day situation. MLB chooses to date its history from the signing of the National Agreement, and although other starting points could be selected, it's not an unreasonable option. Nonetheless, it's original research to claim a starting point other than what MLB and many other sources use. The nuances of the meaning of this date should of course continue to be fully described within the article. isaacl (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I really sincerely believe that the correct founding date for Major League Baseball should be 1876, because the National League was founded then. Major League Baseball claims 1876 as its founding date, as seen here. The URL I'm linking to states: "AMERICAN LEAGUE | 1901 - present" and "NATIONAL LEAGUE | 1876 - present". So it stands to reason that the main MLB article should use 1876 as its founding date. I won't revert it so as to avoid getting blocked from editing as a result of engaging in an edit-war, but I would like to reach consensus with other editors regarding this topic here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The MLB did not exist until 2000 when the AL and NL merged. 184.96.238.240 (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do people keep denying that MLB was created in 2000?

Why is there such denial about when MLB was founded? MLB was founded in 2000 after the AL and NL merger. What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.238.240 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the discussion above. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This discussion above agrees with me though. The MLB was founded in 2000 when the AL and NL merged. 184.96.238.240 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It points to at least 3 other years, 1869, 1876, and 1903. It also points out that MLB dates itself to 1903, when the National Agreement was signed. So clearly there are differences of opinion. In this case, we went with what MLB claims. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

More detail about the new stadiums and artificial surfaces

Hello everyone

I couldn't help but notice that the "New stadium and artificial surfaces" section doesn't tell us which stadiums have artificial turf. The first thought that popped into my mind when I was reading this was which teams are included in this new era of 'multi-purposes stadiums'. Also, the link that is provided in the section has more information that could be used in this section.

Thanks, --Chrisa24 (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we need to over burden this article, which is meant as an overview of 150 or so years of history, with too much detail about a period of about 25 years when those stadiums were in use. Especially since onky 2 stadiums still have artificial turn even now, and all the major examples that defined the trend are demolished. oknazevad (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Intentional walk rule

Looks like the old-fashioned intentional walk is no more. Instead of 4 pitches, there will just be a dugout signal. This seems like major news to me, but I'm not quite sure where it best belongs in this article. Thoughts?Pistongrinder (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Good question. It appears that nothing has been added onto the History section since the late 2000's and some of it is still in present tense so the page is silent on essentially everything that happened in the last 5-10 years. I always hate seeing people say "someone needs to fix this", but someone needs to fix this and write probably a whole new section after Power Age and I don't know enough to distill 5-10 yrs of baseball into 3-4 sentences... Ckruschke (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'm right there with you. Despite being a baseball fan, I'd like to defer to someone with more expertise on the subject. FWIW, there is a lower-tier Wiki article covering Intentional base on balls, and I made an edit there.Pistongrinder (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Major League Baseball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184407/http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox/blk3.html to http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox/blk3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815042229/http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html to http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312174659/http://www.aatimetable.com/aa.pdf to http://www.aatimetable.com/aa.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024070428/http://bleacherreport.com/articles/260764-timeline-artificial-turf-in-major-league-baseball to http://bleacherreport.com/articles/260764-timeline-artificial-turf-in-major-league-baseball
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116020722/http://www.baseballfan.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=7&page=1 to http://www.baseballfan.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=7&page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817225725/http://about.five.tv/faqs/customer-services?page=2 to http://about.five.tv/faqs/customer-services?page=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Major League Baseball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816040243/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/57907 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/57907

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Constitution

Under "Organizational structure," it mentions the Major League Baseball Constitution, but the reference links to an outdated 2012 version of the "Official Baseball Rules" (they were updated this year). I was under the impression that the constitution and the official rules are two separate documents. Are they actually one and the same? Pistongrinder (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No, there is a different document called "The Official Professional Baseball Rules Book" which contains the MLB constitution (see [4] for details). Maury Brown used to have the 2008 version on his business of baseball website, but the site is no longer around, and I'm not sure if there is any other location that makes it available publicly. Wikipedia's article on the constitution has an outline of the contents, which covers league operations. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had updated the reference to the most recent rules just to be current, but I think your revision of the section in question makes it a lot less confusing. Pistongrinder (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I did correct the date of the original constitution to 1876, with a source stating the fact. Not sure who came up with 1875. Pistongrinder (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Entity type

