Talk:Jake Daubert/Archive 1

I just wanted to add a few notes here from family history that I haven't been able to verify independently. According to stories passed down, Jake's departure from the team was due to complications from being beaned by a pitch, which is also believed to have possibly been a factor in his death. He stopped pitching due to an arm injury. He still holds 3 records - most sacrifice bunts (as noted in the article), most bunts in a game (5), and most bunts in one day (either 8 or 9, I can't recall which). His nickname within the press was "Gentleman Jake" for his personality. If anyone can verify these, they may (or may not) be worthy of inclusion in the article to expand it. The Dark 16:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent revisions

Response to Tecmobowl's comments on my talk page: Your changes essentially amount to deletion, rather than addition, of material along with some minor (and IMO, unnecessary) rearranging. I don't believe you've explained your reasons for the deletions in any satisfactory way. The fact that Daubert hoped to become his team's manager when the position became vacant upon Moran's death (but was disappointed when he didn't) is certainly notable (see his NYT obit), and obviously relates to Daubert specifically. (I would think that any biographical article would mention a notable supervisor's death if the subject of the article hoped to be their successor, particularly if the death greatly affected the organization's performance.) You've been deleting statistical information and rankings as well; this is completely bewildering to me - it's verifiable factual information (for anyone with several hours to spare), and his rankings at the time of his retirement are not readily available elsewhere, so it's certainly useful to include them here - his NL record total for sacrifice hits is of obvious significance. A few other points:

1) You've changed the team name from Brooklyn Superbas/Dodgers/Robins to simply Brooklyn Dodgers - this is factually inaccurate, as the team was known by three different nicknames during his time with them;

2) You've deleted the phrase "One of the premier players at his position throughout his career" - you seem to think that this sentence is problematic, but numerous facts to support the statement (including the stats/rankings you keep removing) are included in the article, and it's not necessary to quote another source (such as this, already included as a link) which makes the same statement. It's thoroughly permissible to state, for example, that Hank Aaron was a major baseball star, even without directly quoting a source which describes him as such - all that's necessary is to include factual information (awards, stats, league rankings, etc.) which someone familiar with the sport would accept as supporting evidence;

3) You've deleted his league-leading batting averages from the intro, with no explanation, and also the statistical notes on his rookie season (among NL leaders in triples and HRs); you also deleted (WHY???) the note that he finished second to Hal Chase in the 1916 batting race and the noteworthy info that it was Brooklyn's first NL pennant year;

4) The items for which you requested citations, including that he worked in the coal mines at age 11 and his 21-putout game in 1910, are from the reference source I've already cited;

5) Splitting the article up into subheadings is unnecessary given the current length, especially as two of the subsections are only about two lines each;

6) It's generally inappropriate in Wikipedia to refer to the subject of an article by their first name (except with royalty, for example);

7) Your change to the sentence regarding Gil Hodges is grammatically incorrect;

8) External links are routinely listed before references.

As for WP:OWN, I believe that tends to be directed toward editors who try to keep information out of articles - arguing for the retention of useful info and data hardly qualifies as the kind of territorial attitude you're implying. I would have no problem with your adding useful information, as Daubert is certainly worthy of an article considerably longer than this, but I have definite problems with your deleting valuable material from the article. MisfitToys 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this argument, but I would say you might be wrong about: 8) External links are routinely listed before references. Look at Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron - both have references before external links, and this is what I have seen on just about every page - Mattingly23 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, it seems; I'm sure I remember it being the other way around for a long time, but that was generally before the trend toward footnotes. Personally, I prefer to see the links first; readers might easily overlook them if they don't go beyond a long footnote section, which a lot of people might expect to be the last thing in the article. MisfitToys 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your response rather disappointing, especially since you are an admin. If you wanted to understand my rationale, which I did explain in the edit summary, you could have simply asked before engaging what has essentially become an edit war.. In accordance with WP:5P, i will continue to be bold in my cleaning up pages under [Category:Baseball_players]. I will give you some time to satisfy the criteria, and if that does not happen, i will re-institute the changes i have made. Deleting information from articles that is redundant, useless to the overall article, or no appropriately communicated is fine. I will continue to do that. I do add content and will continue to do so when it is called for. I'm going to try and respond point by point:

1) Indeed i have changed list of names. The team was in fact known by many team names during the course of the period. I think the real issue falls similar to the Wikipedia page on naming conventions. Listing out all the various team names for the Dodgers during that time frame is a topic for the Los Angeles Dodgers page and not this one. However, I also consider this a minor point and if you disagreed, rather than a full on revert, you could have added back in the information.

