Template talk:Infobox MLB player/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikilink - bats = switch

If the "bats" parameter is "Switch", does anyone think that should be a wikilink?

We'd replace:

• {{{bats}}}
• with
• {{#ifeq:{{{bats|}}}|Switch|[[Switch hitter|Switch]]|{{{bats|}}}}}

I'm not sure this is needed, but it seems like it might be nice. Others' opinions??? Timneu22 (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

College

{{editprotected}} Please add an optional parameter for the college/university in which the player played his college career. Something along the line of:

{{#if:| College [[{{{college}}}]]

The key is making it an optional parameter and not a required one, via #if . Don't forget to add it to the doc too. Thanks. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs at all. If we don't include minor league info - why should college info be included? Draft information isn't even included. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no way this information should be included. It's just not relevant. Timneu22 (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we not include this info in NFL templates? Yes we do, and it should be in this template as well. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Every NFL payer goes to college. Most MLB players do not. Where a player went to college is not emphasized much in baseball - its made much more significant in football (and basketball). Can't compare them. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with RandomGuy again. In the NBA and NFL, you hear things like "from North Carolina, Michael Jordan!" It's a part of those sports. In the MLB, no one cares where you're from; they only care if you perform. Really: from Oakland Tech High School, Rickey Henderson! This is not relevant. Timneu22 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Oakland Tech High School is not relevant. Oakland Tech UNIVERSITY is relevant. Also saying "most MLB players" do not go to college (I doubt the claim of "most") is why this new parameter would be OPTIONAL. If you don't want to use it in the infobox, you wouldn't have to. I'm not sure if you all missed me saying OPTIONAL PARAMETER in my edit request. Therefore, since it will be an optional field, and since College is very relevant to some players careers, it should be included. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if you include college you should include minor league info, so I think this is will leave a career gap on infoboxes and is not necessary. Borgarde (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So why not add an OPTIONAL PARAMETER for minor league info too? I mean, these parameters aren't meant to be all encompassing.. just showing College: SoAndSo University and even Minors: SoAndSo Wikiwhats; BlahBlah Raiders isn't going to bloat or kill the template and I do believe that the college a player attended, as well as a minor league they played for is most definitely relevant. Like I said, these would be OPTIONAL parameters. So there's really no reason they shouldn't be coded into the template. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 06:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say to bring the discussion towards WT:BASEBALL where there has been a lot of discussion about what you are asking for in the past, which has been met with opposition. There would need to be consensus for a change like this to be implemented. Borgarde (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think a consensus is needed for coding of optional parameters into a template since, well, it's optional parameters and can either be used or not used - as in it's not content being forced on anyone where as articles will always have a losing side when it comes to consensus. WP:OWN should also cover it as well when it comes to discussing it at any particular Wikiproject, but I'm not getting into all of that. ;] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What I am informing you is that this has been discussed before and has been met with opposition. It has nothing to do with an optional parameter but with the content that is being put in the infobox. Borgarde (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This absolutely needs to be added. If you watch any College World Series games, you'll see how many times famous players from each colleges are mentioned. Do a search for Roger Clemens +longhorn or Huston Street +longhorn and you'll find tons of coverage linking the player back to the University. College is different from a minor league team in that you cant be "called up" or get traded (although transfer is possible, but doesnt happen very often) and the player has to stay there till at least he's 3 years past his 18th birthday. Speaking just for the Univ of Texas, most of the alumns in the MLB routinely come back every spring to play in the annual alumni game on campus and stay involved in other ways. I'd add this field, but it's protected and I'm not an admin. Corpx (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I must continue to disagree with this. You're speaking for the Univ of Texas — well congrats, that is an elite college team so it may seem like the information is worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Most colleges, however, do not have a loyal baseball following and do not produce major league players; conversely, a huge percentage of players do not come from a college at all. Again, "from North Carolina, Michael Jordan!" was heard many years after Jordan was in the NBA, but in baseball culture it is never mentioned. I imagine that a player who goes right from college to the majors (Jim Abbott) will have his college mentioned for his first two starts in the MLB; after that (and for any other player), no one cares. Timneu22 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It only makes sense to include the college a MLB player played for... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. First, college baseball doesn't have nearly the visibility of college football or basketball. Second, very few players go directly from college to the major leagues, often making their college performance a distant memory by the time a player is notable enough to have an article. Third, again unlike football or basketball, a large number (if not the majority) of MLB players did not even go to college. Fourth, even among those players who did attend college, a large number of them did not have careers that were notable in any way. Fifth, for anybody before the institution of the draft, educational information is often not even known, or if it is it may not even have anything to do with their baseball career -- many players who attended college did not play baseball while there, instead playing with semi-pro teams during the summer months).