Ok so time to clear something up: Is MLB officially a league or an organization? The way its context and grammar are used would lead one to believe it is an organization (although that is the same as a league in essence). And with MLB being comprised of the National and American leagues (essentially conferences) I believe it would make more sense to word MLB as an organization. I know this is the diction used earlier, but before simply reverting it I wanted to discuss. Thoughts?Banan14kab (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

While it is a league by the general definition of the word, there's a two fold issue with that wording. Firstly is that is a (relatively) recent change, namely the full, legal merger of the AL & NL into one operating entity wasn't until 2000, while this article covers the entire history of the organization through prior configurations as a governing body through to now. There's also the fact that the NL & AL names are still used, and a league comprising two leagues is possibly confusing for unfamiliar readers. So I'd say leave it as "organization". oknazevad (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Major League Baseball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021013112/http://www.pitchinforbaseball.org/ to http://pitchinforbaseball.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

Are Minnesota Twins and the Cincinnati Reds affiliated with each other in any way? I’m asking because I noticed the the C in both of their logos look the same. Or is this just a coincidense? SportsFan007 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

It seems like the "wishbone C" has just been a very popular design over a long time; even outside of the MLB teams that have used it, this logo element has also appeared in the NFL (Bears) and in collegiate sports. Here is an interesting article. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"commissioner of baseball"

Wikipedia style indicates that "commissioner of baseball" should be lowercase because it is preceded by the adjective "the". If Wikipedia doesn't capitalize "the president of the United States", why should we capitalize "the commissioner of baseball"? See MOS:JOBTITLES, example "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 16:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

See also the capitalized example at WP:JOBTITLES directly next to the one you mention. It is the name of the office. Rob Manfried may be the latest in a linenof commisioners of baseball, but as the office he holds is "Commisioner of Baseball". It is a proper noun. Without it, there's a lack of grammatical distinction to mark the office as a formal title. In short, lowercasing it causes the sentence to lose meaning, and is unacceptable. If you wowh to argue that it should not be capitalized, get the article on the office moved first. Until then, having the link keep the proper capitalization from the article title is valid. oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The "the" means it is a common noun and should be lowercase. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 16:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The presence or absence of a definite article in front of a name does not render it a common noun by any intelligent and competent reading of the English language. In fact, if anything, the use of a definite article instead of an indefinite article strengthens the proper-noun nature of the name. That really is grade school grammar. Claims otherwise are embarrassing to Wikipedia, frankly. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, if we don't capitalize "the president of the United States" specifically because it is modified by a definite article, we shouldn't capitalize "the commissioner of baseball" when if is modified by a definite article. I think your concern is with MOS:JOBTITLES. This is generally a settled discussion over in the MOS pages, but if you want to see the MOS changed, you might want to start a conversation there. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 17:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

For the use in the lead the sentence is saying that Major League Baseball is led by the [title of executive office] and is not referring to a person serving in the role of commissioner. Thus I believe it is appropriate to capitalize the title of the executive office. As an example of someone being referred to in their role as commissioner, I think the use in the section "Expanding west, south and north", would be more appropriate as Ford Frick, the commissioner of organized baseball. However it would be probably be better to recast it as Commissioner Ford Frick, which would parallel other uses in the article where "commissioner" is used as a title, mainly because of the ambiguity between "Baseball" as an umbrella term for organized baseball, and "baseball" as a general name for the sport. isaacl (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with caps. The linked article uses it that way. The policy at MOS:JOBTITLES is not specific enough and a source of constant confusion and disagreement. Jmar67 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

What context is OP asking about? It depends. Generally, I think I agree that when "the" is in front of it, it's not being used as job title. One could say "Commission of Baseball Joe Blow" or "Joe Blow is Commissioner of Baseball", but not "Joe Blow is the commissioner of baseball". If one wants to cap it they should follow the advice of using as a title, not a generic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

JOBTITLES claiming the use of the definite article automatically makes it a generic use is unsound and ungrammatical. It cannot be categorically stated as such and should not be used as a guideline. oknazevad (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet that is the guideline, and it has been accepted and applied widely. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Last relevant discussion. The subject of the sentence is the position, not a person. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Team locations chart

I proposed the following edit, which has been reverted, therefore I will bring it to the Talk page. We often hear about "small market" teams, but which markets are those? And how small? Is Baltimore small? Pittsburgh? Cincinnati? And how much smaller are those markets? This chart shows us that. Thanks to the chart, we see that there are 5 markets that stand out from the rest, and 1 (Milwaukee) in particular. This is relevant information since "small markets" are very often discussed in media coverage about MLB. The chart on the right provides a useful comparison, showing that potential expansion cities like Portland and Las Vegas would be small markets, and Nashville would be a very small market.

