This page is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
For linking baseball: "What's wrong is that there is no value to linking to a short article that lists the different levels of competition in baseball, when the reader is more likely to want to read about the sport in the first place. this is how every other sports' biography articles are written"[1]
For professional baseball: "For some reason all MLB articles use this one"[2]
When I look at any biography articles for sportspeople of other sports, they all link to the article on the sport itself. In my opinion, as a reader (not just an editor), if I am clicking that link, it's because I want to learn about the sport itself. I've found myself reading featured articles on cricket and soccer players, and I wanted to learn more about those sports in general because I don't follow them. When starting at a player article, I would find little value in linking to an article (particularly a short, near-stub one) about the different levels of professional competition, the various leagues, etc., for a sport I don't know anything about. I would want to learn about the sport itself first. If this were the Major League Baseball article I were starting at, of course I'd want to learn about the way professional competition is organized and would consider it appropriate to link to professional baseball. But not for biography articles. As an aside, I think this would be an appropriate time to consider whether professional baseball should be moved to something more specific, like List of professional baseball leagues; it would certainly take some of the ambiguity out of which article to link to from biography articles. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the most expected link in the first sentence or two is to provide greater detail on the sport of baseball in general. The person is a baseball player who was paid to play. On a side note, I wrote the sample biography based on a very small sampling of featured articles, but off-hand I don't remember which ones. Regarding renaming professional baseball, I don't think whether or not it might get linked under specific circumstances should be a factor. isaacl (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be more specific linking with professional in baseball than with other sports' bios. But that seems to be a WP:SILENT consensus, so it's useful to formally discuss its merits. —Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually in favor of only linking to baseball. However, almost all the links I see are to professional baseball. On quality articles too, like for Shohei Ohtani, Aaron Judge, Derek Jeter, etc. If that is not a consensus to link professional baseball, then I have no further objection to only linking baseball, and would actually prefer all those articles were changed to it. Wamalotpark (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked leads to professional baseball rather than baseball pretty much out of habit for however many years I've been editing here. But, "baseball" is the superior article. We shouldn't do things just because that's how we've always done it. I can agree that it is the more useful link and we can change our silent consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought it should be just linking baseball and only recently linked professional baseball for consistency. I'm just gonna be honest tho I reverted Y2Kcrazyjoker4 edits mostly because they have somewhat of a chokehold on the Rivera article and sometimes doesn't allow others to make even minor changes to it. This was such a minor edit by Wamalotpark and was unnecessary to be reverted.-- Yankees1017:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing an edit you seemingly agree with because you believe the editor making the edit is showing ownership of the article is not a good reason to revert. That's making a point. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a bit of a hot take but I don't think either should be linked, in most cases. However, if we do link, the most important thing is we follow MOS:SOB and not link something like "professional baseballpitcher" where it's impossible to determine where the link is, and I think professional and baseball being linked makes this worse. If we link something like Major League Baseball, or a link to a team, then we do not need a link to baseball or professional baseball since those topics are covered, and are more relevant to the person than baseball would be. If neither of these are linked, and a position isn't linked (or is reworded to not be next to baseball), then I would say only baseball should be linked. Chew(V • T • E)07:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that the professional baseball article needs a lot of editing to elevate it from the Start Class. As it is currently written, it's a basic list of professional leagues around the globe. For readers who are new to the sport, the Baseball article is clearly superior.Orsoni (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just finished working through a long list of those fixes using AWB. There are probably a few that slipped through my filters. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I meant. My propensity for vague pronoun/antecedent connections has struck again. I am currently working on the (much smaller) list of bizarre baseball player linkages mentioned at the top of this subthread. Hopefully something else will come along when I finish that lest I fall prey to boredom. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think I prefer the previous wording that used two sentences. It was designed to allow for describing the subject as someone who formerly played for one or more teams, or who currently plays for a team. However if a one-sentence form is desired, then I think it reads better with two different verbs, such as "... is a [nationality] professional baseball player who currently plays second base for ...", and "... who formerly played second base for ...". isaacl (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it reads better with two different verbs Generally yes, but plays is somewhat repetitive with the earlier use of player, —Bagumba (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I considered the redundancy with player, but feel it is a bit less confusing that saying X is Y who is Z. Regarding "currently", I agree there is redundancy. I'm not wedded to the wording, but think that the resulting emphasis may be useful. isaacl (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NgL: Considering they're now considered major league, I agree with the proposal that the wording be consistent with other major league players. —Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, at what point did the term Major League Baseball become official? I thought that it was after 2000, when the AL and NL formally joined to become one legal entity. However, I see season articles going back to 1892 that have Major League Baseball in the title, but refer to major league baseball in the opening line. The uppercase in the title seems wrong to me, since the AL wasn't even formed until 1901. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but Major League Baseball (uppercase) wasn't even a term in 1892, so shouldn't all the articles from 1892 until some point refer to major league baseball (lowercase)? For example, if you refer to Timeline of Major League Baseball, you will note that the title at the top of each table refers to major league teams from 1882 to 1891 and then again from 1901 to 1999, then switches to Major League Baseball teams in 2000. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are you saying that uppercase Major League Baseball should be used in both titles and descriptions going back to 1882, including the timeline article? Assadzadeh (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly surprised it took this long for this to become a discussion. 😅 I made many of those lower-casing changes per WP:BOLD.