Infoboxes are for relevant information only. Unlike other sports, the college career of a particular player is, more often than not, irrelevant to their major league career. Mentioning where a player attended college within the article is fine, but it has absolutely no place in an infobox. You'll note that minor league teams are not listed in the infobox either. Such information is even more relevant to a baseball player's career, but there is definite consensus that it has no place in the infobox. College is less relevant, therefore it belongs even less, q.e.d. -Dewelar (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If the college parameter is made optional, whether or not they went to MLB after college or not is a moot point. If they didn't, then don't include the optional college parameter. That's no reason to deny players that did go to college. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 23:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then. Give me some arguments regarding why where a player attended college is more important to that player's article than his minor league career. Before I'd be willing to support this change, that is the first of several hurdles you must clear. -Dewelar (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MLB.com lists the college that the the player attended and does not list any minor league info. Yahoo does this as well, as does baseball reference. So, if they find it worthy to mention the college, why cant we? Corpx (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And there you go, even more reason to include a college parameter but to satisfy those players that didn't attend college, make it an optional parameter. No harm, no "foul". Many a professional baseball player were stars during their college days and it's only fitting that the option at least be built into the template. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We include the information as well -- in the article text. This is not about whether or not to include the information itself in player articles. This is about whether or not it belongs in the infobox, which has a higher standard. -Dewelar (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the infobox on wikipedia held to a higher standard than the bio box at MLB.com/Yahoo/ESPN/CBS? If those outlets deem college important enough to be mentioned in the bio box, then it is important enough for WP Corpx (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Their player pages are not also articles about the players. The bios are stored elsewhere (or not at all). They have no other place to list that information on their player pages. We do. -Dewelar (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The purpose of the infobox is to give a reader all the vital information at a quick glance. The same purpose is served by the bio boxes at the above websites. Everything in the bio box on the media sites is present in the infobox here, except the college information. The prior argument was that college was not important enough, but that has been disproved by its visibility on major media sites. Corpx (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Those media sites also all list height and weight, which are not in our infoboxes (and, indeed, are generally considered superfluous information in our articles in general). BR and Yahoo list draft year, which is also not listed in our infoboxes. ESPN and CBS list salary, which has been considered generally nonessential to be included in our articles. We, on the other hand, include several fields that are not on every one of those sites as well. All you have proven is that we have different priorities than news sites (and, of course, we are not a news site) and stat sites (and, of course, we are not a stats site either). You need to tell us why these are important, not just tell us that "other people think these things are important, therefore they are." -Dewelar (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you on the height/weight, but that's another issue that we can discuss later. As I've already stated, most of the players that go to college maintain connections to the university long after the draft (whether its mentoring younger players or just showing up at alumni games), so their alma mater is obviously very relevant to them. You can search google news for a player name +school and there'll be tons of articles referencing a player's college. Randy Johnson has been in the league 20+ years, yet there are lots of references (in just the articles from the last month)to his playing days at USC. Corpx (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh USC, yet another baseball powerhouse - one of a handful. There is no way you can prove that these players "maintain connections to the university". Also, I would guess that many former college players went to D-II or D-III schools and were happy to leave them. You can't prove that either. Most players simply don't come from colleges and it is just NOT a part of baseball culture. Why won't you acknowledge that in the NBA and NFL, the colleges are mentioned 20 years into a player's career, but in baseball it is never mentioned. My gosh, a huge percentage of players come from Latin America or elsewhere around the globe... it would probably be more relevant to add a "country" parameter than a college parameter. In the NFL and NBA, college is essentially the proving ground where players get noticed. This is simply not the way baseball works. Some MLB players follow an NFL-like path, but very few. Timneu22 (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another, perhaps irrelevant, bit of information. I've been closely following baseball for over 30 years. I could not tell you what college any current MLB player has attended without looking it up, not even members of the Twins, whom I watch every night on TV. For past players, I vaguely know that Lou Gehrig went to Columbia. That's about it. On the other hand, I only minimally follow basketball (don't ask me about football), but I could probably tell you where several dozen NBA players went to college. Like I said, might be meaningless, but others here might consider it telling. -Dewelar (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be considered Original Research. Just because you can't recall the colleges doesn't mean others can't. With everything that's been said so far, there still hasn't been a reason presented that should not allow the use of an optional college parameter in this template. In fact, Corpx has pointed out 3 notable web sites which use such a parameter. He's presented, if anything, the reason why this template should have the option. If it's coded in to be optional, those that don't want to use it, won't have to.. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest, then, that you do not understand the concept of an infobox (or, indeed, if you don't realize that our goals here are much different than the sites mentioned, the concept of Wikipedia itself). It's not up to us to prove something doesn't belong. It's up to you to prove it does. Why must it be allowed in the infobox, as opposed to simply being mentioned in the article? -Dewelar (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that User:Allstarecho requested that this page is unprotected, probably so he can just make the change without a concensus. Timneu22 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that any changes made will be reverted anyway. Until this is discussed at the project's talk page, any changes that get made unilaterally will not exactly be welcomed with open arms. -Dewelar (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Timneu is apparently paranoid. If I was going to make the addition, I would have already done so. As to the project.. they don't own anything, including this template. I know that will come off as smartassness but I'm just saying, we can come to a consensus here, there or Rfc but it's not up to the project itself to decide. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

True. However, there is also the matter of practicality. The vast majority of people who use the template are members of the project. If they don't want something in the template, it's unlikely that it will be included. They may not own it, but they maintain it. -Dewelar (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The page has been protected again. In use on 7,000 pages; it should not have been unprotected. Timneu22 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already notified the WP:BASEBALL about this discussion, so they're welcome to jump in here if they wish. Back on topic, Dewelar, you say that you dont know the college of any Twins players. I watch the Astros and the Rangers mostly and I probably know where 75% of them went to college. Here is an article from MLB.com talking to players about their favorite memories in college. "In fact, there are several who never seem to let go of their collegiate days, no matter how far removed from them they are. "...."Just ask Giants outfielder Aaron Rowand, who has a tattoo representing his treasured days of playing for Cal State Fullerton (1996-98) on his ankle. ". So, the media cares, the players themselves care, yet we're this information is not added because some wikipedia editors dont care about college? Corpx (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you "notified" them, but I went ahead and posted a note to the project talk page inviting any interested parties to come over here and join the discussion. -Dewelar (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We're getting way off track regarding the issue. It's apparent that some editors think that, just because something isn't in the infobox of an article, that it is somehow not being included. There are some pieces of information which, while important enough to be included in the article, are not necessarily important enough to be included in the infobox. Timneu and I have raised a few points regarding why college is not important, but the only points raised by those supporting the opposing POV thus far amounts to "well, other sites do it" and a few anecdotes. So, I will ask again: why is where a player attended college more important than a player's height, weight, and minor league history, such that it belongs in the infobox when it has already been decided by consensus that those other pieces of information don't? Further, I will ask: what is it that prevents a player's college from being listed in, for instance, the Career highlights field, if it is notable enough for inclusion in the infobox? These are questions that must be answered, because if they are not answered, then the answer can be assumed to be "they aren't" and "nothing", respectively. -Dewelar (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, that whole POV of your own seems moot by the fact that the parameter would be coded in as optional. If you don't want to use it, you won't be forced to. The questions you aske above could also be asked reversely: Why is a player's place of college not important? Why is a baseball player's college less important than a football player's college for which we do include such info in their userboxes? I mean, there's just simply no valid or reasonable argument for keeping out information that is optional-to-include in the infobox in the first place. None. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Those questions could be asked reversely, yes, but they would have absolutely no bearing, because that's not the standard for inclusion in an infobox. I assume you'd support a field that optionally lists, say, a player's shoe size, right? I mean, as you say, there's no valid or reasonable argument for keeping out that information. -Dewelar (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is a baseball player's college less important than a football player's college for which we do include such info in their userboxes? Because it is part of the culture. As I mentioned a number of times... from North Carolina, Michael Jordan is part of the NBA and NFL. You never EVER hear something similar in MLB. Timneu22 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've heard a baseball player's college talked about or mentioned many a game. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Heresay. Because players aren't introduced like that, as in other sports, you know it just is not part of the culture. Timneu22 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Against: Many are drafted and sign out of high school, others are international free agents. Many of those who play in college play for small schools with little to no reputation. Minor league teams are more important than college teams. We should keep the content of these infoboxes to a minimum. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