Is this chart necessary? No, but it is relevant information that conveys information efficiently and helps readers understand exactly how these metropolitan areas compare.

At the same time, I'm open to making the chart smaller (maybe shortening the names away from the official MSA names) and making multiple columns so that it doesn't take up as much space vertically. Jhn31 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jhn31: For my part, this looks like too much overly detailed information, much of which is not sourced. I laid out why I think this kind of table is Original Research at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional ice hockey teams in North America by metropolitan area (which this user appears to now be trying to WP:COATRACK the table here), but the short of it is that there is far more to where a franchise is other than metro area. A franchise needs a suitable market certainly, but it also needs interested ownership, suitable venue, cooperation from the league (not having another nearby market, which is why the Inland Empire shouldn't even be listed in the table below), and, most importantly, a market regardless of size that would support that particular team. All of what I listed is available in sources, but combining then to every individual metro in the table is not, and that is why it is WP:SYNTH. (Not to mention, the bottom line is arbitrary.) Yosemiter (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's original research or synthesis to say which MLB teams play in large markets and which play in small markets, a distinction which is based on population and none of the other things you mentioned - no amount of passionate fans, competent owners or nice stadium will make the Pirates or Royals anything other than a small market team. As I think about this, I think the table as posted is too big and sprawling, and think it would be better to include the one I added to the bottom of this section. More straightforward and illustrative. I also disagree with the idea that it's WP:TOOMUCH, since market size is a big deal in the MLB and not excessive, irrelevant, or trivial as the article for WP:TOOMUCH defines it. Jhn31 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jhn31: I am calling out the where MLB don't play as OR and SYNTH. Where they do play is sourceable, as is the market size. But if we limit it to where they do play, that table already exists (the league table) and the entire thing can be one sentence: "The smallest market teams are ...". Talking about market suitability is also well covered in the many articles on relocations and expansions of this league: List of defunct and relocated Major League Baseball teams, Major League Baseball relocation of 1950s–1960s, 1961 Major League Baseball expansion, etc. Yosemiter (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite right. Stating where they do play is fine. And is already covered. Stating where they do not play, and alluding to why, is not, as that is SYNTH.

Plainly, it's also apparent that Jhn31 has been trying to edit war this in because the standalone articles got deleted. It's no more appropriate here than it is as a stand-alone list because the shawl SYNTH issues apply. oknazevad (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would also add that where teams currently are has very little to do with current market size. Most of the teams in the sub-20s have had their teams for decades, at which point those markets were often easily within the top 10 or 20 biggest markets (as evidenced here). Milwaukee was #17 in 1970 (and previously had had teams when they were as high as #14), Cleveland was #8 in 1900 when they got the team that would become the Indians, KC was just under the top-20 when the got the Royals but that had the A's for years just before that, Cincinnati was #7 when they got the Red Stockings in the 1880s, Pitt was #7 in the 1890s, etc. There are too many extenuating circumstances for both where teams are in terms of current market size, and where teams are not for the variety of reasons I listed above. Yosemiter (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's appropriate to make insinuations about inappropriate or sinister motivations, and in fact it is likely a violation of WP:GOODFAITH. The article that was removed a year ago (which I did not create, merely reformatted into a more organized table) showed all kinds of minor league affiliations and was much more sprawling than a concise list of how the MLB teams align with a list of largest metropolitan areas. I find this to be both extremely interesting and relevant in understanding the relative sizes of the markets. The idea that it's "original research" to point out that Orlando and Charlotte are larger metro areas than Pittsburgh and the rest but don't have MLB teams just doesn't pass the smell test. Jhn31 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jhn31: Then show me a reliable source that says the MLB has significant interest in all of those cities. (Not just WP:SPECULATION like this one about Charlotte when there is no interested ownership.) Unless there are sources directly comparing the size of Pittsburgh and that fact that Orlando or Charlotte does not, it is WP:SYNTH. You will not find anything about the Inland Empire, your "biggest market without an MLB team", talking about the lack of an MLB team because it isn't the biggest market without an MLB team. It is well within the television market and combined statistical area of Greater Los Angeles. And there is absolutely no sources "pointing out" the sizes between the metro areas of the Richmonds and Ottawas of the countries to cities with current teams and is therefore completely useless on the table. Other cities listed are also pointless due to a variety of other issues like travel and interest in baseball (San Juan!?, Edmonton).

