Template talk:Infobox MLB player/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Died parameter always displays

A recent change now results in the "died" parameter always showing up, even if the player is living. This needs to be fixed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yobot is removing the "width" parameter from pages

Any idea why? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's empty, or if it's equal to 200 (or greater), then it probably should be removed per the documentation. Can you provide a link to a sample edit? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the guideline for saying it should be 200px. Why should the picture not fill the entire width of the infobox? Not doing so creates very awkward empty spaces with are very distracting (and don't seem to be standard with any other type of infobox that has pictures). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support changing the default to "frameless", which is 220px for images 220 or wider. The advantage of using "frameless" is that it will automatically use a smaller size if the image is smaller than that (avoiding artificial stretching) and will limit the height if it is a very tall, but narrow image. The size corresponding to "frameless" can also be set in a user's preferences. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

position now or position ever

Is the position field for the primary position the player has played in in their career, or the primary position the player plays in now. If the latter, what becomes of it when they retire? 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

When they retire it becomes the primary position in their career. When they are active it should include the current primary position. Spanneraol (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to add that. 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I also noted that there may be more than one position. Some players move from right field to DH or third base to first, for example, and are probably not just one or the other. Right now there are players from whom they have about a 50/50 split at these positions, so neither is absolutely the "primary" positions. 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be First Baseman/Third Baseman or if they are a backup that plays a lot of positions it should be Utility Player.. DH isn't really a position so I wouldn't include that unless they dont play the field at all, like Jim Thome. Spanneraol (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox; Height and Weight

FYI -- readers of this page may be interested in the discussion and poll here as to whether a baseball player's height and weight should be reflected in his wp infobox.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Current Season

I wonder if it's possible to add a 'Current Season' section under 'Career Statistics'. It would increase web traffic and I don't see why there's any reason not to have it. - Es0terick (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include it. Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I. These infoboxes are massive and cluttered enough as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• It might be more reasonable if and when wp editors were updating such stats daily. They don't, as a general matter, and stats such as BA vary more dramatically on a season basis than they do on a career basis, for all players other than first-year players. So, until/unless matters improve in terms of updating, I think it the better course to not add it to the ibox. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Career highlights in infobox

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Career highlights in infobox regarding including individual achievements in a player's infobox. Feedback from interested parties is welcome. isaacl (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 October 2011

Per the consensus here, please implement this code. The documentation will remain unchanged.

CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 23:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and huge thanks! Getting over the initial hurdle of the style changes made here will make it much easier to improve the underlying template code in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

Please undue the above to this revision, more more of a consensus should be gained. Also the proposer shouldn't be the one to propose the change.

Albacore (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 declined. I believe the change was thoroughly discussed with members of the WikiProject. Please feel free to continue the discussion over there, and if there is consensus that the change needs to be reverted (or partially reverted) please post back here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PS I have commented over there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That is silly. There was no consensus for any changes in the first place, so there is no reason why it can't be reverted back. There is clearly issues with this one.--Yankees10 19:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There was consensus for some change, just not all of it. Discussion is continuing at WT:BASEBALL. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The key word there is "some". It shouldnt have been changed with only "some" consensus.--Yankees10 20:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In consideration of the problems noted in the section below I have reverted these changes for now. I will continue to monitor the discussion at the project talk page and reimplement changes once there is consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem

For players with no MLB experience, like Matt Drews, how they bat and throw doesn't show up. I don't know the details on the syntax, but this needs to be fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. As things stand, the |bats= and |throws= parameters are only displayed if either of the |debutyear= or |debutteam= parameters are given. If he's not made his MLB debut yet, is he actually an MLB player? Since he's now age 37, then if he's never played at MLB level he's unlikely to do so in future; so perhaps {{Infobox baseball biography}} would be a better infobox to use. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We use the MLB template for all players in MLB organizations, whether or not they have made an MLB debut or not. I brought up the issue at WT:BASEBALL the same time I brought it up here. the bats and throws parameters should show up regardless of whether or not the debutyear or debutteams are given. I think you're right about changing the template in this case, but what about someone like Manny Banuelos, who is highly likely to make an MLB debut in 2012 or 2013? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Manny Banuelos may make his major league debut next year: but it's not 100% certain - what if he breaks his pitching arm the day before the first game? Since {{Infobox baseball biography}} recognises almost all of the parameters recognised by {{Infobox MLB player}}, it should be a simple matter to set up the player with the former, and when he makes his major league debut, just alter the first line of the page (change baseball biography to MLB player) - this can be done at the same edit that |debutyear= and |debutteam= are added. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's silly to have to use two different templates when one will do... it's an easy enough fix to get it working right here. Spanneraol (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Then Redrose had to hit me with the WP:CRYSTAL argument I make all the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it basically broke all our minor league player articles... and even if they arent in the majors they are still in the organization.. Surely someone can fix it. Spanneraol (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This is fixed in the sandbox, for what it's worth. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from – Muboshgu (talk)

Tomorrow is the Florida Marlins' big press conference where they rebrand themselves as the "Miami Marlins". Therefore, we need someone to add a response for "Miami Marlins" under the team parameter and delete the response for "Florida Marlins" tomorrow. Also, the colors are believed to be changing, so they shouldn't be the same colors we have for the Florida Marlins. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any change is required in this template: the ones to amend are {{MLBPrimaryColor}}, {{MLBSecondaryColor}},{{MLBAltPrimaryColor}} and {{MLBAltSecondaryColor}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah good point. I took this to the wrong place. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death

Would it make sense to have a cause of death entry for this infobox? I noticed it was missing when looking at Greg Halman. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any infobox templates contain "cause of death". I would not be in favor of adding it. That information can be found in prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The general-purpose {{Infobox person}} supports |death_cause= and its synonym |death cause=. Personally I don't think it's important enough for the infobox, unless linked in some way to the career, perhaps because the player died while taking part in a game. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested edit

Small dash fix Presently, the template generates text of the following sort:

{{{team}}} — No. --

This is in error, as it uses an mdash (—) rather than the appropriate ndash (–). (cf. WP:DASH) Please fix this error. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, so Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dates before 1583

In "Sub-templates" the instructions say "(but do not use these if the date is before 1583)." That caveat seems unnecessary for MLB players. Chris the speller ^yack 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's transcluded from a generic documentation template, which serves hundreds of infoboxes, covering a variety of current and historic subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of template "Birth date and age" for players who have died

The instruction for the birth_date parameter says "Use: {{birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}}". Well, some editor listened. Joe Pactwa's infobox now says that he is 63 years old, and that he died at age 60. I'm not sure this is what is desired. Should the instructions be fine-tuned? Chris the speller ^yack 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Debutdate/debutyear and finaldate/finalyear parameters

The template should insert a comma after debutyear/finalyear, as well as after debutdate/finaldate, according to Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Common edits, bullet point 9.

Btw, why use separate parameters for year and date? Seems unnecessarily complicated, and in addition prevents from dynamically using different date format. International date format could for example be used by non-North American players (e.g. Japanese ones). The parameters should be designed in a smarter way, so that either format could be used dynamically, correctly displayed.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Medal records

Can this template be made to take medal records, like those on Drew Smyly, as a sub-template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2012

please change

<td colspan="2">{{{teams}}}</td>

to

<td colspan="2">
{{{teams}}}</td>

and change

<td colspan="2">{{{awards|{{{highlights}}}}}}</td>

to

<td colspan="2">
{{{awards|{{{highlights}}}}}}</td>

which will allow bulleted lists to be passed in these parameters, without requiring <nowiki></nowiki> before the list. other templates, like basketball biography, use infobox, which is why they don't suffer from the same problem (see this thread after the upgrade). this minor change will allow us to eliminate this extra nowiki markup. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just two linebreaks, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you. this works. Frietjes (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Height and Weight