I don't understand the resistance that this is receiving... If you look at http://www.baseball-reference.com/, http://www.thebaseballcube.com/, or any other reference work (online or off), the college that the player attended is included there (if the player attended college). The information on what players attended what college is easily (and freely) available though the Lahman database.
I'm left wondering, where is this resistance coming from, really? I don't get it. Does this issue really need consensus? Just add the field, and it'll be shown for players that have it, and not shown for players that don't. What's the problem with that?
Ω (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I've been saying.. as an optional parameter, no one will be forced to use it so there's really no justifiable reason not to at least allow the paramter. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

*head* *hit* *desk* OK, once more:

1) What other sites do has no bearing on what we do

2) Every single one of the other sites is nothing more than a stat page. Our player pages have entire bios, which should include the information that we're discussing. Thus, there's no reason to have it in the infobox as well.

3) Your argument a few paragraphs up works just as well for a player's shoe size, an issue which you refuse to address. This is a reason, and has been justified.

4) Several other important concerns, mentioned above, which you also refuse to address. These were all reasons, which have been justified.

At this point, I'm beginning to think that you have no intention of actually having a discussion about this, but that instead you just want to yammer long enough and squeaky-wheely enough to get your grease. I've given you several opportunities to meet the bar for adding this to the infobox, but all you ever do is say some variation of things that, while applicable to an article, are not applicable to an infobox. Start discussing instead of just spouting your talking points, and then maybe you'll find that the resistance might give a little. Your current tack, however, will produce nothing but resentment. -Dewelar (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And similarly, I've given you several opportunities to meet the bar for not adding this to the infobox and so far, every reply you've given still doesn't address the issue of why something that is optional, can't or shouldn't be included for use. When web sites far more notable than Wikipedia include a player's college, and when we include a player's college in other sports infoboxes, there's just simply no valid or reasonable (yet presented anyway) argument for not allowing it in the baseball infobox, at least as an option. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

...If you're hitting your head on your desk over this then maybe you're taking it a bit too personally?

Regardless, I think that I can refute the points that you're bringing up here.

• "What other sites do has no bearing on what we do" is a valid point when we're actually talking about content. This subject is more about statistics which, as I'm sure you are aware, is considered to be a very serious subject within the "Baseball world". By specifically excluding the college that a player has attended (if any) you're making a non-WP:NPOV WP:POINT by insisting that Wikipedia should be different from the established standard.
• You're right that the player's bios should include the college that the player attended, but that's neither here nor there. Based on that argument, you could remove... well, pretty much everything from the infobox. I don't see how the fact that a piece of information can be or even should be in the prose of an article is relevant to it's inclusion within an infobox. Infoboxes are not supposed to replace prose at all, they simply supplement the information which is supposed to be available in the article anyway.
• Where in the world is "a player's shoe size" coming from? You're the only person who has mentioned that. Do you seriously expect someone, anyone, to come along in the future and suggest adding shoe sizes? All that you're doing here is offering a ridiculous Slippery slope argument. The point really doesn't deserve to be addressed since it's a fallacious argument but, since you're bringing it up again, this is basically the answer.
• As basically an outsider here (I didn't see this discussion until just prior to posting the above), from my perspective it seems as though the last point is more descriptive of your own behavior then anyone eases... My apologies for being blunt, but you get what you give.

Ω (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see someone finally come in and make an attempt to discuss this, although I still don't see any reasoning for why college is important enough to have in the infobox and not just in the article. You are correct that I've probably gotten a bit too invested in this, but the idea here is that I want to know if Corpx and Echo (and now you) actually have a reason for this being in the infobox. "Optional" doesn't mean what you folks think it means here -- it means that it only displays when it's filled in, but if it is filled in, it will display. It's expected that, if one knows the information, that it will be filled in.

Now, to address your responses to me.

• This point has already been made for several other things that are found on all those pages as well, most obviously height and weight, but also things like salary. Those have all been left off the infobox (and, in the case of salary, determined by consensus to be irrelevant to the article itself in most cases). This argument, thus, has been already discarded by the community at large.
• This is incorrect. An infobox is supposed to give you, at a glance, a brief summary of the important information about the subject of the article. The judgment that must be made is the importance of college to a major league player, and quite frankly it's not very important, as detailed ad nauseum above.
• The "shoe size" comment was a direct response to this statement by Echo: "I mean, there's just simply no valid or reasonable argument for keeping out information that is optional-to-include in the infobox in the first place. None." All I did was take that at face value. No slippery slope needed.
• If you want me to back up a particular argument in more depth than I already have done, let me know. Right now, I'm still waiting for someone to present an actual argument in favor of this proposal that isn't "well, other sites do it". Until they do, I have no real idea why they're in favor of this other than to make sure we look like every other site out there -- sites whose goals and priorities do not match ours.

