Talk:List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders

message: Alex has not hit 600 home runs, he has only hit 500.
and it lists him as only hitting 500, too.  -- Shatterzer0 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main page has serious issue

message: Why not?
* Top 500 is barely encyclopedic as it is. Expanding it to Top 1000 will end up including far too many names that are not notable for hitting home runs. - RPIRED 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's expand it to Top 1000

message: There are only 295 names on this list.  Why is the page called "Top 500 home run hitters of all time"?  Wouldn't "MLB all-time leaders in home runs" be a better name for it? --Idont Havaname 20:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 500?

message: While I appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this list, what is the point?  Does it really add depth to the wikipedia community?  This information is easily obtainable on any number of sites.  I would vote to delete this. Wolverinegod 07:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the prod tag. While I agree there are some potential problems with this article, I don't think it should be deleted, and certainly not without a full AFD discussion. — sjorford++ 09:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this page really need to exist?

message: Not merely trite, "All time" is just plain wrong when used in reference to ongoing activities. Neither time itself, nor major league baseball, has reached its end.  Thus, there can be no such thing, yet, as an "all time" baseball record.  Another candidate for inclusion in a Wikipedia  style book. Publius3 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we can't see the future, it makes perfect sense to define all-time as ranging from the beginning of time until the present. Furthermore, any book such as a sports almanac is current only for a tiny portion of its existence. SuperMachine 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "All time" - nope!

message: Why are some numbers missing? - Bagel7 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the logical reason is that the season is in progress, and the number rank has not been updated as of right now. But the home run totals should be right as of today. Maybe the ranking will get updated soon - Mrsteak613 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: Unless someone has a reason to keep both lists, I think we can probably get rid of List of top 100 Major League Baseball home run hitters. I'll do so in a couple days if no one responds. CredoFromStart 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed List of top 100 Major League Baseball home run hitters to redirect here (no "keep" responses from anyone on this). It's fairly redundant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CredoFromStart (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top 100 - delete/redirect?

message: I was checking that Wil Cordero has 122 career home runs, and on March 7 he was signed by the Mets to a minor league contract (thus an active player). Can he enter the list of people within 5 home runs of the top 500, just like Michael Tucker?
: why not? Do it! Happy138 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wil Cordero

message: Is there another list that incorporates all the other leagues and their homerun leaders?  i.e. you'd obviously have bonds in 2nd, next to oh, with aaron in 3rd. I was wondering if there is such a list... -- Shatterzer0 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the question. Where is the a Japanese baseball list? Happy138 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think (well for this page and there should be a page like this) that it should only be MLB only. Honestly "Oh" and the Japanese league are 2 different things like orange and apples. I'm not taking anything away from "Oh" but his mention should not be here in the 1st place. OneiroPhobia 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there another list?

message: I've added a fact tag, but I guess it's confusing, so I'll specify here.  I'm not denying Sadaharu Oh hit 868 home runs, more than any other NBP player in NBP or any MLB player in MLB.  But that's discounting any home run totals in the minor leagues or Negro Leagues, both of which were/are fully professional leagues -- totals which would affect the home run count of many major leaguers.  For example, Hank Aaron played in both from about 1949 through 1953; any home runs hit during that time don't count toward his 755, but would count toward a "professional baseball record".  That's why I'm asking for a source for the "professional baseball record" claim. Jpers36 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "professional baseball record" 

message: As much as Sadaharu Oh's accomplishment deserves recognition, that recognition should be elsewhere, and not on a page that concerns career stats in Major League Baseball, as he never actually played Major League Baseball. I never saw his name in this article during the years when the list was topped by Hank Aaron, and regardless of the variety of reasons that many of us believe Bonds doesn't "deserve" to head the list, throwing in Oh's Japanese stats looks like sour grapes. Any comments?  --DHLister | Talk 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sadaharu Oh]]

message: Hi, I just removed Boggs. He has 118 HRs not 137. The error is in the HOF homepage in his 1993 and total HR stats. Happy138 (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing [[Wade Boggs]] 