2) Point 2 is a perfect example of WP:Weasel and it should be removed. Calling him one of the premier players is a matter of opinion, not fact. Especially since we were not alive to see the man play. There is a difference between saying he was one of the star players and that he was a premier player. Premier judges ability, star power judges notoriaty.

3) I used the summary to explain my points, I find this line of thinking totally pointless. I added in the information to the info box that i posted. If you really feel it needs to be reiterated in the title, then just put it back in. Again, not a reason to revert the entire effort i put in. I removed that he finished second to Hal Chase, for much of the same reasoning. Who he finished second to is irrelevant but again, if you really want it in there...just put it back in.

4) Please provide specific sections as opposed to citing the "whole book", that is more inline with what is asked at WP:CITE. I glanced at the book and did not see it, but again, if you know what page it is one. then reference the work with specific notations. I also did leave the information about his putouts in the article. I don't think you really read the new article, otherwise you would not have made this point.

5) I disagree. I laid out the information in a format similar to most other biography pages that I have seen. More information that is relevant could be added to make the sections better, but they, in the long term perspective, all belong in the article.

6) I disagree completely, unless you can point me to a specific example where this is stated, I will continue to use Mr. Daubert's common name in the article.

7) How exactly is it incorrect? I do not feel it is. Again, if it really was, couldn't you just make it grammatically correct instead of engaging in a revert war?

8) See Above statement.

Moving on to the other points, I don't see the real value in simply listing out a bunch of statistics. Remember, wikipedia is for people who are not baseball fans, it is for the general masses. Obviously there is a balance here, but I just don't agree with you. Deleting list like information is not the same as deleting valuable comments. One of the first problems is that you say it is a fact that Daubert hoped to become the teams manager. I'm sorry, but that never will be a "fact". If you want to say He was named manager after Moran died, that would be fine with me. Just site a specific source and not an entire book. I will wait for a response before I return the article to the format I put in, trying to take into place the constructive edits that have been done since these edits. //Tecmobowl 03:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of getting dragged into something not of my doing, I do have some opinions on this.

1. The changes in team name are important, as reference sources will generally list the teams according to their name at that time. An example is that I've always heard Jake referred to as playing for the Brooklyn Robins, as that was the most commonly known name of the team at the time he was most famous. They were not known as the Dodgers during much of that time.

2. To call him a premier player is not necessarily a matter of opinion. Vic Debs (a baseball analyst in New York) has analyzed Daubert's stats. There are a total (including Daubert) of 20 non-current players in the history of MLB that have comparable stats. The other 19 are all Hall of Fame inductees. A newspaper column in during his career stated that he and Hal Chase were the two best first basemen in the major leagues. It may be more "neutral" to say that "he was considered a premier player during his career, and his statistics reflect postiviely in comparison to other retired players," but the general gist is quite similar.

3. I'm in a middle ground on the statistics and such. I don't believe they should be in the introductory paragraph, but they are evidentiary support for discussion of his legacy and thus are noteworthy for inclusion.

"One of the first problems is that you say it is a fact that Daubert hoped to become the teams manager. I'm sorry, but that never will be a "fact"." - I'm sorry, but if correspondence written by Daubert stated he hoped to become team manager, that would be a fact. I don't happen to have any such correspondence, but I have seen writings by baseball historians that he had hoped to move on to managing the team.

Most of the other items, to me, are relatively minor at this point in time. The Dark 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Although this is supported by many places, the best place to see how the dodgers name changed over time is on Baseball-Reference.com. The Name Robins was used begining in 1914 when Wilbert Robinson took over the team. The name is a reference to him, not the bird. This is similar to the Naps being named in honor of Napoleon Lajoie. Prior to that, it was either the Dodgers or the Superbas. Again, this is somewhat subjective, but i don't feel that listing all of the variations on the team name is for this article. I think it is probably most effectively communicated on Zack Wheat but tend to lean toward Casey Stengel's page and keep it even. This article is about Daubert, not all the nicknames of the teams he played for.