Hopefully this clarifies things. -Dewelar (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#General_advice, the key questions are how important is the proposed field, how many articles will it be relevant for, and how many articles can actually use it (i.e. there will be a non-empty value for it). Looking at a slightly different perspective: the division between drafting college and non-college graduates has been studied by teams and sabermetricians (for instance, Baseball Prospectus did a series a few years ago on the draft, and as part of it, studied questions on college vs. non-college draft picks). So I believe knowing if a player did play at a college level at all before playing professionally does have a certain importance in summing up the characteristics and career of a player. True or not, I think minor league teams are perceived as more generic in their player development role than college, so identifying the minor league teams may be less relevant than the college.

Regarding height and weight, that too is being studied and used as factors to project the careers of players — though as far as I know, there haven't been any published solid conclusions yet on how much importance should be given to these stats. In addition, reliable information is hard to come by: the numbers released by the teams are notoriously inaccurate. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in this study, Isaac. I can certainly see that there might be a correlation between attending college and professional success, and an even higher one between attending an elite program and success, but that does not necessarily imply causation. After all, the players who play in college are already on average better prospects than those who do not, and even moreso for colleges that are considered elite, therefore you have an inherent selection bias. -Dewelar (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles were written by Rany Jazayerli; search for "draft" and look for the articles titled "Doctoring The Numbers - The Draft". I believe the articles are accessible to the general public. Here is a search query that works for now. There's lots of good stuff in the series on many aspects of the draft.

I believe one counterbalancing force to selection bias is that since the vast majority of baseball players are expected to go through a development phase in the minor leagues in any case, elite prospects are often signed out of high school (get them signed before other teams can). High school athletes were perhaps overdrafted in the past; at the time of the study in 2005, the tables had turned, and in fact Rany found that college players may be slightly overdrafted now. So it would seem that selection bias is not an extreme factor at the moment. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I remember that series. Was that on the Baseball Prospectus site, or was it in the Rany on the Royals column? -Dewelar (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Expanding a bit further: basically I don't believe it can just be assumed that college baseball players are inherently better prospects. Unlike football, a stint in college ball isn't necessary for developing baseball skills, thanks to the farm teams (though it may help with being able to deal mentally with the grind of professional baseball, one of the factors that GM offices take into consideration with prospects). All other things being equal (which of course is never the case), the earlier a player makes the majors, the more years the player can get in before reaching his peak and subsequent decline phase. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mean what you're saying here. I mean that, upon graduating high school, the players who are better prospects are the ones who generally get invited to play college ball rather than entering the draft directly. Obviously, the true outliers (i.e., those who are great enough in high school to be automatic picks like A-Rod or Junior Griffey) turn professional anyway, but here I'm talking about your typical major leaguer. -Dewelar (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I understood you to mean. I was under the impression though, given the numbers of people drafted out of high school (not just players of the calibre of Alex Rodriguez or Ken Griffey, Jr.) that there are quite a few people choosing to forgo college for the immediate pro career, and so the average quality of a college draft pick isn't necessarily better than a high school pick. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and you may in fact be correct. Since I haven't yet (re)read the articles, I'm not sure exactly what level of effect we're discussing here.

However, Ohm does make a point that we should keep this on topic. For all concerned, I would think that the field you want isn't "college" but rather "signed/drafted from:" or some such. Then, rather than just listing what college they attended, it would also include what high school or, in the case of international signings, country. Am I on the right track there? That might be a more acceptable addition to the infobox, but I'm still not sure it rises to that level.

Let's stay on point. The discussion here is about including college as a field in the InfoBox. We're attempting to build a consensus towards including or excluding the field, as far as I know. For my own part, I find the arguments offered regarding keeping it out utterly unconvincing so far. However, as I stated above, I support including it so it's possible that I'm allowing my desire to cloud my judgment here.

Regardless, my main concern is that by specifically excluding a college field (as well as height adn weight for that matter, but that's an expanded discussion) that we're doing something fundamentally different from the rest of the encyclopedic world. The only reason that I see to justify that difference is "What other sites do has no bearing on what we do", which is not only a thoroughly unconvincing argument but might even be construed as a form of WP:OR.

In summary, College is biographical data that is included in every written and online baseball statistical publication that I'm aware of. It seems extraordinary to me that Wikipedia does not include it, and yet rather then seeing extraordinary arguments supporting that position what I read seems to be nothing more then WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Ω (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was on point by providing a reason of how the college information may be important enough to put in the infobox. Doing something "different from the rest of the encyclopedic world" isn't a compelling argument in this case, because the information is indeed being included — the debate is whether or not it is of significant importance, based on the specific guidelines for Wikipedia, to be placed within the infobox. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are the only one on point on that side of the discussion, Isaac. Others take note: we are not talking about excluding it from the article. We are talking about not including it in a template within an article, for which there are different guidelines. -Dewelar (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It has been stated before that those other sites are primarly stat sites. On WP we have a little more flexibility. Include the info in the article, for sure, but not in the infobox. Timneu22 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wierd. I completely disagree with all three of you... I don't understand where any of you are coming from at all, to be honest. (ps.: to Timneu22 point above, college, like handedness, birth/death dates, etc... is really biographical data. It's not statistical data in the sense of batting average, so your argument isn't really valid here. Besides, the whole basis of that argument is destroyed by the fact that pure statistical listing fields are currently included in the infobox) Ω (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand where any of you are coming from at all, to be honest. Well, then, that's the problem right there in a nutshell. I'll try and shift my discussion to address this, as I now fear we've entirely devolved to talking past each other. My apologies for making the assumption that you understood certain things that you didn't.

Let's get to the crux of it. The biggest argument in favor of putting these in the infobox is that this information is present generally when a player's information is presented, followed by a bunch of examples. OK, great. So, the information is in the article. We've already given it the level of inclusion it merits based on this argument.

However, by further asking that the information should be included in the infobox, what you're now asking is that this specific information be given special treatment. You're asking that it be treated differently than minor league data, or than salary information, or than, say, the number of doubles a batter hit in his career, which appears in a few infoboxes where that is a pertinent fact about the player. That requires a different level of support than what you're presenting. You need to be arguing, not why the information should be generally included, but why it needs to be given priority within the article. Metaphorically, the bar is set at 6 feet, while you're still jumping over a 5-foot bar and thinking that's good enough.