message: Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa are designated as no longer active, even though neither has officially announced their retirement.  Neither is on any major league roster, and I agree that they should be listed as inactive.  However,  I scoured the list and found that seven players are listed as active despite not being on any major league roster: Mike Piazza, Steve Finley, Kenny Lofton, Preston Wilson, Trot Nixon, Julio Franco and Rondell White.  Some are on minor league teams, Franco is in the Mexican League, while others are outright free agents.  Either Bonds and Sosa should be reclassified as active, or these seven should be classified as inactive, and the total number of active players in the top 500 be dropped to 73.  (FWIW, I already changes Reggie Sanders' status since he has officially retired to the broadcast booth, but that's the only edit I'm willing to make without a consensus opinion.) Justinthebull (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be anyone that has actually played at any level during the current season (or anyone on the DL obviously)   - unless that player retired of course. So guys like Bonds and Sosa are inactive, while guys like Nixon and now Frank Thomas are active.   If you want to argue that guys like Bonds 'could' play again... even retired players can come back, and they're obviously inactive. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining "active" 

message: I was wondering if we should add players like Josh Gibson into the page, or sould we make a new one for Negro Leaguers? I mean, it's not like Sudaharu Oh, he technically did play in the Majors. Maybe we should add a page on top 500 strikeout pitchers as well. Tanks a bunch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.219.145 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negro League page? Merge? 

message: Have been on this page in past years but a user keeps removing them. How do you feel about it? Should we have them on the page or not.
2008 Milestones
The following players reached major home run milestones in 2008:
500 career homers:
Manny Ramirez — May 31
300 career homers:
Richie Sexson — May 1
Entry into the top 500:
Jason Bay with his 130th career homer — May 24
--Npnunda (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Say no to immediatisms.  This is not a 2008 encyclopedia.  You can put this into 2008 in baseball if you care to. -- Y not be working? 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: And what about the this text which was taken off: (It is not updated, but at least some of it should be put back on the article, IMO: 
"Carlos Peña is the most recent entrant into the top 500 list with his 129th homer on September 26, 2007. Pat Burrell was the most recent player to reach 200 home runs on July 17, 2007; Todd Helton the most recent to 300 on September 16, 2007; and Carlos Delgado the most recent to 400 on August 22, 2006. The most recent player to join the 500 HR club was Jim Thome on September 16, 2007. On June 20, 2007, Sammy Sosa became the most recent player to hit 600 home runs. Barry Bonds is the most recent to reach 700 home runs, on (September 17, 2004).
The youngest player on the list is Miguel Cabrera, 24 years old; the oldest active player is Julio Franco, age 49 (who has been the oldest player in MLB since 2004, and is the oldest regularly playing position player in MLB history).
To make the top 200 (including ties) on the all-time list, a player would need 241 or more home runs, while 192 homers are needed to enter the top 300. To be the 400th best of all-time, a player would need 155. The 500th most prolific career home run hitter, however, has only 25 fewer, at 130. The last change in the cutoff for the top 500 was on September 27, 2007, when Carlos Peña hit his 130th homer and displaced two players from the list."
What do you think? Happy138 (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: ok. I am re-adding this quote: "The last change in the cutoff for the top 500 was on September 27, 2007, when Carlos Peña hit his 130th homer and displaced two players from the list". Happy138 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Year Milestones 

message: royce clayton, todd walker, and david bell are all retired. stop putting them back on the "next players to watch" list. even if royce clayton came back, hes 20 homers away from making the list. hes only hit 24 home runs total since 2003, including just 5 total in the last 3 years. its all meaningless anyways, since he, along with the other 2 mentioned, are retired, according to mlb.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpjoyce10 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  retired players 

message: It seems to me that editing of this page to reflect recent home runs should wait until they are official, generally at the end of the fifth inning.  If there is consensus to this, how best to enforce it? Matchups 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point. If a game is canceled (which in the 2008 season sp far has happened only once) - it can be reverted. Happy138 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official game 

message: Should we have a secondary list of only active players who are on the top 500 list? Just a suggestion.  Juve2000 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Players 