Resolved

Do we not do this like other sports? It may be because they don't have a weigh-in like boxing and isn't important like hockey, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Height and weight are relatively unimportant for baseball players. Also, there's enough information in the infobox already, that we have to set strict limits on what we have and what we exclude. It's better off being mentioned in the prose of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a prompt response.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been some studies that use a player's weight as a factor, so personally I see some value (though the values reported by the teams are notoriously unreliable), but there is no consensus at this time to add the information to the infobox. isaacl (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Miami Marlins

Per MOS:ACCESS, the color scheme for the Miami Marlins needs to be changed. The blue on black is near impossible to read, and my vision is perfect. I would suggest making the orange the background color and black and blue the primary and secondary text colors. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: This sounds like a good change to make, but could you be more specific? It would be good to have a hexadecimal value for the colours - there are lots of shades of orange, for example. It looks like the actual templates that need changing are {{MLB primary color}} and {{MLB secondary color}}. It might be easier to make the requests at the individual templates. If you're not sure what to do, though, just post the desired colours here and I'll figure out how the templates work. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I shall do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

There need to be commas after the year in the debut and final appearance dates for it to be grammatically correct. TCN7JM 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You sure about that? Doesn't look right with the added comma. Spanneraol (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's guidance on date formats, in the fourth bullet item: When a date in mdy format appears in the middle of text, include a comma after the year... isaacl (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was this edit request reverted? TCN7JM 21:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If it was a complete sentence, then yes, the commas would make a difference. For just showing a date and the team, there's no reason to have it. By that reasoning, we should also have a comma after every team in the infobox as well, since it is technically a list. Wizardman 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether or not it is a complete sentence? Also, since when are commas used to separate items in a bulleted list? That's never been a grammatical rule. TCN7JM 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm not strongly opinionated about this matter, as I mentioned above, I agree that having a comma after the year is in alignment with Wikipedia's guidance on date formats, and within the context of this sentence fragment, I think it is still applicable. (If, for example, it were somehow not a sentence fragment but two pieces of data concatenated together, then perhaps the guidance would be less relevant.) isaacl (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with undoing the undo. Even if a fragment, the presence of the "for" means the year needs to be set off by commas.oknazevad (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would just change the field to be written "Team name: Month, Day, Year" and avoid the whole situation. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Or possibly "Month Day, Year (Team name)"? isaacl (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. It looked perfectly fine the way it was before Wizardman reverted the edit request, and I'm not sure we need to use parentheses. TCN7JM 12:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just some other possibilities that may be easier to reach consensus upon, and also are more concise, which is generally good, particularly within an infobox. isaacl (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah personally I don't like sentences (or fragments of) in infoboxes because infoboxes should be concise. Which is why like the idea of the team name being treated sort of like a header and then the date. But Isaacl's suggest is great as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If we are to change the format, we should emphasize the date the player debuted more than the team they debuted for. The date is more important. TCN7JM 20:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In my suggestion, the date is placed first, and the team in parentheses, de-emphasizing it. However, since the team already appears in the infobox elsewhere, how about just having the date by itself, which will render the discussion on punctuation moot? isaacl (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I forget who said it in the discussion on the project page. But I like the idea of just removing it completely. The specific day of a start is probably too much detail for the infobox when we already have the year listed elsewhere. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We could do it like the basketball infobox and just use "Pro career: <debut year>–<final year>". That sounds better than having the full date. TCN7JM 12:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A Major change like that should be discussed on the project page rather than just here... I liked it the way it was for years before TCN first suggested the change... The date should remain as first appearance is more of a notable issue for baseball players than it is for players in other sports. Spanneraol (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually technically since wikiprojects don't own the templates they use the appropriate place to discuss it is here especially since this discussion is linked from there already. But as for it being more notable in baseball than other sports I don't think that is true. If I was to ask you a random star baseball players debut could you tell me the exact day as opposed to just the year? Probably not. As for TCNs suggestion of "Pro career: <debut year>–<final year>" I would agree with that as that is what both basketball and hockey use so it would match with other major NA sports. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the importance of dates in baseball.. it's a sport that pays more attention to numbers of that sort than do other sports. The date of someone's mlb debut gets more attention than it does in football or basketball where it tends to not get noticed as much. There is much more focus on a players actual first appearance. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Making an MLB, NHL, or NBA team is a big deal; new rookie debuts are heralded by the team's fans. However, I don't think the specific date is as notable to fans as the year; it doesn't make much difference in the perspective of their overall careers if they started on April 5, 7, 21, or May 8. Since the span of the player's career is already contained elsewhere in the infobox, I don't believe having the specific debut date is a key characteristic essential for a concise summary of a player's biography. isaacl (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Spanneraol (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Leaving other sports aside, I understand you feel that a lot of attention is given to the date of a player's MLB debut, at the time of the debut. Just to help clarify the specific point of disagreement, do you feel that 20 years later, additional attention is still given to the exact date of the player's debut, and thus it is a key characteristic essential in a summary of the player? isaacl (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes... as a player's first game is often written about.. as in "in his debut" he got 2 hits, or he struck out in his first at bat... etc.. The difference between this sport and others is that players get called up all throughout the season which isn't the same with the other sports where the roster is mostly set in the pre-season and doesn't change all that much during the year. Spanneraol (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint that a player's debut will continue to be written about, but the question is if the specific debut date essential to a nutshell capsule summary of the player? It could be argued that what the player did in the debut game is more notable than the date; nonetheless, I don't believe the debut accomplishments, nor the date form part of the key characteristics that are essential to summarize the player's biography. isaacl (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason you see debuts talked about is because the player will get milestones like their first ML hit/homerun, or strikeout if you're a pitcher. Stuff like that is what's remembered, not the date. TCN7JM 23:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The opinion that baseball debuts are more important than debuts in other sports should not decide whether or not it stays, as it is just opinion. I still believe we should switch to the way basketball and hockey do it. It seems most beneficial. TCN7JM 21:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been this way for many years.. why is it beneficial to change it? The basketball and hockey versions are too brief and dont specify the league as "pro career" could include their time in the minor leagues... the NFL version is at least closer though I'd prefer the date to be listed. I'd prefer Isaac's earlier suggestion of the date with team in parentheses to this suggestion, though I would really prefer to just leave it the way it is. Spanneraol (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the "it's been this way" argument makes you seem like you're afraid of change, to be completely honest. Also, for other sports, "pro career" does include time in the minor leagues. See Gabe Pruitt, a basketball player who's spent most of his time in the D-League. Those teams are still mentioned in the infobox. TCN7JM 22:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of change, I just don't agree with this one. And we have never listed minor league teams in the info boxes... are you suggesting that we start doing that? Thats an even bigger change that goes against the style guidelines we agreed on awhile ago. Spanneraol (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is getting off track. If you are concerned that "Pro Career" could include the minor leagues then label it MLB Career. Frankly the baseball infobox is crammed with far to much information that in a way defeats the purpose of the infobox which is to be brief and only give the most important bits of information from the article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 Switch to basketball-infobox-esque format, name it "MLB Career" with <debut year>-<final year>, and list the teams underneath. TCN7JM 23:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled the request for now, as I'm not sure what is being requested. Please reactivate when you have reached consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change...

'''{{#if:{{{finalyear|}}}|Batted|Bats}}:''' {{{bats}}}

and

'''{{#if:{{{finalyear|}}}|Threw|Throws}}:''' {{{throws}}}

to

'''{{#if:{{{finalyear|}}}{{death_date|}}}|Batted|Bats}}:''' {{{bats}}}

and

'''{{#if:{{{finalyear|}}}{{death_date|}}}|Threw|Throws}}:''' {{{throws}}}

This way, deceased players who don't have a "final year" parameter can still be listed in past tense. I made this edit to {{Infobox baseball biography}}, and it worked, as you can see on Leo Righetti. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Code looks good. If you see an issue let me know and I will revert. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Now it's saying all players are dead. See Jurickson Profar for a debuted player and Francisco Lindor for a non-debuted player. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know what went wrong there. It still works fine on {{Infobox baseball biography}}, as you can see at Shohei Tateyama. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