However, with all that being said, there might be room for a Potential Major League Baseball expansion page (like the Potential National Hockey League expansion and Expansion of Major League Soccer), as long you discuss it with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball first. While MLB has not exactly been eager to expand in over 20 years, and in fact most recently tried to contract in 2001, there are various articles about potential ownership groups with expansion goals. Not enough to make an article on each individually, but maybe as a whole it could pass GNG. Ownership groups are far, far more important than metro size for expansion purposes. Your so-called "small market teams" could be included as possible relocation candidates, assuming such statements about being a candidate is verifiable, and not just speculation. (Right now, that is only Oakland and Tampa; both have well-documented stadium issues and lack the funding currently to deal with it.) That is where sourceable information about Montreal comes into play due to Tampa's trying to split their home games between the two. Other potential interested owners have had brief public statements in Nashville, Orlando, and Portland. But outside of some possibly offhand comments made by the commissioner in July 2018, there is very little reliable information on the MLB actually considering any these groups in the near future.

TLDR;

1. Arbitrarily listing metro areas is indeed WP:TOOMUCH.

2. Listing any metro area without a team above some arbitrarily made-up lower-limit of population (why 1.2M?) is WP:OR.

3. Listing largest metro areas without a team (why 23rd?) and comparing it to the existing teams without referencing is WP:SYNTH.

Yosemiter (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed

Here is an alternate chart that takes up less vertical space while illustrating the same relevant, useful information visually. It would use the same writeup as above. Jhn31 (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Also removed

• Oppose including this information in any form, chart, prose or otherwise. The current list of teams and their stadia locations is sufficient. The information the above charts contain is excessive detail for an article of this type. --Jayron32 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Current season in Major League Baseball infobox

I have started a discussion at the baseball WikiProject discussion page on the "current season" field in the infobox. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Negro Leagues promoted to major

Seven historical Negro leagues have been retroactively promoted to major leagues by MLB. They'll need to be incorporated somehow. Powers ^T 20:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That's probably better for the Negro Leagues article, not here. BilCat (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why it wouldn't belong here. If the point is that this is about MLB the corporate organization, then there should be a separate article for major-league baseball that includes the AL and NL, and the Negro Leagues that are recognized as major leagues. But given how much depth this article goes into about the history of each of the two leagues that, until yesterday, were recognized as the sole major leagues--and the fact that the MINOR LEAGUES are mentioned in the lead--I'm having trouble seeing what principled distinction there is in treating this fairly important change only in the non-mlb article. Mcsnee (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, MLB has recognized 6 or 7 other leagues in the past as majors, though none were negro leagues. If you actually have concrete proposal of what to add and where to add it, then make it and see if you can get a consensus to add it. BilCat (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the OP's comments were extremely vague,.but it sounded like they wanted to add all the Negro League leagies and teams to this article. That's primarily what I was objecting to. As of right now, Negro league baseball does not yet mention the 7 leagues being promoted to major league status. That's probably the article to start with, and tjen a short summary can be added here where appropriate. BilCat (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The place where a mention should be added is in the history section where it talks about the Players League and the Federal League and the other historical major leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ownership?

The first line of the article says: "Major League Baseball (MLB) is an American professional baseball organization". However, the MLB website says the league is comprised of "owners, general and limited partners, shareholders". The Toronto Blue Jays are Canadian-owned, which would make MLB an "American and Canadian baseball organization". Magnolia677 (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends what aspect is being described. When discussing a league, people think of the organized competition between teams, and so generally the region of operation is described. But if talking about the organization that performs the league's administration, then it's typical to describe where it is registered as a business and where its offices are located. Ownership isn't necessarily a factor, since foreign ownership doesn't have to affect registration or office location. (No one considers the English Premier League to be American just due to U.S. ownership of some teams.)

I do think I agree that highlighting the area of operation earlier is warranted. Perhaps the first sentence of the fourth paragraph can be merged with the second sentence of the first paragraph to something like A total of 30 teams play in Major League Baseball—15 teams in the National League (NL) and 15 in the American League (AL)—with 29 in the United States and 1 in Canada. isaacl (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that. The placement of the sentence about the location is awkward at best, and a bit of a non-sequitur for the passage. oknazevad (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization of informal city region

