View text source at Wikipedia

Talk:Major League Baseball

Former good articleMajor League Baseball was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 15, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 10, 2013Good article nomineeListed
April 23, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education assignment: German History, 1900-1945

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 22 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Egrant111 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eklies (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW closed as nearly uniformly opposed, with substantial participation. BD2412 T 17:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Following consensus at Talk:National Football League#Requested move 3 March 2024 and Talk:National Basketball Association#Requested move 28 February 2024. DS537(WIR) 19:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To better support an international audience, my preference is to keep the full name of Major League Baseball in article titles, and not to use an abbreviation. In particular, this article should remain with its complete title. isaacl (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. What's the point of doing these moves? Seems to be more clear with the full title rather than the abbreviations. Also, if we are comparing to those other leagues.. NFL and NBA are more common in abreviation useage than MLB is. Spanneraol (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I haven't looked deep enough to see if MLB is the common name over Major League Baseball, but why request a move to the main MLB article when in both the cases you linked the main league pages were not moved to abbreviations? Esolo5002 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all - I fail to see any valid rationale for the move and no evidence that MLB is common name. - Skipple ☎ 03:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose main article, weak support on others Originally I was going to state people don't call it MLB like they do NFL/NHL/NBA; they cal it "the Majors" or the full name. But then WP:CONCISE states The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. So as an article title, people familiar with baseball would know what it is about. Note: If "MLB on CBS" is the common name, then it might be appropriate to move it independent of this RM. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the main article; as Isaacl says, this better serves an international audience. The others are less important (except, perhaps, for the television programme, as BX states); though i think it would be an error to move them (as i feel it was for the other sports), CONCISE maybe does support the moves ~ it depends how we define a person familiar with the general subject area ~ though i don't live in the US i did and thus recognise "MLB", many of my colleagues IRL would not have a clue even though they may have interest in sports, because baseball is a regional game, so this would make these articles less accessible. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 06:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose main article with certainty. As Esolo5002 says above, based on the precedent set with the other non-moves, even nominating the main article is a total waste of time. Ambivalent on the others. As others have noted, unlike the NFL/NBA/NHL, the MLB abbreviation isn't as universally used, with "the Majors" or even just "baseball" used commonly as well. Heck, the MLB abbreviation was practically totally unused for decades.
    oknazevad (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, let me get in on this before the game is called on account of snow. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone struck my comment above, which seemed to be a straightforward 'Oppose' !vote meaning "per above", saying that there seemed to be a snowstorm brewing per the wording of the opposed votes above, and signifying that I agreed with it per, unsaid, their reasoning. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn That would be me who struck your comment, per its appearance made without proper explanation, exemplified by the use of game and let me get in on this. Any persons may contribute; however such does not constitute the assumption that Wikipedia is a game, which it is not. DS537(WIR) 16:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone less familiar with baseball, the comment was incorporating a baseball idiom. Umpires call a game when they decide to suspend play and either end a game early or have it continue another day due to weather (and before fields were lit, daylight) conditions. isaacl (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph), you are new here. Do not change or strike anyone else's talk page comments per WP:TPO unless they are really egregious, like a WP:BLP violation or a violent threat. It's not up to you to decide what comments are considered in a discussion and which aren't. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, the strike falls under WP:TPO: Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. Randy’s comment “let me get in on this” isn’t an appropriate requested move opposition; anybody is free to contribute to an RM, but such a statement may convey a sense of disruptive editing. Such joke comments do not improve the encyclopedia. Yeah I’m new, but does that constitute other people making jokes on my rm? DS537(WIR) 20:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not harmful. It was a colloquial manner of him expressing agreement with the other oppose votes. A minimal level of jokes are acceptable on talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but without a legitimate reason to oppose an rm? That kinda stuff isn’t allowed per WP:RMCOMMENT, right? Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so. DS537(WIR) 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The person who evaluates the consensus view of the discussion has the task of determining the suitability of each expressed viewpoint, with consideration for the context in which they are made. For better or worse, not all commenters explicitly refer to their agreement with the points made by others, but nonetheless, the evaluator can judge if these points are being referred to implicitly. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy to support you striking the comment so quit looking for one and listen to the editors who are attempting to help. Nemov (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not denying that they’re trying to help, I’m seeking feedback on why the comment was appropriate. Wouldn’t you look for a policy regarding an edit you’d make? DS537(WIR) 23:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology, DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph), I know you put in a great deal of time in thinking about this nomination and preparing its procedure. From my viewpoint this wasn't going to pass, as MLB is not in the same class as the common names NFL and NBA. I used baseball terminology to mention a snow close, a type of close which is not uncommon on Wikipedia. A bit of playfulness is also not uncommon on Wikipedia, but if I knew it would affect you negatively, especially when you care about the extent and focus of the nomination, and that you are new to the encyclopedia (welcome!), I would have worded it differently. It still looks like snow, but hopefully this does not discourage you but just shows a bit of the collaboration spirit that runs through the project. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, thanks for acknowledging that I may have perceived your comment as a joke and not appropriate. I appreciate your apology and would like to give one back, as the misunderstanding was too on my behalf. If there are more kind people on Wikipedia like you, I’ll most definitely be more open to communication. Much appreciated. DS537(WIR) 21:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph), what a nice message. My initial post was a bit Wikipedia inside-baseball, but may have been worse. At least it wasn't an inside the park home pun. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO - Skipple ☎ 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all - For all the reasons already listed. Nemov (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I get the arguments for the NFL, NBA and NHL, but this one is different. It may be appropriate to move some of the other articles listed here, but they should really be discussed on their own. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. 162 etc. (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to all. Using an abbreviation would make them redundant. VyveGuy1 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all, close per WP:SNOW ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion regarding including the Federal League, 7 Negro Major Leagues, and 3 pre-1901 leagues into MLB Season pages