you can clearly see the problem here if you count the number of opening and closing braces. you have two opening braces for death_date, instead of three. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

to

'''{{#if:{{{finalyear|}}}{{{death_date|}}}|Batted|Bats}}:''' {{{bats}}}

and

'''{{#if:{{{finalyear|}}}{{{death_date|}}}|Threw|Throws}}:''' {{{throws}}}

should fix it. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Done again. This time with 33% more bracket. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 July 2013

please update the code to use this version of the sandbox. this will correct some broken html table markup being emitted by the current version of the template and reduces the overall code complexity by using {{infobox}}. side-by-side comparisons can be see in the test cases. Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Marlins problems

The infobox text seems to have made all the Miami infoboxes not readable because it becomes black on black. I'm an admin but my template skills are low class. Can someone find the inflammatory problem? Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

please update the code to use this version of the sandbox, which will fix the Primary/Secondary vs AltPrimary/AltSecondary mismatch causing the unreadable headers described above (see testcase). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks so much. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 15:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

height, weight, draft round

How about adding height, weight, draft pick round/number? Damon Mah (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Usage of MLB primary color vs MLB secondary color

The new version of the infobox uses a team's secondary color as the background color in some of the cells more so than the team's primary color. I have to question why this is - I think the previous version looked much better (for example, look at any Yankee player and you will see a lot of gray, rather than midnight blue). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

would it be better to just use all primary? the problem with striping is that not all the headers are there for all players, so you don't get the perfect even/odd alternating colors. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

or we could make it so the top header is the primary, the second (team) header is the secondary, and the rest are the primary? Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. When you say not all the headers are there for all players, which ones are you referring to? I can come up with the "career highlights" one off the top of my head, but no others. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

technically, MLB debut, Last MLB appearance, Career statistics, Former teams (deprecated), Teams, Career highlights and awards, are all "optional". I will see if I can come up with a new scheme in the sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

okay, check the test cases. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I will enable the edit request. please update the template to use the version in the sandbox, this restores some striping for the headers by making the second header the secondary color, but the other headers the primary color. see the last two examples in the testcases for a demonstration. to achieve this, the sandbox version inserts a second child infobox, since the infobox template only allows for a single header style. by using a child infoboxes, we are able to get the more than one header color. Frietjes (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your hard work! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I missed this conversation as I was on vacation. I see Brandon Workman as an example of how there's too much primary and not enough secondary now. Can we switch "Career statistics" to the secondary color to balance it out? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

would be a lot easier if {{infobox}} supported even/odd headerstyles, but it is possible (see this test case). Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That looks good. Maybe also make the highlights secondary to keep it one and one? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

technically, MLB debut, Last MLB appearance, Career statistics, Former teams (deprecated), Teams, Career highlights and awards, are all "optional", so there is really no easy way to guarantee the coloring is one-to-one. in the old version, we had alternative coloring for MLB debut, Last MLB appearance, Former teams (deprecated), and teams. we had primary coloring for name, number/team, career statistics, and career highlights. since former teams is deprecated, and last MLB appearance is not used for active players, that was four primary and two secondary. I will put a comparison with the old template (now sandbox2) in the testcases (see this test case). I can certainly try to implement the old color scheme, but both the sandbox and sandbox2 currently have the same number of primary vs alternative colors. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I prefer the Mo on the left to the one on the right, but it's not that important to me which parameters get changed from primary to secondary. As I just noticed at Steve Henderson (baseball), which uses all of the parameters, we just need something changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

will enable the edit request. Please update to use this version of the sandbox, which will enable more striping. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Great! Just noticed this was done. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