2. I'm not sure where you are coming up with your response to the 'premier' issue. Regardless of whether you think the number of people with comparable stats is 10, 20, 500, or 25,000. He is not a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Many others that played around the same time are. He played with at least 3 that i can think of without putting any thought into it, Stengel, Wheat, and Edd Roush. I don't see how he is classified as a premier player. He had some good seasons no doubt. Brady Anderson hit 40+ home runs one year, that doesn't make him a power hitter. Remember, this site is NOT for baseball fans.

3.I have no problem with statistics being available, BUT, you can place a few pieces of information in the bio box (which have been done). They don't necessarily need to be brought up 8 times over. Keep in mind that sites already linked on this page clearly communicate statistical information for Daubert in an easy to understand method. One of the problems i have with most of these types of articles is that people rely on statistics as the basis for the content. Again, I have yet to see a reason why the article was reverted. The format i put in place was better, and I have not seen any evidence that the information i removed should be reinstated. If it is to be used in the article, someone should find a better way to incorporate it.// Tecmobowl 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summaries were: 1) "re-arranged, added sections, requested citations"; 2) "removed content that is not sourced. Cleaned out weasel words, requested verification". Other than the comment on weasel words (which I surmised was directed at the phrase "premier player," on which I've already commented), these offered no explanation for deleted content. And as I've noted twice already, the comments for which you requested citations are from the reference source already cited (the Daubert biography is on one page, and hardly constitutes the "whole book" - and it's arranged alphabetically, so I can't begin to guess how you missed it). The fact that the information is not referenced in the manner currently preferred does not mean that they are unreferenced (they are referenced), so they do meet the criteria for verifiability. I'll add that "cleaning up pages" is a poor explanation for simply deleting content you find uninteresting.

On the point of "premier player" (and note that the phrase used is among the premier players, not the premier player), his various awards and batting titles, etc., give ample support to that phrase; it is not unsupported, and numerous other sources describe him as the best NL first baseman of his period. As to the Hal Chase issue, one sign of an excellent biographical article is that it places the individual in the context of other significant figures in their field during the same period. An article on Albert Einstein would hardly be complete without discussing his relationship to other contemporary physicists and comparing their work and ideas. The basic nature of a batting race strongly encourages the notion of mentioning who finished first in the article for the second-place finisher; an article on an Olympic silver medalist, for example, will almost certainly mention the gold medal winner.

You indeed kept the mention that he retired among the career leaders in putouts, etc., but you deleted the totals and rankings; defensive stats deserve the same consideration as offensive ones, and we would hardly omit the HR totals of players such as Mike Schmidt or Jimmie Foxx simply because they didn't set ML records. Regarding the use of first names, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names.

And you changed the sentence "His Brooklyn franchise record of 1206 games at first base was broken by Gil Hodges in 1956" to "Held the Brooklyn franchise record of 1206 games at first base until the record was broken by Gil Hodges in 1956"; apart from being a somewhat questionable cosmetic revision, your version is not a proper sentence, as it lacks a subject.

Finally, regarding statistics in general: I don't believe that a player's stats should be included in the intro unless they established records or placed the player among the career top ten upon their retirement. In those instances, the statistics constitute a valuable indication of the player's significance and accomplishments; see, for instance, the intro on Sandy Koufax, a featured article which I helped to improve to that status. MisfitToys 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your responses, but again, i feel that this is driven mostly by the fact that you wrote a significant portion of the article and nothing more. I did not see your information so if you want to cite it please do so with the specific page information. Until then, i feel it should be removed. Further to the point, just because you can cite something doesn't mean it belongs in the article. I will continue to be bold in my edits.