[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball regarding the inclusion of the Federal League into the 1914 & 1915 season pages (or their own 1914 & 1915 pages), as well as arguing whether the 7 Negro Major Leagues should be included in the 1920–1948 season pages or if each league should have their own dedicated pages.

This would also change, going forwards, the creation of the 1876 to 1900 season pages.

Please don't post opinions here, go to the WikiProject talk page linked at the top of this comment. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. With a well-attended discussion less than a month ago that shows overwhelming consensus to not move, and no new rationale, this nomination is out of order. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 14:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– This is my largest ever move request. Same as last month's RM, but with added season and postseason articles and more other lists. After successfully moving National Basketball Association (NBA)- and National Football League (NFL)-related lists, here is a list of MLB-related articles to be moved. See how many articles and lists in total? Hundreds of them. Make it 100, 200, 300, 400. 5x more than the total combined NBA and NFL articles affected by the RMs. In other words, anything that has "Major League Baseball" in the article title should be moved to be simplified to "MLB". Even the categories too... ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The exact same move request JUST failed after being almost unanimously opposed.. Did you not read the exact same thing right ahead of it? Once more... MLB is not as common a term as the NBA and NFL are so it is not the same thing. It is not as recognizable by the public so it doesn't make sense to make this move. Nothing has changed since the last move request. Spanneraol (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and close the last RM on this topic finished 18 days ago, with clear consensus not to move. Nothing has changed since then, if you don't like that close then WP:Move review is the correct process, not starting another RM because you don't like the outcome of the first one. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural close why are you requesting a move two weeks after it was snow closed!?—blindlynx 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commissioner of Baseball (caps or lowercase)

[edit]

@Oknazevad Under Organizational structure, the link title is commissioner of baseball (lowercase), which matches the first sentence of the latter article. So, if it's the title of the office, then shouldn't the latter article be capitalized too?

By the way, I find it interesting that Commissioner of Baseball (NPB) is all caps. Assadzadeh (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's his official title so it should be capitalized. Spanneraol (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previously discussed. See archive #2. Caps is correct. oknazevad (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I updated two instances of 'commissioner' to 'Commissioner' per MOS:JOBTITLE. If I was wrong, then feel free to revert. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]