I was drawn to copyedit Zeke Bella. I find the infobox to be "overwhelmingly large"; detracting from this particular article. I wish to add a parameter allowing an editor to modify the width. Please change the line of code, in this template, where it reads:

| bodystyle = width: 25em; text-align: left; font-size: 95%;

changing it to read:

| bodystyle = width: {{{width|25em}}}; text-align: left; font-size: 95%;

This will add the parameter |width=, allowing a user to modify the size. All transclusions of this template will default to 25em, as they currently do; remaining unchanged unless the width parameter is used. I do however, think editors should have an option here. If this request is accomplished, I will update the documentation unless the performer would rather do that their self. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

decreasing this width this won't decrease the overall area or size of the infobox, just increase the amount of linewrapping? seems like a better idea would be to reduce the font-size to the default, 88%, and the width to the default, 22em, for all articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

see the testcases. Frietjes (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I get that 88% is the default, but maybe we could split the difference with 90% or 92%? It just looks a little small at 88%, though maybe that's something I'd adjust to. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

the rationale for 88% was that it is the next size smaller than 100% which is consistently resized by the browser. if you search for font-size 88% you may find some discussion. that said, I have no problem with 90% or 92% or whatever. Frietjes (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I like 85% but the rational for 88% makes sense and would work for me. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Disabled request due to ongoing discussion. Personally I think our articles should be consistent, and would oppose additional options for different infobox templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

to summarise, we have John Cline who wants the infobox to be smaller, me supporting using the default 22em/88% or whatever, Muboshgu (weakly) supporting 90% or 92%, DJSasso prefers 85% but supports 22em/88%, and MSGJ supporting the default 22em/88%. so, that seems to me to be consensus for trying the default 22em/88% (approx 3 or 4 to 1) or am I reading the discussion in a bias manner? Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your assessment is biased; it seems reflective of the discussion so far. To clarify slightly, I am completely in favor of using the default parameters for the infobox template. I requested inclusion of a width parameter because I didn't want to be seen as forcing my preference on the existing transclusions which, presumably prefer the template as it currently renders. I agree with MSGJ; preferring consistency across Wikipedia—but again this could be seen as forcing my preference. Interestingly, the inclusion of the entire line of code I cited for modification itself is a divergence from consistency, as its complete removal automatically renders the default values.

I have tested the effect of using the default values; noting a consequence that should be compensated (in my opinion) or it could be seen detrimentally: The six occurrences of [[File:Empty Star.svg|20px|link=]] should be changed to [[File:Empty Star.svg|18px|link=]] or it will render on two lines; throwing the graphic amalgamation out of balance. At 18px the graphic remains true throughout a variety of different screen resolutions (I normally enlarge mine 3-4 times over normal).—John Cline (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

okay, I updated the template, and used 15px which matches the height used by flag icons. I imagine there may be some backlash, since most people don't watch the template talk page, but we shall see. I think it's just a question of getting used to it. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The biggest issue I think people will have with this is it could cause lots of the award lines to double up. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That is one issue. I'm not sure how I feel about it seeing it in action, but I'm trying to reserve judgment. My first reaction is that it seems a little small, but of course that could just be because it's smaller than it used to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I just checked {{Infobox NFL player}} out of curiousity, since I do like the sizing of that template and I see that it is set at width: 25em; font-size: 90%. I think I'd support sizing it up to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

25em would be the same width that it was before, but 90% would be a smaller font-size. feel free to change the sandbox to propose alternatives. I also have no problem with changing it back to what it was before if there is consensus for that as well. the feedback you are going to see in the near future will most likely all be negative, since anyone who likes the new version will most likely not comment. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think its about time that we got skinnier. It was way to wide compared to pretty much all the infoboxes out there. Font size isn't as big a deal for me as the width. I think it looks great. Doesn't overwhelm articles like it used to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. as far as the wrapping goes, yes, there will may be some more wrapping in some cases since (88/95)*25 is about 1em greater than 22em, but the examples I checked did not show any changes in my browser. 17:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