Edit summaries are just that, summaries. Getting into an edit war is not the way to resolve your issues, discussions are. I don't agree with you, and if you would like to bring an arbitrator in, then please do so. I have just supported the fact that he is NOT a premier player. He is not a hall of fame member and he holds no major league career record. Again, if you want to include the fact that Hal Chase was the winner, fine with me. It does not mean reverting the entire edit was appropriate. Thank you for pointing out the subsequent use of names. That was useful and would have been appreciated earlier on. Again, that did not justify a complete ripping out of the edits, you could have just changed the name. As for the grammar issue, i simply forgot to put HE at the beginning of a sentence. You wrote in the passive voice, which is not encouraged. Simply adding He would have been an appropriate revision. Thank you for your continued work, but let's stick to the concept and "rules" of wikipedia and not have further edit wars. I am going to try and merge back in the edits i did with the valid points raised here. As i am only one person, it is possible I might miss something. //Tecmobowl 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages 264-265 (and that article also calls him the best NL first baseman of his period, which supports the argument that he was a premier player; the fact that you don't think he was one doesn't make much difference). Shoeless Joe Jackson isn't a HoF member or a record-holder either, but it would be nonsensical to suggest he wasn't a premier player (and Daubert has his HoF supporters, just as Jackson does). It's somewhat disingenuous to say you included your explanations in the edit summary, and then say that the summary didn't actually explain your reasons. BTW, I've got over 250 articles on my watchlist, and I have no problems with the vast majority of revisions to most of them. And I suppose I did write in the passive voice in that one sentence, but of course Daubert was long dead by then, making the active voice somewhat inappropriate - the subject of the sentence, after all, is the record and not Daubert. Again, I disagree on the remaining issues, and will revert any deletion of the defensive statistics and career rankings. Please keep in mind the following: "It is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her." (from WP:OWN); "Avoid deletions whenever possible" and "Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views, instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly." (from WP:EQ) MisfitToys 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This argument is starting to try my patience. I happen to be an expert on Joe Jackson. I am an expert on the 1919 White Sox and in fact pretty knowledgeable about the Reds from that year as well. I think the argument that Daubert was a premier player b/c Jackson was a premier player, and neither is in the Hall of Fame, is not even worth a discussion. If you REALLY want to draw this thing out, i'll address it once and then move on. I did not say the "summary didn't explain my explanations". I said that the edit summary is just a summary. If you really wanted me to offer up a more in depth explanation, i'd have been happy to, but don't expect me to write a paragraph in the Edit Summary b/c you can't do it. Again, the defensive statistics are completely applicable, and if you want, they are noted in the article and you are welcome to include the actual numbers in that area of the text. Perhaps a more appropriate place would be in the career highlights section under the box. I still don't know why you are intent on handling the situation as you are, but hey, it's wiki and not really the biggest of deals. Just get the information right and make it valuable, and i'll be quiet. I think it's evident that i am working with you and that i have read and responded to each of your points. Meanwhile, you simple revert edits b/c you don't like what has happened. IF YOU WANT THE STATISTICS IN THERE >>>> PUT THEM IN. JUST DON'T MAKE IT THE MEAT OF THE ARTICLE AS IT WAS BEFORE.// Tecmobowl 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood me; I did not argue that Daubert was a premier player because Jackson was one; I did argue that you should not state (as you did) that someone was not a premier player simply because they are not a Hall of Famer and hold no records. And you did first state that "If you wanted to understand my rationale, which I did explain in the edit summary," suggesting that what you had included in the summary was a bit more complete. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph, which states that the intro should note what the article's subject did and why they were significant; for many athletes (particularly baseball players), their statistics are the principal indications of their accomplishments. Babe Ruth's article, for instance, mentions his home run totals in the intro. In this regard, your responses have not addressed the issues I brought up regarding WP:EQ. Please also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Capitalization, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Discuss, among other things. MisfitToys 20:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is pointless. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. If you want to continue to enhance the article, go right ahead. If you have any other questions or feel like edits you want to make are going to lead to disputes, then i suggest you bring in an arbitrator. Other than that, this conversation is done. The onus is not on me to prove daubert was NOT a premier player. It is on you to prove he was. //Tecmobowl 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am arguing not for the sake of it (I would much rather not get into these arguments), but because I am thoroughly convinced that you are ignoring all the issues I have raised - you continue to revert to a version which includes the mistakes you have already conceded, which I regard as basic disregard for the article's quality (you have also deleted valuable material despite Wikipedia guidelines opposing such deletions). As to his being a premier player, the article already presents that evidence quite completely. MisfitToys 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As part of being bold, and as stated in edit summary, I moved one section on statistics about lifetime statistics from the opening section to the concluding death section. It fits better in my opinion as a wrap-up summary instead of a (rather intimidating with numbers) opening summary. The Dark 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the ongoing discussion (dispute) between MisfitToys and Tecmobowl, I believe that MisfitToys has the stronger argument regarding article content and editing. BurmaShaver 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with Tecmobowl with the subheadings, (it's more than a stub) and point number two (you can't presume he was one of the premier players with stats only, you need a more valid source) even though u are generally wrong with the weasel words part, they are allowed in a way but with a very valid source though and they should be limited, and the ciation needed, just add the page number as the citation, I have to go with MisfitToys as well with most of the content, Tecmobowl please see WP:AGF before accusing people of WP:OWN. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Sources

