Talk:Jake Fishman

Interview, RBIs, headers, deletion of place of birth

1. The interview on the Fangraphs cite should be acceptable. As a primary source, to the extent it reflects what he himself said. Though we could improve it by attributing it overtly to him.

2. RBIs is certainly acceptable. It is actually Preferred. As reflected in baseball group discussions. And in the definition of the term. "The plural of RBI is generally "RBIs", although some commentators use "RBI" as both singular and plural, as it can also stand for "runs batted in"."

Truth -- please don't edit war to input a form of the abbreviation that is NOT the general one. If you insist on this, we should take it to a larger group to review your approach. With respect.

3. Minor leagues is an acceptable header. And communicates more than "professional."

4. If an editor is going to delete the place of birth because he dislikes the ref, he certainly can take the second to instead provide another ref. Such as mlb.com.

--2604:2000:E016:A700:E838:3D3A:2ABD:30AD (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

1 - The Fangraphs article is a community published interview, and therefore not reliable. Had it been written by one of the Fangraphs employees, it would be considered reliable. It's a blog post essentially, and we can't use it.

2 - Both RBI and RBIs are acceptable. The established format was RBI and in my opinion should remain the same, as there is no reason to change an established format (especially when both are acceptable).

3 - Professional career is the standard header, and in my opinion it better distinguishes between a player's amateur play and their paid career. An ill-informed reader may not understand what the minor leagues are, so stating that these teams are professional organizations is helpful.

4 - The place of birth in the lead is unnecessary, as it is covered by the infobox. I never said I didn't like the reference for the place of birth. And why "Layton"? The player's name is Fishman. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

1. I'm not saying we should use the writing of the article, but rather the words of the interviewee. As a primary source. Attributing them to him. The same as when a primary source speaks on Twitter.

2. RBIs is preferred. That is clear, and has been discussed, and should be followed. That is reason to use it. Not edit war, on behalf of the non-preferred format. What you are referring to is the standard when we do not have a preferred form. As with numerical vs non-numerical dates.

3. I disagree. People reading baseball articles will be used to seeing major leagues vs minor leagues. If you have any doubt, you can add "minor leagues" with an inline in the first sentence. We should give the reader a clue when they hit their TOC that his career is all minor leagues, not major. We should not force him into the body of the text to discover that.

4. You took the place of birth out of the first para below the lede just now, and moved it to the bottom of the article???

After you had initially, in your prior edit, simply deleted his place of birth completely? Without explaining why? What was that all about?

As to the infobox - it is stand-alone, and should be summary of the article. As wp tells us, the infobox: "summarizes key features of the page's subject." Same with the lede. Neither should lead us to delete material BECAUSE the material exists in another portion. That's simply not correct.

And it is typical for place of birth to be reflected at the top of the article, usually in the section directly below the lede, not at the bottom in a "personal" section. That's also terribly standard -- I am sure you have noticed that. Moving the place of birth to the bottom of an article is very unusual, and makes little sense -- it is the opposite of the chrono order of the rest of the article. If you disagree, lets call in the bio crowd to review. Or perhaps the other IP can weigh in on these points.

The fellow's surname is Fishman. His full name, which should be reflected in the first sentence, is "Jake Layton Fishman". It looks as though you were confused by this edit by another IP -- who made a mistake and then immediately corrected himself. Non-issue.

These points should not be controversial -- I am really surprised that you are edit warring to insist on using a non-general abbreviation. And to put the place of birth, out of chrono order -- where it was first -- instead at the bottom of the article. Etcetera. 2604:2000:E016:A700:E838:3D3A:2ABD:30AD (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)