message: Does anyone else think this ought to be semi-protected?  There's no reason to make an edit between now and next baseball season, and the only people doing so have been vandals.  What do you think?  Coemgenus 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am the one who got it protected for a week, earlier this month. Happy138 (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I repeat my 2008 proposal -- when the season ends, this page should be semi-protected.  Coemgenus 15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: The list shows Barry Bonds as retired and Frank Thomas as active.  My impression was that their situations were identical: willing to play if a team signs them, but not currently signed.  Does anyone have more information about their statuses?  Coemgenus 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're both inactive as of now. Jonathansuh (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to 'deactivate' Thomas Bkatcher (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonds and Thomas 

message: How come post season home runs are not counted? SilverWoodchuck47 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: MLB only accumulates home runs hit in the regular season. So we are going with them. Jonathansuh (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but what is the reasoning for not including pot season home runs? I'm curious. Transaction Go (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Season HRs 

message: Do you think we should erase the seasonal home run totals in the parentheses in the active players now that the season is done? Jonathansuh (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say we should leave them until opening day, so people can see the players' most recent season totals.  17:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Season 

message: I believe there's a ranking mistake at Wally Joyner. Can someone please look into it. I might be wrong. -- Toolazy21
: What exactly is the problem? Happy138 (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem?

message: Well think this thing is stupid soo get a life people!!! okay thanks!!!:)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.162.61 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ....Well 

message: It takes up 1.5 KB.  That's fairly sizable.  What is the benefit?  Many of those players won't play again.  I know I might be grazing the borderline of WP:CRYSTAL here, but I think it's WP:CRYSTAL to suggest that someone like José Vidro will play again, and he's the top guy on that list.  At the least, for the sake of cutting down on article size, the cutoff should be raised.  But then again, I don't see why it's necessary, when you can simply add someone to the page when they actually crack the top 500. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We can take those who aren't active. Who do you suggest taking off? Happy138 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely makes no sense to talk about inactive players approaching anything regarding a milestone you would need to be active to achieve.  But again I ask why there's a hidden list at all?  If someone cracks the Top 500, he should be added, but why continually update totals for hitters who aren't in the Top 500 on the page that is a list for only the top 500? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's there for the editors. Happy138 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty general, and as an editor I don't find it useful. I can see keeping notes if a couple of players get close as a reminder, but there are players who are a full season (and in some cases more than a season) away from theoretically cracking the list. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do find it useful, but agree that 108 might be too low. How about 120? Happy138 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally do like the hidden list, but I think we should take out all the inactive guys, like Jose Vidro, Scott Spiezio, Jay Gibbons, and etc. And I agree that 108 is too low. What about the next 20  (including ties) players for the hidden list? Jonathansuh (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out some of the inactive players and the bottom part of the list.  How is that as a compromise? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hidden" list 

message: Who's ever consistently adding an asterisk next to his total, stop.  He is the home run king and the MLB sees all 762 of his home runs as legit; hence why the MLB has not added an asterisk to his name in any shape or form.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albo23 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Futhermore, any edits adding an asterisk to Bonds or anyone else associated with PED's should be considered vandalism, and the editors vandals. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed asterisk from Bonds 

message: I apologize if its clear as day and I simply did not notice the clarification, but there's no mention as to what the numbers in parentheses next to current players means.  Is it all-star selections?  Years leading team in home runs?  Maybe this was accidentally edited out at some point.  If its clear as day, then I apologize 68.125.35.26 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in a hidden comment. You can now see it. I am not sure why it was hidden in the first place. Happy138 (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenthetical Numbers 

