Talk:Nate Freiman

Edits

There have been some back and forth edits, trying to vary per what appear to be personal preferences from the initial state of the article. Some comments. Please don't edit war over personal preferences that are not mandated by policy (or are wrong), to change the initial state of the article.

1. "RBIs" is a standard plural for RBI. Check out these thousands of articles about Freiman's RBIs on mlb.com. And most sources -- as I'm sure you know -- use RBIs for the plural. Or check our article which states as much. I'm amazed that an experienced wp baseball editor would edit war over the consistent state of the article on this point. You will find this approach used elsewhere as well, such as in “POWs” (“prisoners of war”). And “MREs” (“meals ready to eat”).Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

2. Please point me, if it exists, to policy that mandates that you revert a pre-existing format in the article that has the name as it was. I don't see it. The format as it was --- which you sought to change -- is precisely what most wp articles at higher level do. See, for example, "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton". Please don't edit war over reflecting "Nate", any more than you would over reflecting "Bill" in Clinton's name. And where you have a personal preference that is not supported by a mandating policy change, please respect the editors who use a perfectly appropriate and accepted style if (unlike here) two styles are used and accepted. You create problems if you have a personal preference, no policy that mandates it, and you seek to alter existing articles to match it just because you like it that way.

3. On references, there is nothing incorrect with the style first used, so again -- please stop edit warring just because you have a personal preference that was not the one used in the article as it was created. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to edit war over pre-existing, appropriate style issues.

1) You're right, I'm wrong. I could swear there was a thread at WT:BASEBALL where we determined that the "s" at the end of "RBIs" was superfluous. Bad memory, I suppose.

2) I know I've seen it spelled out before, but common name shortenings are against WP:MOS. On your specific exampe WP:BIRTHNAME lists the proper naming of Bill Clinton as "William Jefferson Clinton", so whoever has added "Bill" into that is wrong.

3) I know there's nothing to say it's "incorrect" to spell out how many columns there are, but why is that better than letting the browser determine the number of columns? Some screens are bigger than others, and can accommodate four columns, while some are too small to handle more than two. My personal computer can display three, which looks better than two. I don't understand the pushback on that. It's an issue of accessibility for all, having nothing to do with what I "like". Why bother reverting that? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Thanks. If there were such a thread, as you can imagine I would seek to reopen it. It's the same as POW ... we don't call the plural "POW." Acronyms that are common in usage are treated the same as a word for these purposes, and attract an "s" to become a plural.
• 2. What language in that MOS do you feel mandates that excision? I see the same question is implicitly posed in the revert of your edit at Bill Clinton here. And are you going to also delete their commonly used names from the first sentence for Jimmy Carter, Jerry Ford, Jack Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, Rand Paul, Kim Kardashian, Johnny Depp, Kate Upton, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Bob Marley ... I'm getting a sense, just by glancing for a moment, that the community does not read the MOS the way you do, and certainly does not apply it the way you do. Plus, as a matter of pure common sense -- what in the world is the benefit? The guy is known as "Jimmy Carter" ... why would you delete that from the first line?
• On my screen, it looks far worse. It turns two columns -- easier to read, for the same reason that newspapers have columns -- into one. And if it were so clear that your approach were always the better one, we would mandate it across the project and not allow the first-used approach here. And as to the main point -- unless there is a very good reason, as Arbcom has said more than once, it is a bad idea to edit war over personal preferences on style issues where an initial acceptable style (that is not your preference) is being used.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nate Freiman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511203934/http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121206&content_id=40552520&vkey=pr_hou&c_id=hou to http://houston.astros.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121206&content_id=40552520&vkey=pr_hou&c_id=hou
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411093849/http://www.modbee.com/2013/03/30/2646888/waiver-pickup-freiman-gives-athletics.html to http://www.modbee.com/2013/03/30/2646888/waiver-pickup-freiman-gives-athletics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)