Talk:History of baseball

records

has any MLB team won ever home series in a single season i can find the answer anywhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.188.98 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Ghgefghtsdgutwsfhbgugdethgfryhgfryjhfrtygddtgdaqweertyyuuiooplkjjhhgffdsaazxxcvbnm,.22113344556677889900@@##$$&&**()()‘L fcdghvtj che

Needs to Discuss Reuter's Painting

Roman kids played #Baseball in the street - Year 1669 (lower right: pitcher, batter, and catcher) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Willem_Reuter_-_A_Roman_Market.jpg DrWJK (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ted Williams was the best player in baseball

Ted Williams rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.25.237 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada

Why does the "history of baseball" link in the sidebar go to an article on a defunct team? Seems to me the Montreal Expos and the Toronto BlueJays were a large part of the history of baseball in Canada. Shouldn't they be mentioned?139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there is no stand alone article on the History of baseball in Canada, but the London Tecumsehs article gives the most history of any current WP article; it is the equivalent to the Cincinnati Red Stockings article when it comes to the history of baseball in the US. The Expos and Jays weren't really part of the formative years of Canadian baseball, so no, they probably wouldn't be too important in that aspect, other than being the first MLB teams. You can request an article be written at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

pre 1841 link

This article contains a link to Pre-1841 in sports which is now (since 7 February 2009) a redirect to 1701 to 1740 in sports. However, it might be more accurate and helpful to link to the 1781 to 1800 in sports article instead - since that is an article with two items regarding baseball. 69.119.24.98 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

references

This page has a tag re no ref's/sources. {Unreferenced|date=December 2009} Is the tag necessary? This page seems to be merely an informational, cross-reference page, similar to a disambiguation page. Eagle4000 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is less than a disambiguation page, it is just a collection of articles; so it is an index list, but it is a duplication of the links in the navbox. This article is of no benefit to navigation. I an going to redirect it to Origins of baseball for now. If someone undoes the redirect, please add content to this page and try to make it into an actual article instead of a list of other articles that are already in the navbox. Even if this article is expanded, I really don't see how it could vary significantly from the Origins article. --64.85.221.211 (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 21011 Research Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 12 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dominic Manderine (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nlowe3.

— Assignment last updated by Wordnerd104 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed a couple paragraphs added by Dominic back in May. They were notably lacking in citations or internal links, and also did not appear to fit well into the overall structure of the article. For example, the one paragraph about the Negro Leagues seemed to re-summarize information that straddled both the section it was in and the section following, which already provided detail about both the founding of the Negro Leagues and their subsequent evolution. The second paragraph about integration also re-summarized topics already covered, and further had a very confusing jump from Kenesaw Mountain Landis to talking about Jackie Robinson's experience, without actually identifying Robinson as the subject.

The topics are important and may well be worth increasing their coverage in the article generally. The language had characterizations that, while I probably agree with the substance, should warrant citations to support making them, from a NPOV perspective. Ultimately the additions were just not well-integrated and too duplicative of what the article already contains. --Michael Snow (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)