I've been upgrading(?) the articles from 1901 to the present since March/April 2024, to be on par with the contemporary, 2020s season articles in terms of content (plus the addition of a teams/stadiums/managers table), though I've only gotten up to 1964 (hence why the capitalization in question stops there), and I recently decided to work backwards towards 1876 with the same update model (that I just did with the post-NL/AA merger, 1892–1900, pre-1901 seasons articles over the last few days) before continuing from 1965 towards the present, once I get back to 1876.
Regarding the capitalization, (and going off of the SABR article here for most of this paragraph,) "Major League Baseball" as a proper noun was not the actual organization until 2000. Prior to 2000, the National League and American League operated as separate legal entities, and the term "Major League Baseball" wasn't even a term used in any degree until very roughly the 1960s, such as the MLBPA, founded in 1966. The MLB logo previously had from 1969, "MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL®", under its official logo before being removed in 2019, but this gives no hint of "major league baseball" vs "Major League Baseball". Prior to the 1960s, the American and National Leagues (along with their minor league teams) were collectively referred to as the (now archaic) "Organized Baseball" starting in 1902.
Throughout most of SABR's website, the term "Organized Baseball" is consistently capitalized, so perhaps only "Major League" should be capitalized pre-2000 instead of nothing, but capitalizing baseball in "Major League Baseball" prior to 2000 is simply a retelling of actual history.
After several times I've proposed things here, the discussion almost always dies out without resolution or consensus, save for maybe one or two times (this is also with the mentality that three users in a discussion is not enough for a consensus. I don't remember the topic, but it was us two and another user who had three different mentalities and the discussion just faded without consensus). Or there's simply no discussion at all (see above for an example from over two weeks ago). Hence WP:BOLD. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.)00:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are likely to get reverted to the capitalized versions by do-gooders or random IPs over time, so I feel this will be a noble but ultimately fruitless cause. Seasider53 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I finally had a chance to read the SABR article thoroughly and think about this issue in-depth. In my opinion, Wikipedia should follow SABR's lead, where the article states:
Here at SABR, though, we will continue to use lowercase when referring to major-league players and the major leagues, except when we’re specifically talking about the post-1999 entity known as Major League Baseball, a.k.a. MLB.Assadzadeh (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spesh531 I note that you recently changed the table titles in Timeline of Major League Baseball from major league baseball to Major League baseball. I don't think that we have reached consensus yet on this topic. Per my previous comment, I believe that we should follow the SABR article's lead and only use lowercase when referring to the major leagues prior to 2000, Assadzadeh (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe it should be lowercase in accordance to that SABR article, but I figured that it's a decent compromise while a consensus hasn't been reached, especially considering that early 20th century publications referred to the NL and AL as a capitalized "Organized Baseball", and various SABR articles do use "Major League" when talking about early 20th century topics as well, so (annoyingly) they don't even consistently follow their own conventions (and regarding consensus, I don't know if a consensus even will be reached. It feels like the amount of active users in this WikiProject is in the single digits). But like I've said, I'll gladly change the capitalization in Timeline of Major League Baseball and the (now) 124 articles between 1876 and 1999, whatever capitalization is agreed upon. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.)14:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if we're not getting feedback regarding this topic, then we should make a decision ourselves, which would be that anything prior to 2000 should not have any capitalization, thus referring to just major league baseball. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at newspapers of different eras (via newspapers.com) and found that the generic, lower-case use of "major league baseball" (as the SABR article notes, to differentiate it from minor league baseball) can be found as early as 1900, although rarely. Through 1945, more frequent usage of it can be found. By 1950, "Major League Baseball" was being used in radio listings, which were using title case for their content (e.g. "Popular Music"), not because it was a proper name. MLB as an abbreviation of "Major League Baseball", referring collectively to the AL and NL, started to appear in newspapers in the early 1980s. I am in favor of refraining from using "Major League Baseball" and "MLB" prior to MLB (as we now know it) coming to exist in 1999/2000. I am strongly in favor of not using it for anything prior to the mid-1960s (the SABR article notes "There are, however, several noteworthy entities which have used those three words as part of their names since 1966."). That said, as a line needs to be drawn somewhere, I am supportive of "only use lowercase when referring to the major leagues prior to 2000" as suggested above. Article titles such as 1900 Major League Baseball season are jarringly anachronistic and, in my view, should not invoke "Major League Baseball" as a proper name. For transparency: I am a member of SABR and have had Bill Nowlin (the author of the noted SABR article) personally flag the incorrect use of "MLB" in a biography I wrote. :-) Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, but as mentioned above, over time they will be edit-warred over. Wonder if it would be practical to use a note, for example; "The 1964 major league baseball season[note 1] began on April 13, 1964."