Just a head's-up that I am trying to find verifiable sources for some of the citation-needed information. Specifically:

the age at which he became a coal miner (everything I've seen agrees that it's 11, but doesn't source their references). I have no doubt he was a coal miner; his brothers were, his father was, and most of the Dauberts were. The age is the "questionable" part.

"premier" - if I knew who Jim Sandoval was, I'd cite him, but I'm not familiar with the name. I'm also not quite comfortable enough with similarity scores to cite them either, but the closest comparable player was "Prince" Hal Chase.

began at pitcher. Sandoval mentions this also, and it jibes with the family history, but there's no citeable reference.

need to find old Baseball magazine issues. Apparently, Jake was selected as their all-star first baseman in 1911, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, and 1919. There are also a couple quotes from the magazine about his being the most valuable first baseman in the league.

death and circumstances. According to non-citeable writings (and again, family history), Jake had been suffering from complications from a beaning during the 1924 season, and was already in poor health when he underwent the surgery for (it was believed) appendicitis and gallstones.The Dark 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, well. Found enough for an appendicitis and gallstone verification: http://www.wvculture.org/HISTORY/sports/redswelch05.html

One down.The Dark 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am the husband of Jake Daubert's great-grandaughter (the grandaughter of Jake's son George) and can verify that Jake died of complications from a hereditary blood disorder which caused an anemia and a type of gall stones - I have updated the article accordingly. As it turns out, Jake probably always was playing through this and his untimely death could have been avoided had they understood the underlying factors of his illness.MikeandJillM (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left in the basic statement, but tagged it as needing a citation. Without a verifiable and reliable source, the information is not considered acceptable. If you have such a source (and please read those sections for the definition of what that means if you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines), please provide it, or unfortunately the information will have to be removed. -Dewelar (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's the Baseball Magazine all-star selections:

http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/all.america.html

Summary: Daubert was All-NL in 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19, and All-America 12, 13, 14, and 16. The Dark 15:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AWESOME! Great Job and thank you for helping out!//Tecmobowl 20:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing at a time?

OMG, I happened to see a reference to the argument above and wanted to contribute but I can't even keep track of it all! Can someone break these different arguments down a little better? I'm dizzy just from trying to get through the first post... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted; I've bolded the beginning of each comment, and moved the numbered items to separate lines, to try and help ease the reading. MisfitToys 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is getting to be ridiculous. MisfitToys should not be handling this situation as such. I said he was welcome to bring in an arbitrator and instead he engaged in reverting the article AGAIN. Wknight94 has seen me here before and knows that I have taken to reworking a number of these articles. Per my request, MisfitToys provided a link to information about the use of surnames. I respected that and incorporated that information into the article. He has ignored my responses, and is absolutely abusing his power. Just get the information correct and I won't say a word. // Tecmobowl 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll try weighing in a little. These are all strictly my opinions (numbers are the points laid out by MisfitToys, comments below each are mine):
    1. You've changed the team name from Brooklyn Superbas/Dodgers/Robins to simply Brooklyn Dodgers - this is factually inaccurate, as the team was known by three different nicknames during his time with them;

       If you wanted to add a small footnote like Brooklyn was also known as the Superbas and Robins during that span that may actually look a bit nicer. I can see where it would be nice to point out the nicknames of the team but, esp. back then, a lot of those nicknames were unofficial and interchangable (I've heard differing stories as to whether the Senators of the time were ever officially called the Senators or were actually the "Nationals" that whole time). Listing them all so prominently seems a bit intrusive.