But I just demonstrated that it was the same width as the NFL infobox. {{Infobox basketball biography}} is actually larger, at 26em. Only {{Infobox ice hockey player}} is thinner (19em), at least out of the USA's traditional "big 4". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I just meant in terms of infoboxes in general. Almost all of them on the wiki are 22em. That is considered the standard. Its only really the sports ones that get bigger than that. And really I think that is just because they were never updated to match. I think its good that its finally happening. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hideous. Do not like.--Yankees10 17:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree 100%. I support a reversion to [1]. Seattle (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. Text is now way too small; I can barely read it comfortably. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have modified the sandbox using the templates previous values so that the side by side comparisons can be appreciated. I like the new look and the comparisons show the change is not as drastic as some are implying. Hideous is an example of hyperbole in my opinion. There is no good reason for an infobox to overwhelm an article and I can not see why sports related articles should require an exception. If the text is too small for you, as it is for me (my eyesight is failing), adjust your own screen resolution (ctrl-shift-+), but don't force everyone to endure a behemoth because your own vision is poor. —John Cline (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. The new format (default text size and box width) looks much better. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  I tend to not like the new box much either as i have trouble reading it with the small text.. not sure how this is see as an improvement. Spanneraol (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  Font size aside, the previous version of the infobox has more whitespace within each row than I personally feel is needed for aesthetic purposes. Thus I think a narrower infobox is reasonable to give back additional horizontal space to the main text. isaacl (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Had not noticed this discussion previously, but I think the infobox and specifically the text within is way too small, and would support going back to the old one, or at least increasing text size. Go Phightins! 18:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

High school/college

Why does this box not contain a players high school or college? DMC511 18:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The last conversation on this talk page regarding including the college for which a person played did not reach consensus. Personally I believe knowing if a player attended college and where are important aspects to include in a concise summary, given that this is a consideration in evaluating a player's career potential, and so would support its inclusion. I do not feel that the high school information is necessary in a concise summary of an MLB player, however. isaacl (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out.DMC511 18:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was five years ago. I'm not sure I have the same opinion I had then. Consensus can change. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll post a pointer on the WikiProject Baseball discussion page and we'll see what people think. isaacl (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd support college not high school though.--Yankees10 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Many major leaguers never played college ball. I'd be opposed to adding this to an already over crowded infobox.Spanneraol (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Major League Baseball draft, in 2002, over 60% of MLB draftees played college ball. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You arent taking into account the fact that many of the foreign players did not go through the draft at all... and almost none of them played college ball.Spanneraol (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that many players did play college ball, so a field for this info would be used quite a bit. The field would only appear for those who did play in college. isaacl (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the college or high school a player attended actually so important as to warrant mention in the infobox? I know in football and basketball, a player's college is practically tattooed to their forehead for the rest of their lives, but in my experience, it is rather uncommon for a player's college team to be brought up as a matter of routine. Resolute 23:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You rarely hear about the college a baseball player went to. Heck you rarely hear he even went to one. I would oppose adding it. As Spanneraol mentions the infobox is already far too crowded. -DJSasso (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose adding college; readers are mostly concerned with what MLB team someone played for. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support adding a parameter indicating the last place one played before professional baseball, be that high school or college, but only one, not both. Go Phightins! 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Commas

Per WP:Copyedit, section "Common mistakes to fix", subsection "Punctuation", bullet point 2, there should be a closing comma in constructions like "On September 15, 1947, she began her first year at Harvard.".

In the Hank Aaron article, the sentence for his debut breaks up in two parts, "April 13" and "1954 for the Milwaukee Braves", and that's awkward.

Could someone add the comma?

Thanks

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a better idea is to switch the order of the elements – instead of

April 13, 1954[,] for the Milwaukee Braves

it could be like

for the Milwaukee Braves on April 13, 1954

Then we wouldn't have to bother with any closing comma.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

College teams should use colors from {{CollegePrimaryStyle}}

I recall this having been done and then undone once before... – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Teams

Is it customary to add Minor League teams in the infobox, or just Major League teams? Thief12 (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Just major league teams. Spanneraol (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)