There may very well be valid arguments to be made. Isaac made one that might be convincing to some. I have even conceded that I might be less inclined to argue were it presented differently. The problem is that most of the argumentation going on isn't aimed properly.

Does that make a little more sense? -Dewelar (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a bit clearer.

I guess that part of the problem here is that including college as a field seems to be a "common sense" and/or "self evident" issue, to me. Every reference work that I'm aware of, from Total Baseball to the The Baseball Encyclopedia, to br.com and the like all include it. It seems to me that in general the "baseball world" seems to think that it's important enough, so I'm left wondering what makes Wikipedia different? The college that a player attended is just different from minor league statistical data or salary data because... well, because. I think that arguing that it's the same is an extraordinary argument, from my view point.

it sounds like the only real argument against it boils down to "it's not needed" and/or "it's already included". The problem with those arguments is that 1) obviously, some people disagree. 2) you could make an argument re: the info already being in the article about anything. 3) other biographical infoboxes include college info. 4) 'All other sports related infoboxes include college as a field (as far as I know). Therefore, again, the arguments against make this infobox/Wikipedia different from the established norm, which is not the way that it should be...

Ω (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ps.: While we're talking about these things, I think that all of the statistical fields ought to be removed from the infobox. It doesn't really fit. What is in the infobox should be limited to biographical data. Ω (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

what makes Wikipedia different? I suggest you have a read of What Wikipedia is not. As I said above, we're not a news site, and we're not a stats site, and we're not a paper encyclopedia. All those things you mentioned above fall into those categories.

it sounds like the only real argument against it boils down to "it's not needed" and/or "it's already included". Actually, the argument is "it's not important enough to be given a special place over and above being included. Yes, of course, YMMV.

As to your postscript: if, as you say, it's just supposed to be biography information, why bother with a separate MLB player infobox at all? We already have Template:Infobox person. However, that's not the infobox's purpose. The infobox is supposed to be an "article at a glance" kind of thing. If someone is looking for a quick bit of information about a baseball player, I think we can probably agree that they are probably looking for baseball-related information. More specifically, if they are on an article about an MLB player, they are looking for MLB-related information. To that end, what college he attended is unnecessary, although might arguably be more significant than, say, his birthplace (which was recently added to the infobox). That's why minor league information isn't included, and it's also why college information isn't included. The stats, especially the big three each for batters and pitchers, are nearly a requirement. -Dewelar (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

...I guess. I give up, you "win". Ω (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what they want you to do.. beat you down until you give up. Your points are valid and common sense. Stick to them. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is that you and I (among others) are the ones asking for something to be done. if it could be done then I'm sure that someone would have already and this wouldn't even be a topic... The real problem here is that Dewelar simply has to stick with his points and nothing happens. It's a pointless mockery of debate, since there's the other side really just has to do nothing... Ω (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you really want this change, then you need to actually propose it. The place for that is not here. Go over to the baseball project talk page, start the discussion, and see if people agree with you. If consensus is that the page should be changed, then I will stop arguing against it and that will be the end of it. On the other hand, if consensus is that it should NOT be changed, then you will need to let it drop.

My opinion is no more important than yours. I just want to make sure you understand my opinion, and why I hold it. I'm not convinced that you do, but I am convinced that you are tired of hearing me talk about it :) . -04:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really tired of talking about it (even with you! ;)), it's just that I realized that there's no point. It's been editprotected, and in order for there to be a change the admin that comes here to unprotect it would need to see you, Timneu22, and whoever else say that it's OK. You guys will obviously never do that, so the whole conversation is moot...

I don't see how forking the conversation to a different page will be helpful or change anything, either. There's a notice on the the baseball project talk page already. I suppose that mixing up the conversation in multiple places could cause some confusion about whether or not there is consensus, but that hardly seems constructive.

Ω (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

in order for there to be a change the admin that comes here to unprotect it would need to see you, Timneu22, and whoever else say that it's OK. You guys will obviously never do that, so the whole conversation is moot... This is patently not true. I'm not sure why you think it is. The admin is going to listen to the arguments on both sides and make a decision based on consensus - which doesn't mean that everyone has to agree (follow the link). Whether or not the dissenters are "OK" with it is pretty much immaterial.

I do agree that "forking" the discussion would not be a good idea. I meant that the discussion is taking place in entirely the wrong place to begin with. -Dewelar (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to discuss changes to this infobox on its discussion page. It is of course good to solicit broader input to achieve a more extensive consensus, as was belatedly done in this case. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate, perhaps, but template talk, like category talk, is not a place that is widely monitored. In any case, it does seem that, at best, there is a lack of consensus to make the change, at least as presented. If this were a vote, we'd have four in favor (you, Ohm, Echo, and Corpx) and 4 (or 5) against (me, Timneu, JSRG32, Muboshgu and maybe Borgarde). -Dewelar (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ω, when you said you disagree with me, can you clarify if you disagree with the arguments I gave for including a player's college in the infobox, and for why this is more important than listing a player's minor league teams?

Dewelar, I think that the college information in itself is notable as a formative portion of the player's career (and a consequential piece of information in evaluating a player), even if they played a year of independent ball afterwards and was signed then. So while I do like the idea of a "Signed from" field (not sure if that is the best name for the field, but that's a detail that could be worked on), it isn't a pure superset of a college field, and so wouldn't replace it. Isaac Lin (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...that's true, to an extent, although the cases in which the two are not equivalent would be a small percentage of the total. I don't think having both fields would be useful. Also, what would we do with someone like J. D. Drew, who played for an independent team after being drafted, but while his rights were still retained by the Phillies? These would be the things that would have to be discussed should a decision ever be made to add the field. -Dewelar (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

J. D. Drew was re-drafted and signed after playing for the independent team, so that would be the "signed from" source. His college remains the same. Between the two, I am thinking that the college would be the more useful field to have. Again, true or not, a player's stint with an independent team is typically considered to be relatively generic. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. However, I still think it would be more useful to have a field that catches whether the player was developed in college, high school, or, say, the Dominican Republic. Where I get stuck is what to call it. -Dewelar (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll/RfC