    2. You've deleted the phrase "One of the premier players at his position throughout his career" - you seem to think that this sentence is problematic, but numerous facts to support the statement (including the stats/rankings you keep removing) are included in the article, and it's not necessary to quote another source (such as this, already included as a link) which makes the same statement. It's thoroughly permissible to state, for example, that Hank Aaron was a major baseball star, even without directly quoting a source which describes him as such - all that's necessary is to include factual information (awards, stats, league rankings, etc.) which someone familiar with the sport would accept as supporting evidence;

       I'm also not a big fan of statements like this, at least not when they're so general. I prefer to only state the facts that would back up the assertion and let the reader decide for themselves how premier the player was. On the other hand, statements like this are okay (in my opinion) if they're more specific. E.g., in Tim Foli, I mentioned that "he was an accomplished bunter" and immediately give evidence of such. Reading back over that part of Foli's article, I probably still left too many weasel words in - it's hard to resist sometimes.

    3. You've deleted his league-leading batting averages from the intro, with no explanation, and also the statistical notes on his rookie season (among NL leaders in triples and HRs); you also deleted (WHY???) the note that he finished second to Hal Chase in the 1916 batting race and the noteworthy info that it was Brooklyn's first NL pennant year;

       Regarding specific numeric stats, I generally try to avoid them. Saying he was in the top 5 in triples and HR in his rookie season is fine - it's general and makes a valid point that would be lost if said in another way. Listing the exact numeric batting averages for each year is overkill. This is again something I'm guilty of. "My" Tim Teufel article had way too many. "My" Tim Foli article has fewer but still too many. "My" John Stearns article - written later - has fewer numbers. I've tried to avoid them more as I go along.

    4. The items for which you requested citations, including that he worked in the coal mines at age 11 and his 21-putout game in 1910, are from the reference source I've already cited;

       If someone is confused because content is referenced by a link way at the bottom, I usually accommodate them and add an inline citation. It doesn't hurt.

    5. Splitting the article up into subheadings is unnecessary given the current length, especially as two of the subsections are only about two lines each;

       I don't know if there's any style guideline for this but I agree a two-line section is unnecessary. I personally like how Tim Foli turned out.

    6. It's generally inappropriate in Wikipedia to refer to the subject of an article by their first name (except with royalty, for example);

       I totally agree. I never refer to a subject by first name.

    7. Your change to the sentence regarding Gil Hodges is grammatically incorrect;

       I don't know about the grammatical correctness of Tecmobowl's version of the Hodges sentence but it's definitely too long. Make two sentences - it never hurts.

    8. External links are routinely listed before references.

       Don't know, don't care. I'm sure that's easy to find a pattern for.

  • —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Requesting arbitration is supposed to be a last resort for dispute resolution (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes; I've taken the step before that, which is requesting comment from other editors. And how can I have abused by admin powers when I haven't even used them in this dispute? BTW, please count again - I reverted three times, and have not violated 3RR, so reporting me would probably be a bad idea. One more side note - given how baseball statistics fluctuate from era to era, I believe that including the actual totals is crucial. MisfitToys 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To points made above, thank you. I certainly have tried to incorporate the use of surnames at all times now. This was the first time I was made aware of it. I asked to see the information and once it was provided, my revisions reflected that information. My sentence had a typo and was not grammatically incorrect. I do think splitting it into two sentences would be a good thing. I would agree that certain sections are not yet fully developed. However, I believe that the article is moving in the right direction and the structure should stay. What the sections address is not critical. I think that you get the structure and the information there correct and then fill out the rest of the article. I also used the {{epandsection}} tag in the appropriate places. // Tecmobowl 04:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My views on the recent revisions

MisfitToys has asked me to give my views on dispute that's going on. I'm not going to look through every single edit to see what has been changed, but I'll try to outline the major points and give my opinions on the issues at hand.

1. Brooklyn Team Name: I think that all of the separate team names need to be present in the article even though they were the same franchise. How about listing all of the names in the infobox, but in the first paragraph referring to it as the "Brooklyn franchise" or some other name that is inclusive of all their nicknames.
2. Use of the word 'premier', .etc: It's hard for me to go one way or the other on this. I understand you can judge his ability by looking at and comparing stats, but technically you could still have a dispute over what constitutes a 'premier' player. I would have absolutely no problem with it if it was cited. The current article says he 'was recognized many times by The Baseball Magazine as a top player' which is perfectly fine.
3. Stats in the intro: Personally, I don't care for a laundry list of statistics in the opening of an article. I would prefer a shorter summary ("He was among the major league career leaders in a number of offensive and defensive categories at the time of his death") and then, if necessary, a listing of the numbers at the conclusion of the article.
4. Use of citations: MisfitToys is right that he cited his material, however, without the use of inline citations, it's impossible to tell exactly what material came from him. I highly suggest using inline citations - see Doug Allison (or the one in this article that I fixed - when footnotes and refs are combined, I usually see them as 'notes') for their use and formatting. If MisfitToys can go back and add these in where appropriate, the problem is solved.
5. Article Subheadings: At this point in the article's life, I don't think they are really appropriate. It's mostly an aesthetic/organizational decision - they don't really make a difference at all as to what content is on the page. So I think the question is, does their inclusion improve the aesthetics or organization of the page? I don't think so. If someone does the research and writes a couple paragraphs about his early life and also about his death, then they would be warranted.

