Template talk:Baltimore Orioles owners

The Jerold Hoffberger entry still contains various inaccuracies and needs to be fixed. I strongly recommend that you read The Baseball Business by James Edward Miller. This book is a detailed history & analysis of the business operations for both the Baltimore Orioles and Major League Baseball. It states that despite being investors from the start, Hoffberger and his National Brewing Co. didn't become the team's biggest shareholder until 1965. Clarence Miles was in total charge in the ballclub's first two seasons. He was succeeded by James Keelty Jr. as president and Joseph Iglehart as chairman of the board. Lee MacPhail later succeeded Keelty. It was actually Iglehart who had the franchise's largest stake before 1965. I definitely would like to know what's the proof backing up your argument.

As for style points, don't you think multiple mentions of one name is redundant and visually awkward?The Ink Daddy! (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubting the existence of the book I mentioned above? Read this, and this.The Ink Daddy! (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources that haven't been used in the applicable article or referring to edits that have not yet occurred is all well and good, but until they exist, they are not something to be relied upon. No reiable source has been cited in an article to back up your assertion. I'm not saying what you are saying is false. I'm just saying that the navboxes are merely a reflection of wikipedia content and a way to navigate to that content. My position has nothing to do with whether or not I read "The Baseball Business". Also, please look at the Orioles individual season pages (1955 Baltimore Orioles season, for example), which list Hoffberger as a co-owner with Miles, Keelty & Inlehart for each relevant article. You may want to reach out to the applicable editors or creator of those pages to see why they chose to do that. Regarding yor second point (which, logically, should be moot if your first point is correct, so I don't know why you brought it up), WP really isn't about style points. The primary purpose of navboxes are not aesthetics, it's it is to help categorize and provide relevant links. It is hardly uncommon for WP navboxes to have multiple links to the same page in order accurately reflect a chonology or whatever it is the navbox is presenting. For example, just within baseball navboxes, the following are three of many navboxes that repeat links: Template:New York Yankees managers (Billy Matin is listed 5 times), Template:Los Angeles Dodgers owners, and Template:New York Yankees owners. There are just a few examples. Regardless, "style points" are a minor consideration, if any consideration at all. The editors who have seen and edited those navboxes have not had the same "style" issue, because there really isn't one. I'm not trying to be disagreeable, just trying to illustrate my position. I won't revert the edits immediately, because I would like to come to an agreement if possible. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style points are NEVER just a minor consideration! My belief is that the presentation of entries should be treated like published books or other printed publications. They should appear as professional as possible. The New York Yankees managers template SHOULD be cleaned up. I strongly feel that this goes hand-in-hand with how much one really cares about Wikipedia or the materials that go into it. DETAILS, MY FRIEND! DETAILS!The Ink Daddy! (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that you are shifting you argument now from the original. We've gone from content to presentation, and you never addressed the content argument. I may have to correct myself in saying style has no bearing, but the chonology on display in the Yankee manager template far outweighs any singular desire to have Martin only listed once. You contradict yourself by saying that one must pay attention to detail, but under your definition, that means removing content and ignoring the chronology that these navboxes are demonstrating. That seems more like making arbitrary, aesthetic decisions instead of ones based on the content and the actual subject matter. If you think this is an issue, please bring it up in the Baseball Wikiproject in order to get other opinions on the matter. Also, stating that someone does not "care about Wikipedia or the materials that go into it" because they disagree with your position is not a way to win people over. Again, in hopes of coming to some sort of agreement, I will wait to revert the edit. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]