Perhaps it would be helpful to have a straw poll on this at WP:Baseball just to get a general sense of where people are on this issue. I'm pretty ambivilant about this whole debate, but I'd like to see other opinions. Despite the lengthy debate here, it really has only showed the strongly-held opinions of 4 or 5 editors. As a guideline, in order to avoid fractuing the debate, we just ask that editors not make umpteen amount of comments after each voteof the straw poll, or just ask for votes with no coment (and direct further debate here). Just a thought... thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Or just open an Rfc here where it should be and avoid the WP:OWN issue. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The other issue here is that this section/debate is basically a wall of text now. Someone who knows how could archive it once we start a poll or RfC at WP:Baseball (or wherever).
— Ω (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to this. By the way, I found one of the places where this was discussed at the project talk page -- here -- which appears to cover both college and minor league inclusion. -Dewelar (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If this discussion comes up again, this is worth noting: only 26 players have degrees from a four-year school. This means it's just silly to consider adding a college parameter. Timneu22 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Positionplain

Can someone tell me the purpose of this field? It isn't explained in the documentation. -Dewelar (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Leftover from the template merging - has no purpose anymore since the position field no longer autolinks. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

so... remove it?
Ω (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that it is incredibly difficult — even for a bot — to determine if a parameter is being used on a template. Unlike the joys of .NET programming, it's just not easy to do a "find all references" for an infobox parameter. If someone can figure with certainty that the parameter isn't in use, by all means, remove it! Timneu22 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's no longer needed, but it is probably still in use. I'm sure a bot could fix that, if anyone really cared to set that up. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Auto-inclusion into Hall of Fame category

There is a category, Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees, that I think should automatically include players in the hall of fame. I'm not sure why this hasn't already been done. I think this seems appropriate to add to the page:

{{#if:{{{hofvote|}}}|[[Category:National Baseball Hall of Fame inductees]]|}}

Any comments? Timneu22 (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox edits

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync with the sandbox for minor cleanup of the template code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-enabling, minor fix in sandbox to stop the hall of fame stars from wrapping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This infobox looks terrible, it is way too small and hard to read, you have to discuss with WP:Baseball before making an edit like this. So can someone please revert the edit until a propper discussion is discussed.--Yankees10 15:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, please undo this change ASAP. Borgarde (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed styling gives precisely the same font metrics as are used on the vast majority of Wikipedia's infoboxes, including those of almost every other type of sportsperson. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but discussion of this change might have allowed us to tweak it so that, when the style was applied, it didn't look quite so...squashed. Some examples of existing pages would have been appreciated. -Dewelar (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gosh no, I just reverted this change on the NFL infoboxes. A change that makes the infobox smaller than a disclaimer on a commerical makes no sense. This change must be discussed before occuring.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not "smaller than a commercial": it's exactly the same size as that used on almost every {{infobox}}-based template on the project, which at this point is hundreds of thousands of well-travelled pages. What it is is slightly smaller than some editors are used to, which is an unavoidable fallout due to human resistance to change. The {{infobox}} default metrics were carefully chosen to be usable in a wide variety of cases, and are perfectly usable here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The infobox was fine as it was, there's no need to make it smaller.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is "no need" to arbitrarily deviate from the styling used in the majority of the rest of the infoboxes used on sportsperson biographies on the WikiProject. Moving to those metrics makes it easier to transition this template to use the massively easier to maintain {{infobox}} in future. That's a compelling argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But this is the agreed upon infobox! There's no need to deviate from consensus on an infobox just because some other infoboxes are small.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can point me to a previous discussion on the template metrics then I'd be happy to read it. That something was as it was does not imply that it was discussed, which is rather a requirement of consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris your version made the infobox looked so cramped it just was not needed. If you want to change the width of the box the layout needs to be changed because the current layout does not work with a smaller width, as we have seen by your edits to this. Also if you are going to change this again please post a message at least on this page BEFORE requesting the change, as you can see it caused a bit of an uproar as there are a lot of people passionate about this infobox. Borgarde (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The changes to the layout were minimal. If there had been constructive commentary on how to adjust the layout then it could have been done quickly, but instead we got "uproar". I don't consider that to have been all my fault. I'll continue to work on this in the sandbox for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How about, before you "continue to work", you come visit the baseball project talk page and start a discussion regarding whether any change is required or even desired? There's an ongoing discussion right now on that very topic. -Dewelar (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent)This change also went against the the guideline of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes) which states there was NOTHING wrong with the width of the infobox at 25em. There is NOTHING in the MOS that says infoboxes need to all be the exact same styling. Please, undo this change because it looks horrible, then we can have some discussion on how to improve it before applying the change. Borgarde (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Pending further discussion on this topic, can we now get this re-protected? -Dewelar (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Jake Wartenberg 04:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding colleges

{{editprotected}} Please add a spot for the college that the player went to. 68.211.30.234 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See Section directly above. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Signed for, but not yet joined

I'll admit up front that I have very little interest in, or knowledge of, baseball. I come here as a result of discussion about the reporting in relation to other sports of a player's status when he has clearly competed for the last time for one team, it is known where he will, barring disaster, be playing the following season, but his contract at the new team has not yet commenced. Two baseball names were mentioned in relation to the discussion: Chone Figgins and Rich Harden, and what I see in their infoboxes, I cannot allow to pass without challenging.