(numbers 6, 7, and 8 from the above list seem to be settled)

Hope this will help. - Mattingly23 05:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary of what's going on

I have continued my editing of the article and believe the article is in pretty good shape right now. More can be done and because it has been touched by many people, I'm sure there are some inconsistencies. I will try and fix those when/if i come across them. It would be nice to get some help on that.

The behavior of MisfitToys left a lot to be desired in my honest opinion. He is an administrator and should be accountable for his actions. It appears that he did not actually read the edited versions, he simply reverted them and then claimed there were problems. Some of the times, he was correct (see: the use of surname), but by and large he jumped to conclusions and did not provide any reasonable explanation for why he acted the way he did. This is not about the fact that we have a difference of opinion. This is about how the situation was handled. Wknight94, The Dark, and Jaranda all made attempts to discuss the situation without engaging in a revert war. I think people can see that the edits I made have been in an attempt to improve the article, not make it worse. Beyond this, I really see no point to continue this discussion. //Tecmobowl 06:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I indeed read the edited versions, but as you had simply returned to the versions containing all the mentioned problems (even those you conceded), I reverted them. In contrast, you reverted my corrections to your formatting without noting what I had done. Frankly, I believe you have conducted yourself like a bully in this dispute, and that this is part of the reason why other users have been cautious about responding. MisfitToys 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That is just not the case and I see no reason to continue arguing with you over this. Again, I am extremely disappointed in your behavior. You claiming I am a bully is somewhat unusual, as I don't know too many bullies who would engage in open conversation. I don't agree with you, that does not make you a bully. Further to the point, you should not be personally attacking me. You disagreeing with me does not make your behavior disappointing. How you have carried yourself does. //Tecmobowl 04:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to begin the article with Jacob Ellsworth "Jake" Daubert; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names indicates that common familiar forms of given names need not be specified, even when the article title uses it (e.g. Bill Clinton); the full formal name is sufficient. It's important to link to batting average in the intro, as non-baseball fans may be unfamiliar with what a batting title is; I also corrected the MVP year, and specified that he won the NL award (readers should not get the impression that there was only one award). I also revised the wording to call it the Chalmers Award, since no one at the time would have called it the MVP award. In general, Wikipedia style is that terms linked in the introduction should be linked only sparingly (if at all) in the rest of the article. And when linking plurals, there's no need to type [[home run|home runs]], as [[home run]]s accomplishes the same thing in less space. MisfitToys 00:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jake was his nickname, and I am just being consistent with other articles I have seen. Further to the point it is supported by the example you pointed out "Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards." Do you see anywhere when i argued about batting average? Just link the information and please stop turning everything into an argument. For that matter, I have not engaged You are correct that [[home run]]s accomplishes the same thing, however, it is acceptable to format as [[home run|home runs]]. I also believe the later is beneficial as it makes it easier to change the sentence structure and wording. Again, nothing is wrong with the way I did it, so i cannot see the reason for someone in your position to engage in an edit war over it.// Tecmobowl 04:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right that other articles show nicknames like that, but I prefer the way it is spelled out in the WP:MOSBIO link MisfitToys provided. I'll often remove nickname parentheticals from articles as MisfitToys has done. I also prefer the [[home run]]s format. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about making it "easier to change the sentence structure and wording". —Wknight94 (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to this. It is simply a matter of preference. Since I don't really spend a lot of time editing articles that are not sport related, I'm just trying to keep some consistency in that little world. I try and put myself in the place of a person who knows nothing of the person or article subject. I think that the formating of '''Jacob Ellsworth "Jake" Daubert''', because it easily communicates that the gentleman went by the name Jake and not Jacob. Again, in that particular example, it says how "Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards." With regards to linking items to other wiki articles, I try and keep the style consistent through the article. What i specifically meant is that it is easier for someone to come in and adjust links if you use the format I follow. You can change the text that is displayed. Regardless, I fail to see how these continued conversations are really beneficial. The article is in better shape now than when this whole exchange started. I