^The capitalized term "Major League Baseball" was not official untill 2000.
Ooh we're getting somewhere, having someone who's actually a member of SABR (Dmoore5556) describe his experience with the capitalization (and even usage of "MLB"). As I described before, I was in favor of capitalizing "Major League" as a means to compromise this pre-2000 debate (when there were an equal number of voices for opposite opinions that weren't mine), though with more voices in the conversation, I'd like to reiterate my support for pre-2000 lowercase "major league baseball", though Dmoore5556 brought an interesting point regarding 1900. Would "The 1900 major league baseball season..." in the lead (or perhaps, let's use 1890 since there were three leagues), using the lowercase, make sense from a SABR editorial perspective (while not abbreviating)? I'm trying to come up with a potential alternative that isn't too wordy or awkward, but they just feel like a longer iteration of "major league baseball season" ("Baseball's 1890 major league season..." comes to mind).
BX honestly that might be a good idea to include, as I feel as time goes on, less and less people realize that while yes, the NL and AL used to consist of different rules, that the official "Major League Baseball" didn't exist until 2000. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.)03:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-2000. Note how Baseball Reference treats that transition: 2000 is entitled "2000 Major League Baseball Team Statistics" while 1999 is entitled "1999 Major League Team Statistics". The use of title case makes it easier to miss. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
World Series Champion only if you played in the World Series
Who decided this and why should editors follow this rule? In every other major sport, being a part of the season's roster is enough to receive a ring. What makes baseball reference the supreme law of gatekeeping? Clayton Kershaw is a 2-time champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerfell1978 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the easiest to verify? Some players play 10 games for a team in the middle of the season and they can still get a ring if the players choose to give them one. Should a player be called a champion in that instance? The easiest way to do it is by the World Series roster. Nemov (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's hard to verify. This, for instance, shows all of the players who appeared in a game for the 2024 Dodgers. It's that we keep the navbox, in this case Template:2024 Los Angeles Dodgers, to the members of the series roster only, and so only put it in their infoboxes. It's not about who gets a World Series ring, since secretaries and other support staff get rings too. That was the thinking among the most involved editors, and the less involved dislike it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a consensus formed among community members on this talk page some time ago, that some who are not active on this page seem to very much dislike. There should be discussion threads in the talk page archive. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the baseball community members chose this route. While I can't definitively speak for the other sports' community members, I will note that Carson Wentz tore his ACL during the 2017 NFL season and missed the rest of the season, including the playoffs, but his page still lists him as "Super Bowl champion (LII)". Assadzadeh (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems disingenuous. Why should someone be called a champion if they weren't even on the postseason roster? Giving players, and even former players, championship rings is a completely honorific celebration that is left to the discretion of the teams. I see no reason why that should be the determining factor in whether someone is regarded as a champion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of at least theoretically keeping things from getting out of control, starting with the WS navboxes. Take a look below for comparison. The full team roster looks like an NFL roster in the template based on its size. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bright line way to determine championships.. other wise it's a free for all... was someone who was called up for one spot start in May and then released a "world series champion"? Clearly that should not be the case. Kershaw made seven starts last season, he then went on the shelf and sat out all of September and the postseason... If someone did not contribute in the world series, they should not get that distinction on their pages.. who gets a ring is immaterial... the secretaries in the front office get rings.. they shouldn't go in that template either. Spanneraol (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me bring up a hypothetical situation from the football world. Suppose an NFL starting quarterback leads his team to a victory in the conference championship game, but gets injured on the meaningless final play. The backup quarterback then leads the team to a Super Bowl victory and the third-string quarterback never plays in the game. Based on the arguments that I'm reading, the starting quarterback would not be considered a Super Bowl champion, whereas the backup would be. What about the third-string quarterback, who didn't play, but was on the roster? I'm sure there is a similar baseball analogy. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Football is a different sport and i'm not sure how they handle it in the football project.. but it is a one game as opposed to a series.. and those other quarterbacks would still be on the roster for the game... it's not about if they played but if they were on the active roster. The backup catcher didn't play in the series but he was active for it and could have played so is considered a champion as opposed to someone that played in midseason and was optioned to the minors or someone who got hurt during the season and was therefore unavailable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the related discussions, in reverse chronological order:
As I've stated previously, my opinion is to follow what reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable sources say—if they call a player a World Series champion, then the World Series championship can be highlighted in the infobox—but so far there hasn't been a lot of success in attaining a consensus on something other than using the World Series roster. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is to remain consistent with Baseball-Reference.com (which ticks all the boxes: reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable). Specifically, a player's stat page there (e.g. David Ortiz). Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion here is that anyone who was on the World Series roster (even if they did not play in the World Series) is a champion by default. If reliable sources (including baseball ref) claim anyone not on this list is (or, for some reason, is not) that takes precedence.