These men are reported as being members of the Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers, respectively, in the period 2010–present. Reading that, in 2009, is is patently meaningless. If they are not yet members of those teams, I would contend that those teams should not yet be in the infobox of these athletes. I don't know how widespread this presentation of data is. In any case, the presentation in an encyclopaedia as fact of dates running from the future to the present is not one that should be allowed to stand. Kevin McE (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a log discussion at WP:WPBB about the matter. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to let us in on the secret of what was decided, or at least link to the discussion? Kevin McE (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Draft

I think we should add an optional part where it shows the draft years and team, and what number. I think it'll be a great additon. Also, ESPN and yahoo both list the draft for a players page so I think we can too.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - I don't think that the information is important enough, in a large enough number of players to warrant having it being in an already large (and sometimes complained about because of its size and detail) infobox. Maybe I just don't know enough about the draft, but I would have thought that a lot of the players drafted don't actually wind up playing for the big league club they were drafted to, if they make it to the big leagues in the first place. My feeling is if it really is significant enough to warrant being in the infobox, it can be an entry in the career highlights section.  Afaber012  (talk)  21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - The draft is a fairly recent invention in the history of baseball so it wouldnt be on the majority of player articles.. The info box is cluttered enough. Spanneraol (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose With all of the technicalities of the MLB draft (supplemental picks, players getting drafted multiple times, etc.), this is best left to the text of the article. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is something that is better left in the article. The space provided would clutter up the infobox because there are two drafts, and were multiple drafts in the past, not to mention players who aren't drafted. I think that an explanation in the article is sufficient. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose There's just no reason to add this to the infobox. Caknuck has great points. Timneu22 (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Captions

Right now the template turns out captions that are regular font and bold; they should be in smaller font and not bold. Can somebody fix this? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, nobody cares that it's imperative that the bold be nixed Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ponydepression (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please reduce the size and remove the boldface from the image caption field. This is non-standard style in infoboxes. For analogs, see: Template:Infobox NFLactive, Template:Infobox NBA Player, Template:Infobox football biography. Ponydepression (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed "th" to "td" so that the text is not bold. The size of the caption is set by the mediawiki software and cannot be changed without a rework of the code of this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

awards

Perhaps there should be some suggested format for the awards, like chronological, or a few that go at the top and then chronological? Or reverse chronological. I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out how to sort them for Jim Thome and I don't see that the fact that he was the first pinch hitter at Target field to be a huge highlight for him, but there it is, first on the list. Now, if that had happened to someone in their rookie year, it might be a bigger for them... any ideas? 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would make more sense (to me) to have them be chronological, but have some things in the info box template. I would suggest just a few awards like, All-Star selections, Cy Young awards, league MVP, Silver Slugger, and Gold Glove Awards. It also might make sense to have a section for career black ink / grey ink. 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Teams - repeats and breaks in years

The examples in the template all show a chronological sequence of teams with no repeats, and provides no guidance for repeated teams with breaks in years. Some players play for one team, move to another team, and then come back to the first team. How should that be shown? In the Walt Masterson article, for example, it is shown like this:

• Washington Senators (1939–1942, 1945–1949, 1952–1953)
• Boston Red Sox (1949–1952)
• Detroit Tigers (1956)

Another possibility is to show it like this:

• Washington Senators (1939–1942)
• Washington Senators (1945–1949)
• Boston Red Sox (1949–1952)
• Washington Senators (1952–1953)
• Detroit Tigers (1956)

or like this:

• Washington Senators (1939–1942, 1945–1949)
• Boston Red Sox (1949–1952)
• Washington Senators (1952–1953)
• Detroit Tigers (1956)

Which is the preferred way to do it?

It would help if the template and its guidelines were a bit more specific and helpful. Comments please? Truthanado (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The last one is the proper way. No reason for a break like in the 2nd one. He didn't play for another team. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The template guideline doc has been updated to explain the recommended way to show teams. Truthanado (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Comma after 2nd element

There should be a comma between debutyear and "for the" debutteam (WP:MOS). 91.208.174.15 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?Spanneraol (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Height and weight

Should we add these parameters to the infobox? Seems like useful information, and is being used by Basketball, Hockey, and Soccer (sorry.. Futbol). I'd be "Bold", but I had better get other opinions.Neonblak ^talk - 19:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, so long as there is a uniform RS for such information. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Baseball-Reference.com and Retrosheet have height and weight numbers for almost all major league players.Neonblak ^talk - 00:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This template is protected, so it needs a higher up and up to do the change if it is agreed with.Neonblak ^talk - 00:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Code something in the sandbox, and I will do it. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a good idea... sometimes weight fluctuates in a players career... This should be brought up at the project page to get a wider selection of comments before a change is made. Spanneraol (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, post links to this discussion elsewhere. I believe the key here is that it's the published height and weight, not a daily measurement. ESPN publishes it [1], so seems not that controversial, but I would certainly welcome more comments.r Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but where in the players career do we take the info from? Barry Bonds rookie weight was much different from his weight in his last years with the Giants. Baseball Reference lists him at 185, MLB.com has him at 240. Which would we go with? See the problem? Spanneraol (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's worth including as an optional parameter for the infobox. For 99% of players the published information has no place in the prose itself (it would be awkward standalone data) and really is more like infobox stuff (a factoid about the person worth knowing). For the 1% Bondses of the worlds where there is any significant shift or controversy about the data it can be discussed in the article itself (Eddie Gaedel's article discusses his height at length, not surprisingly, eg). The point of adding it to the infobox is to allow the information to uniformly appear in articles where it is awkward to discuss in prose. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• To the above example, just list "Both" or "See prose" or give one value with a note, or anything, and discuss the larger shift later on. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Most players gain weight when they age and fill out naturally. It appears that MLB.com, in the case of Bonds anyway, is the better source for updated height/weight stats on current or modern players. However, I did compare one 19th century player among the sources most used; Bill Lange is list at 190 lbs on MLB, Retrosheet, and B-R, but his height is different on all three. Just from my experience, Retrosheet updates their information on the older players first, then B-R follows (both use SABR as their source), and MLB takes a long time to update. So my suggestion would be to use MLB for current players, and SABR for older or historical players. On a different subject, I am not good at writing code, or in this case, copying and incorporating code, I think it may be better left for a more skilled editor.Neonblak ^talk - 05:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that different sources are inconsistent on this information is the main reason I don't want to include it. Spanneraol (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I continue to oppose the addition of this information to the infobox. I don't believe it to be important enough. -Dewelar (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I actually brought this up in the first place was due to the frustration of a few, including one national sports radio personality (don't remember who, maybe JT the Brick?), that they cannot just simply go to WP and find out H/W figures for baseball players. I believe the information to be benefit, and that the public does want to know, without having to find a link within the article.Neonblak ^talk - 20:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, why would one go to WP for such information in the first place? Shouldn't that person be going to either MLB.com, baseball-reference, or some similar place? After all, that's where we get the information. Secondarily, what makes the information so important to the article that it deserves a place in the infobox rather than simply being included in the article text? -Dewelar (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think my point is that more and more people are going to the a player's WP page first. The medium is gaining steam, and a certain group of people in society do like to know height and weight numbers of the players they are looking up. It assists in forming a mental picture of the player, along with other information in the box like their picture, birth and death information, which hand they threw or what side of the plate the batted from. The latter two individually don't seem very importance either, but in the context of a biography, its good information, and as pointed out earlier, not easily incorporated into the text.Neonblak ^talk - 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As height and weight information released by teams is notoriously inaccurate, I am reluctant to support its inclusion in an encyclopedia infobox, where it may gain the status of a definitive source. I appreciate the desire to provide an idea to readers about the player's size, though; I'm not sure of the best way to balance these concerns. isaacl (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see this information in the infobox, it was feasible. The fact remains, however, that these articles are biographies of their entire lives and not baseball cards. Weight can fluctuate throughout a players career and although height usually doesn't change, there isn't a scenario in baseball where height or weight are usually major factors in a players career. (As opposed to Basketball and Football).--Jojhutton (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