Regarding this edit: yes, I know the article Midtown Manhattan consistently uppercases the first letter in "midtown". I don't feel that is correct for the same reason: it's not a formal title for a well-defined region of the city, but a geographical identifier, like downtown (insert name of your favourite city). That being said, I'm not opinionated about it enough to engage in a long discussion on that article's talk page. isaacl (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Midtown Manhattan is a specific neighborhood and is properly capitalized, just like Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn, or Forest Hills, Queens. oknazevad (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess I was overly-influenced by the description in the article that "the border of Midtown Manhattan is nebulous". I agree it is nonetheless a neighbourhood name. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a neighborhood name. I didn't think of using that term until after I had saved the revert summary. BilCat (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WalterBaker4242.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Major League Baseball

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • League Baseball/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisting per lack of any significant improvements and participation on discussion. Article still needs a lot of improvements to maintain its GA criteria. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
There's like a lot of unsourced statements at this article. It also needs update/expansion and rewrite on other sections that are poorly written to maintain its GA criteria. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph for final sentence of introduction

The introduction of this article properly references some interesting history of the league but excludes one of the most important historical facts regarding it: the longest-standing same name, same city team in the league. I first added this fact to the intro's closing paragraph, where it fits and flows well. That was reverted with an inaccurate edit note that this was factually untrue. I added it again with supporting references, including two from the MLB itself. That was also reverted with an edit note that it doesn't belong in the intro. If any historical references belong in the intro, as I think they do (and as already exist), this fact's worthy of inclusion among those. This is the closing paragraph I propose, which removes nothing but adds this fact.

Proposed wording for last paragraph of intro:

As of 2022, MLB's longest-standing, same name, same city team is the Philadelphia Phillies (founded in 1883), and the MLB team with the most cumulative championships is the New York Yankees (27 as of 2022). MLB's reigning World Series champions are the Atlanta Braves, who defeated the Houston Astros 4–2 in the 2021 World Series. Keystone18 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why does it even need to be in the Lead? There are several franchises that are older, but only the Reds are mentioned, as they were first. BilCat (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

IMHO you need to check your bias a little. "The Most Important Historical Fact" is in fact only your opinion. To others, such as myself, its simply trivia that is more appropriately noted in the lede on the Phillies page. Ckruschke (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Ckruschke

• Why do you keep adding this false info? First off, it's useless trivia and doesn't belong anywhere near this article. The Cubs are notable for being in the same city their entire existence (which is older than the Phillies). But, as has been clearly explained to you, your claims are false. The Phillies officially changed their name in the 1940s. Period. Yes, the old name (which is just a short form of "Philadelphians", by the way) continued to be used by other people and was restored after only a few years, but to claim that they've always had the same official name is a lie. Stop it. oknazevad (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Response

Let's take them one at a time:

1.) Fact: The Phillies are the oldest same-name, same name-city team not just in MLB but in all of professional sports. That's not my opinion. It's not a debate. There is no gray area. Read at least something somewhere on the topic. Good starting point is this: [5]

Quote from it: "A logo of a Blue Jay was added above the two L’s in “Phillies” on the jersey as well as on the left sleeve." Why is the Phillies name on the jersey? Because, as everyone knows, that was the name of the team.

Consult the very pages on this site: 1944 Philadelphia Phillies season and 1945 Philadelphia Phillies season. Are you saying those pages are improperly named? They aren't. Why? Because that was the name of the team since 1883. It's a fact documented through the ages with supporting references everywhere:

• Baseball Almanac: [6]
• Major League Baseball itself: [7]
• Encyclopedia Britannica: [8]
• Society for American Baseball Research: [9]

And the list goes on, and on, and on, and on--because it's true. I'm puzzled why this fact is so unsettling to you, or how your views became so hardened. Why and how?

2.) For the purpose of this page, the Phillies designation is obviously a hugely notable MLB fact, but it's even more than that. It is a historical fact is it relates to all professional sports globally, which is why it is so often mentioned in discussion regarding other sports; 3.) Your other two points make even less sense, but let me address them: The Reds were not the Reds until they were the Reds but I never questioned including them in the intro or proposed their removal. It should remain in there. Not sure I understand your point. And the Cubs were not the Cubs until 1903. Had they been the Cubs in 1882, they would be worthy of precisely this sort of mention in the intro.

A final point: I just read (above) that this article was delisted as a "good article." If this sort of resistance to reasonable proposals for improvement is even periodic, much less routine, it just drives away competent and well-intentioned editors from wanting to work on it. It's certainly left me with that feeling, and I might well have put some more effort into seeing improvements on the page. So: Add it. Don't add it. It's a fact--and a one widely cited because it is one of the most important facts in the history of professional sports. If it is excluded from this page's intro, it doesn't diminish the fact; it diminishes the page. Keystone18 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 TY2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kurioverrice (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kurioverrice (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)