do not believe MisfitToys has contributed to the articles improvement. All that is going on is, the article is enhanced, and the aforementioned user comes in and complains. Can we all agree that we should just leave the article for a bit and give some others the opportunity to chime in here? //Tecmobowl 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the mini-war over the article nor who did what to improve the article - they're both unimportant to me at this particular talk page. Here, all I'll do is weigh in on the article's quality. You might find that it was one or two editors that went through adding "Nickname" to all of the different articles. Regardless, it's wrong according to the style guide and I personally agree with the style guide in this case. The name the player went by could not be more clearly communicated - it's in huge font at the top of the page (article title). In cases like John Francis Buck → Jack Buck or Bernabé Williams Figueroa → Bernie Williams, I'll agree with you to a degree and won't bother changing them. In any obvious cases like Joseph Leonard Morgan → Joe Morgan and Donald Arthur Mattingly → Don Mattingly (two which follow the style guide - and it only took me three or four clicks to find two examples), I just don't see the point and I'll actually remove the nickname if I think of it while I'm doing a large edit to the page. (I'm not militant enough about it to make that my only edit or make mass article changes to affect that change). As far as [[home run||home runs]], we're splitting hairs even more, esp. since it's not even a visible change. One thing I know is WP:AWB is configured to change that to [[home run]]s automatically so that's pretty telling to me. It's a nice handy shortcut that makes things look a little cleaner in the editor. Your logic that it would somehow save other editors a fraction of a second is still confusing to me but I've already said more on the subject than I planned. As far as letting the article sit while others weigh in, this is Wikipedia so that's impossible to guarantee!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on the name listed first. I removed it as this seems like a reasonable extension of the discussion. I would agree with the splitting hairs and think that we just see this issue differently. Perhaps this discussion will lead me to change the way i implement wikilinks. The only thing preventing me from doing this on a massive extent right now is that i think the article should be consistent. If you are going to use the [[link here]]s style, you should do it with all links where applicable. We both seem to agree that editing that information should not be the only reason to edit an article. I can explain the logic, but i suspect it will just be a waste of time. I was implying that the people involved in this discussion should perhaps leave it alone for a while. In any event, onward and upwards, thanks for the thoughts. //Tecmobowl 13:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Johnny "John" Reid example is a different situation, used to cover instances in which what appears to be a nickname is actually a given name. That policy is stating that it's incorrect to write "John Edwards, born Johnny Reid Edwards," because it suggests that he legally changed his name; it's not referring to standard familiar forms. As to easily communicating that he went by the name Jake and not Jacob, that's the function of the article title. MisfitToys 21:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has run its' course in my opinion. I do not care to engage you in any more conversations. I still have yet to see you contribute anything of substance to this article. I have seen you argue with me, and I now see how you changed the wiki formatting without doing anything else. That seems nothing more than to instigate a reaction from me. I'm not going to change it because it just doesn't matter. I'm outtie, just stick to the content and I suspect you will avoid these debates and debacles in the future. //Tecmobowl 04:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As for my contribution to the article content, this edit probably counts as substantial. And you've been arguing that my attitude is based on my having written much of the content, so suggesting now that I haven't really added anything is unusual, to say the least. Frankly, I've been going out of my way to avoid instigating a reaction from you, nearly all of which I've found combative and unproductive. I see little point in adding anything of substance for the time being if your reaction is going to be removing it. MisfitToys 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Archive 1

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

3. It is stable.

   

4. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

5. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Comments

Overall the article is very good, but not to GA standard sadly. The lead firstly is too small as is the main body of the text; the categories aren't correctly organised and Image:Jake Daubert Baseball Card.jpg needs it's license fixed to a more suitable one. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 11:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

6c has been corrected. I find it somewhat bemusing that the article is being criticized on size, which is not a criterion. I'm also not exactly sure what is meant by "the categories aren't correctly organized." This review is not extensive enough to permit renomination and passing as per Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles.The Dark 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)