These are all good points. The problems inherent in determining how to list the data are pretty prohibitive. The listed data are unlikely to ever be accurate, so we're probably going to have to put disclaimers up that these are the players' reported heights and weights or run afoul of WP:BIO. The data fluctuate from year to year, and from source to source, so we will need a set of criteria to decide how to determine which set(s) of data to list. At least handedness can be determined reliably, and in 99.9% of cases all sources are in agreement.

By the way, are height and weight listed in the infoboxes in articles for actors? Having checked a few on whose pages I'd expect it listed (John Wayne, Tom Cruise, Verne Troyer), I don't believe it is, even though it's much more pertinent to the career of an actor than it is to that of a baseball player. -Dewelar (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I ceded the point about active players above, suggested using the best resource for up-to-date information, MLB.com, which is widely considered to be a reliable resource, and could used for all players, as it contains all the same information for the historical players. Generally speaking, the only adjustments that would need to be made, would be to active players. Many (most?) active player articles are updated consistently already, wouldn't be much more effort to check the acuracy of all data in the infobox.Neonblak ^talk - 07:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What is MLB.com's standard for listing historical players' height and weight? Do we even know if they have one? -Dewelar (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am only assuming that MLB gets their information from what the eeach team reports.Neonblak ^talk - 19:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not asking about current players, because data for current players should always represent what is currently being reported. What I want to know is what their source is for historical players. Do you believe that MLB.com's source for the height and weight of, say, Babe Ruth is the Yankees (or Red Sox, or Braves) organization? And from what point in his career is it being taken? -Dewelar (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant, teams would be the only reporting this information to MLB, and again I can only assume that SABR is getting them directly from MLB or indirectly though the Baseball Hall of Fame. At what point in their career the information comes from? Judging by Ruth (both Retrosheet and MLB list him at 215 lbs), it seems to reflect an early career weight-in.Neonblak ^talk - 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See when you have to make subjective assumptions about the data then it probably should not be included in these articles. Spanneraol (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If MLB.com, retrosheet.org, and baseball-reference.com are considered reliable resources, than the information they provide should be considered reliable. My only assumptions have been about how they obtained the information itself, and I'll add another one, since they are considered reliable, I'll assume the information is correct. Which is what we all do; we assume the information given by any reliable source is correct. A player's weight isn't the only information that can/does change when better information comes available: Stat totals, birth and death information, and records held are couple that come to mind. If you don't think adding height/weight information useful, I disagree, but challenging the credibility of multiple reliable resources is a slippery slope.Neonblak ^talk - 03:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

But didnt you just establish earlier that those sources often conflict with each other reguarding the height/weight data? Choosing one over the others is purely subjective. Spanneraol (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What I pointed out was, that MLB.com tends to focus on current players. If SABR (who tend to focus on ex or historical players) corrects a name, weight, a stat, etc, Retrosheet tends to publish the new information first then B-R piggyback. MLB seems to take awhile longer, but eventually it is updated. Sure, for a time, the information will differ due to each source's compacity for quickness.Neonblak ^talk - 05:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fairly certain that B-R draws its biographical info directly from Retrosheet, thus it's just a matter of taking time to propagate. As for SABR, my understanding is that their information is drawn primarily from their own research -- i.e., members of SABR are out there combing newspaper archives, census data, and other sources for this data. The "R" does stand for Research, after all *grin*.

As far as the Babe Ruth example above, that's probably correct. Now, what about Cap Anson, Cy Young, Joe DiMaggio, Satchel Paige, Willie Mays, Pete Rose, and so forth? Are all their data drawn from the same (or reasonably similar) point in their career as well? -Dewelar (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The only answer I can really give without assumption is: I am not a member of SABR. Now, if you want me to speculate, then here goes. SABR is getting their information from solid sources, most likely the Hall of Fame, which is the repository for most all historical documents for baseball. Teams would document the player's height and weight when conducting physicals, and eventually those documents made to league offices, then later to Hall of Fame. I can't speculate at all about the point in the player's career that that weight represents. I can only assume that it is correct to the best information available. Which...is good enough for me.Neonblak ^talk - 22:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's fine. You're entitled to that opinion. However, given the lack of consistency (and, by extension, reliability) in the data on multiple levels, I don't think we should have the confidence to put that information in the infobox (or, for that matter, the intro) of the article, which would give it the appearance of being definitive and authoritative when it is neither. -Dewelar (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And its just one more thing for people to edit war over, and its best to just not have it in at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)