The rings are seemingly irrelevant as mentioned. I believe anyone who was at the roster at all gets one, which is a huge list that contains far too many people, and sometimes staff as well (though not "official" rings). I also think someone saying they got a ring but no one saying they were a champion should not be factored in either.
But, ultimately sources matter the most here. There should not be any discussion if a valid source says they're a champion. Chew(V • T • E)23:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Hacker has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cleaning up a lot of pages, and the ones that are the most inconsistent are external links season pages, especially older ones, but even current ones too. What external links should we include?
Here's some possible suggestion, and an example with the 2023 Texas Rangers season:
I can make a template for this if it would be useful. We could also make a template that covers all external links to a team season, which would include the stats and schedule or anything else.
I also see "x team official website" linked, which is often either dead or archived, and I just don't see the benefit of that at all. What would be useful of a snapshot of a given page that season? If we want stats, we can link to live links, same with schedule. The official site should just be on the team page, not any season pages. Chew(V • T • E)21:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to create a template that covers those things that's fine with me.. I believe some of them have the stats linked in the info box as well. I don't mind a few extra links that are specific to certain seasons but year the team home page isn't really necessary for them. Spanneraol (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a template akin to baseballstats seems helpful; I'd suggest also including Retrosheet. I don't see a need/benefit for "official website" outside of the general article about the team (e.g. in EL of article Milwaukee Brewers). Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made {{MLB team season stats}} as an initial starting point. It takes params similar to the baseballstats template. Most of the params might be the same but there might be some deviation based on team. Chew(V • T • E)19:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, under WP:BASEBALLSA/PL, the only modern leagues that are reflected in baseball infoboxes are MLB, NPB, and KBO. Those leagues were presumably selected because they are the top summer leagues in the world, representing a relatively high level of professional play in their respective countries. To briefly sum up, the general consensus is that NPB is either on par or slightly below MLB in terms of competitiveness ("Quadruple-A"), with KBO a bit behind that. I submit that the Mexican League (LMB) be added to this group, since it clearly fits all those criteria: it is the top level of play in Mexico and has been for a century, it is a fully professional summer league, and the level of competition that is comparable to (if not necessarily on par with) MLB, as evidenced by the number of MLB veterans that play in LMB. Considerably higher is the number of players that find success in both LMB and the NPB/KBO, many of whom put up comparable numbers on both sides of the Pacific (Trevor Bauer, Roberto Osuna, Roberto Petagine, to name a few). Players have also said that LMB deserves to be in the same conversation as NPB and KBO. (1)(2)
To my mind, the only reason it's not already included in this group for style purposes is LMB's historical classification as a minor league, from 1955 to 2020. I would note a key difference between LMB and other minor leagues, that LMB was never made up of "farm teams" and its players were signed to independent contracts independent of MLB teams. Minor league classification was largely a formality and, and LMB functioned more like an independent league under the nominal authority of MLB, rather than a true Triple-A minor league like the PCL and International League. (3) Aside from that, I'm not sure what the argument is to keep it out of that group for style purposes. Captain Parmenter(talk)14:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spanneraol. The Mexican League is not on par with MLB, not to the extent of NPB or KBO. Players do come back from Asia to have success in MLB (Eric Thames, Erick Fedde, Merrill Kelly come to mind immediately), but I am unaware of any MLB player having that level of success after going to Mexico. Osuna and Bauer are special cases due to their.... personal behavior choices. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky to talk about former LMB players in MLB simply because of how MLB has historically positioned itself as the gravitational core of baseball in the Americas — meaning that the vast majority of quality players spend at least some time in MLB organizations. But there are successful MLB players to sign out of LMB: Joakim Soria, Vinny Castilla, more recently Randy Arozarena and Fernando Cruz, and that's just this century. But MLB orgs picking up the best players is something that is increasingly true of KBO and NPB as well — to a lesser degree, sure, but that's more due to geography than anything else. Captain Parmenter(talk)17:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was up at 3:00 AM (LA time) this morning to watch the Dodgers open the season in Tokyo against the Cubs. Hoping for a good