message: I commend your work here keeping this and other similar pages up to date and free of errors and vandalism. This does take a good deal of attention and effort. That said, I still hope the AfD I started for this article and the one Stax started for the 2000 hit article are closed as 'delete'. I expect that many others in this category will soon be nominated, and most of them will also be deleted.
This means that many of you who focus on these articles may suddenly have less to do here. I hope that if these pages are closed as deletes, or even if they aren't, you might help WP:Baseball by working on some of our highest profile pages, some of which could use serious improvement. Thank you for your efforts. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have any of the stats articles been deleted yet??? Withouth them, I really don't have much to do on Wikipedia... but, we must follow the guidelines. Sad to think they'll go. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A few have been: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 home runs and 50 doubles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3000–500 club. This and the 2000 hit pages may survive. If they are deleted, you should focus your talents on other baseball pages, like the ones with the most page views. Even if these survive deletion, your help is greatly appreciated at those pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you can do what I did when they deleted several articles I worked very hard on: stop editing, and leave 'em to the wolves. It's a lot easier than working for years on an article, only to see it deleted on a whim. Czolgolz (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Things don't get deleted "on a whim." As you can see by the length of the AfD for this and the 2000 hits page, nothing is being taken lightly. These AfDs, however, are long overdue. We don't want to see good editors be discouraged and disappear. Please stay and help with other established pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article I've worked on for a year gets deleted after a week (or less) of discussion, I consider it a whim. I have over 8,000 edits, but what's the point on working on an 'established' article if it might be deleted next month? Czolgolz (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all the tireless editors of this and other baseball stat pages 

message: I'm sitting here LMAO. There should be no asterisks next to anybody's name unless their record is officially expunged. Otherwise we are making our own judgments as to who did what. As far as Sosa goes, shouldn't we also have an asterisk for those who corked their bat or were there also superballs or was that just a batting practice bat that just got mixed up? And Sosa he couldn't be accused of steroid use, could he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddiem (talk • contribs) 18:41, July 19, 2011
:I removed the unsourced addition of the asterisks.  --Coemgenus (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No asterisk For Sosa? 

message: Should there be some sort of explanation (a footnote or in the text) that there are two players on the list named Frank Thomas? Baseball fans know the difference, but casual readers might be curious as to why the same name appears on the list twice. — Michael J 22:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, curious users can click on the links. That should suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Just asking for opinions. Thanks. — Michael J 03:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Thomas(es) 

message: Why do we hide the list of active players approaching the top 300 list? Since it's there and is being updated along with the rest of the page...why not display it?Juve2000 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Players approaching the top 300 

message: "In February 2009, after previously denying use of performance-enhancing drugs, including during a 2007 interview with Katie Couric on 60 Minutes, Rodriguez admitted to using steroids, saying he used them from 2001 to 2003 when playing for the Texas Rangers due to what he called "an enormous amount of pressure" to perform"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Rodriguez#Steroid_use
Its one thing to say we all think Bonds is using so should have an asterisks, but when one admits to steroids, they should have an asterisks, he did not get those home runs without performance enhancing drugs according to wiki, and even he admits it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.167.71 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex Rodriguez Defintely should have an asterisks 

message: The page has four columns of 75 names, but the fourth (listing the 226th to 300th best home run hitters) is hidden beneath the first list of 75 names. Could this be straightened out by listing the names in columns of 100 each? That way, the top 100 would be in the left column, the next 100 in the middle, and the final 100 at the right.
:That all depends on the formatting of your computer. When I have mine set for large print (sometimes my vision troubles me), the fourth column is under the other three. At normal size, all four are side-by-side.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 12:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of Page 

message: I consider it a drawback that the categories used in 'lists' of notable players are inconsistent. For example, a list like this, of those who are in the top 300 (formerly top 500) of those who hit home runs operates differently from the list of those have hit safely 2000 or more times. No one who makes the list of 2000 or more hits can ever be removed - for all time, a player who has hit safely 2000 or more times has met the requisite standard. But a member at the bottom of a list of the top 300 (or 500) who do anything (home runs, doubles, value of tickets sold to a movie, etc.) ceases to be on that list whenever another entry is added to the list (absent ties, of course). 
So, the makers of these should choose one format or the other: all players who have done something; or the top x number who have done it. And use that format consistently. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.150.74 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of Catagories 