season.... and not too much drama on wikipedia. Spanneraol (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I love Christmas, the start of the regular season is arguably the most wonderful time of the year. Here's to another wonderful baseball season, both on here and at the ballpark! LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia currently has articles MLB London Series, MLB Mexico City Series, and MLB Seoul Series. No article (yet) on Tokyo series, even though more games have been played there than in London, Mexico City, or Seoul. As MLB's naming has hopefully stabilized, I think a MLB Tokyo Series article makes sense, and it may be where content currently in MLB Japan Opening Series 2008 (which has zero references) could be refined and properly cited (my thought it to absorb that content into MLB Tokyo Series and make MLB Japan Opening Series 2008 a redirect). Comments welcome. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that article existed, but yes, that seems like an appropriate place for the content. I think more detail about the international games than a simple list is warranted; essentially, the same level of detail that the London Series and Seoul Series articles have already. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single article MLB World Tour could work (it's currently a redirect to a section of the List article), now that MLB has settled on that naming. I think such an article, if created, should aggregate content from and replace each of the stand-alone MLB [City Name] Series articles. The List article would then be reduced to pretty much just the list, with discussion/history/future plans covered in article MLB World Tour.
Whether articles about specific series should remain, is another question. I believe there are currently 3 such articles:
MLB Japan Opening Series 2008 has zero sources cited and contains (in my view) well-intended but unnecessary detail about regular-season games that were ultimately notable only for contextual reasons.
2019 MLB London Series is well-sourced, but, with regards to the games themselves, outside of noting that both games were long and high scoring, I'm not sure World Series treatment is warranted.
MLB Tokyo Series 2025 is more focused on the creation of the event rather than the game play (e.g. no team rosters or game line scores).
This would be my preference (combining to create the World Tour article) since the individual games/series are not really notable on their own. Spanneraol (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Postseason bracket on season (and postseason) pages
I was looking through various formats used in the postseason bracket (mainly, are teams linked and/or abbreviated?) and it seems that different periods use different methods. Aside from 1960 through 1971 (which I updated to match the 2024 format), there seems to be different styles.
1884 through 1900 have full team names, linked, and include each individual game (granted, these were mostly pages that I recently created, and I copied the format of the time from pre-division 20th century pages, which also included each game, though I think that was a very recent addition that has since been reverted).
1903 through 1959 have full team names, linked, with just the # of games won.
1960 through 1968 matched this before my recent edits.
1969 through 2009 have only city names (or for shared cities, "NY Mets", "LA Angels", or "Chicago White Sox"), and are linked in the first round of that teams appearance.
1969 through 1971 matched this before my recent edits.
2010 through 2024 have only city names (or for shared cities, "NY Mets", "LA Angels", or "Chicago White Sox"), and are not linked (and I'm assuming this is the case because of some decision made in 2010, and that standard just carried on to today w/o adjusting previous seasons).
2022 through 2024 only says "Championship Series" while the previous seasons say "League Championship Series".
I believe we should have a standard that's applied to all of the season/postseason pages (or perhaps two standards, one for the pre-division era, and one for the division era), addressing:
Are teams to be linked at all? (Basically, should the first instance be linked or not?)
Should we only use the city name for all pages, or only in the 1969–present division era? Maybe only for the first instance a team is in the bracket we use the full name, then use only the city name?
For cities that share a team without a simple abbreviation (so besides New York (NY) and (Los Angeles)), should we continue to use the full name (such as "Chicago" or the early 20th century examples of "Boston" or "St. Louis"), or perhaps a shortened city name ("Chi", "Bos", "StL") that can be found on MLB's website (such as when you view a team's schedule vs the "Chi Cubs" as seen here).
Regarding the headers ("Wild Card Series/Games", "Division Series", "Championship Series"), should "League" precede these, as it does in "League Championship Series" from 1972 (1969 before my changes) through 2021?
Personally, I believe we should use the current 2022 through 2024 standard and apply it to all seasons, not just the divisional era, just with the Chicago teams abbreviated to "Chi Cubs" and "Chi White Sox". Also, maybe there's something to be said regarding the pre-1969 World Series, and having each individual game shown.
Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.)19:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