message: Curious as to why Wikipedia wants to change the guideline to editing this page after an entire slate of games for the day has concluded.  Updating it once a home run is official seems to work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.70.176 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because often times the only sources being sourced are ones that would fail WP:Verifiability, there is a "stats updated through" date that needs to be adhered to for the sake of the reader (not the editor), players appear on the list in relation to other players so updating one before another makes the article inaccurate, and because editors were making selective edits (i.e., updating one particular player repeatedly but relying on other editors to update the article from a WP:NPOV). Zepppep (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is going to wait until ALL the day's games are over, and then one editor is going to do ALL the HRs hit by players that day. That's a silly idea, and should be scrapped ASAP. --Katydidit (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP's five pillars and philosophy is more concerned with being correct and verifiable than it is with being first. If editors do not wish to update all players for the article, that is their choice. Inevitably there will be someone who comes around and updates the article in accordance with the aims of the project; this is WP's tried-and-true MO. The way the page had been edited, editing only players who belong to a certain team, whilst other players languish and the accuracy and verifiability of the information is second to someone's preference for a team/player is not consistent with WP's MO. Correcting the article depends on an editor who employs a WP:NPOV and there have simply been too many corrections needed to the article on a daily basis for the old method to to be a long term-way of ensuring accuracy to the article. Zepppep (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, people are not waiting until a home run is official. Often they were watching games and adding home runs as they were hit. This can lead to an (albeit rare) instance where a home run is hit in, say, the first inning, then the game is rained out before it becomes official. That "home run" officially does not exist.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 12:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: Any chance in putting a space in between them like it used to be ?  Makes it easier to read.  Or is this the way it has to  be ? 70.79.51.182 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Columns

message: Traditionally, that section has only listed players within 40 home runs of the cutoff to make the Top 300. It's arbitrary but it makes sense - it's nice to know who's coming up but keeping track of more than a dozen or so players every day who aren't even close to the cutoff is a big hassle. Hence, I think the cutoff should be Brian McCann, who's 40 home runs shy of the cutoff. Otherwise updating the section is a greater hassle than it's worth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyBigWheel (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Players to watch" shouldn't be on the page at all, because the criteria of the page is quite clear. There's no need to even update it in hidden comments, because the stat sites do it plenty well, and the cutoff of where to "watch" is arbitrary. Besides, a person 40 home runs away from this list is at best a full season away from making the list. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the Watch List and the Watch List should include more than just the few guys that are within 40 home runs of making the list. If someone is willing to keep the hidden list up to date then so be it. It doesn't hurt anyone and then each year it makes it easier to keep track of what players are moving up on the list. Redmen44 (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Players To Watch

message: One of the editors of the page does not alphabetize players who have the same home run totals when he or she updates the list.  I go back in and alphabetize them but this duplication of work should be unnecessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.41.10 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we listing the players who have the same home run totals alphabetically? Shouldn't it be listed chronologically? For example, Hack Wilson hit 244 homeruns before Jose Abreu did. Banueloschris (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetizing 

message: Is Alex Rodriguez considered active for the 2014 season, even though he is suspended for the entire season? Perhaps a footnote and/or a different color (red?) denoting this is in order.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's announced his retirement (and I think he did,) we should no longer list him as active, right? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He has not retired, he's a free agent Taffe316 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Rod 

message: Wondering if anyone has an opinion on the picture of Bonds a user added a few days ago? I like it personally and plan to leave it be, but I'm open to suggestions if anyone thinks it should be removed.Taffe316 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonds picture 

message: Nelson Cruz has 34 Rjrsurprise (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017 

message: Nelson Cruz has 34 Rjrsurprise (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017 

message: Why is this list the MLB players who have hit 221 or more home runs? Where did this 221 come from? Why is it not 200+ or 250+ home runs? Natg 19 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I guess the 221 number gives the top 300 HR hitters, but it is still strange and arbitrary to me. This list should use a round number. Natg 19 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 300 is a round number lmao. Do you know what a round number is? Taffe316 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess it is a round number of hitters, but it was strange at first to see that shows "all Major League Baseball players with 221 or more home runs", which seemed arbitrary at first. I would have framed this list around the number of home runs, not a total number of hitters, but what we have is fine. Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for this list 

message: There is an asterisk next to Jeter’s name as if he passed away. It should be removed. 174.111.49.57 (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The asterisk signifies he's been elected to the baseball hall of fame. Bkatcher (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisk next to Jeter 

message: You are missing O'Neill....who hit 288 home runs 24.45.242.12 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: He hit 281 HRs and is in 190th place. (.288 was his batting average). Atbannett (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul O'Neill

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress