Jump to content

Talk:Pete Rose

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abbreviations and info in lead box

[edit]

Guys, please let's discuss this instead of edit warring. My watchlist is getting tired. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, one more and he violates WP:3RR--Yankees10 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do you; you already have ([1], [2], [3]). Please stop baiting each other and discuss. Your edit summary was extremely uncivil. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was not a revert.--Yankees10 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You changed from the abbreviated version to your preferred version. It still counts as a revert according to 3RR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out that I've been going with the concensus; Yankees10 is going with what only he wants. Rose's entry had a lot wrong with it that I think I've done a pretty good job cleaning. Don't believe me; compare what it looks like now versus what it looked like before I started working on it. It still needs some cleaning, and I would like to continue doing that, but Yankees10 makes this a little difficult. I left him a message on his talk page a while ago, I brought it up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. I'm not the one warring here.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With who did you make a concensus with? Everything looks good except the infobox--Yankees10 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct grammar would be "With whom." Anyway, it's under the title "Rickey Henderson, Babe Ruth, Pete Rose and I'm sure there are others." You were part of that discussion. K5 made the point that there were 3 or more editors in agreement with that, then Baseball Bugs said the same. Rose played a billion positions, and if it was up to me, his infobox would say, "Infielder / Outfielder / Manager." It's not, so I put the concensus, which is "OF / 3B / 2B / 1B / Mgr."--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I never said that there were three or more editors in agreement with my position. I said that I believed when three or more positions are there that it makes more sense to abbreviate for aesthetic purposes. Even re-reading it now, consensus was not achieved on this issue, but discussion should still go on to attempt to achieve it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me this horse has been beaten and discussion is pretty much done. After you said what you said Bugs chimed in to add one either way. If you wanna reopen the debate, I really don't care, but I think this is a fairly silly "Who cares?" debate. A player's position taking up 2 lines is assinine; it should either say "Infielder / Outfielder / Manager." or "OF / 3B / 2B / 1B / Mgr." This seems obvious to me, but whatever.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you dont have to be a wise ass with your comments. Second the way the positions are lined up is not what I am caring about it is the rest of the infobox that doesnt go with other MLB infoboxes. But anways I think it should be Infielder / Outfielder / Manager if it matters.--Yankees10 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that it should say "Infielder / Outfielder / Manager," but you and I seem to be in the minority. We disagree on which one of us is an ass. Anyway, as far as the rest of the infobox goes, all I did was put his career highlights in chronological order. That bothers you? You're dumber than I thought.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to stop with the uncivil comments. Please. I don't know if I agree with the use of "infielder", and there are some good rationales for not using it at the other discussion, which is why the discussion hasn't ended and consensus hasn't yet been reached. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I would put "Utility player", as I did here (where nobody's complained in the three months it's been like that). Connotations be damned, that's the most accurate. My second choice would be "Left fielder / First baseman / Third baseman / Second baseman / Right fielder", which would be the next-most accurate, but also the clearest. My third choice would be "Infielder / Outfielder" (which essentially the same as "Utility player" but both less clear and less accurate, but still better than using abbreviations). -Dewelar (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, even in the utility player article itself, it says this: "The most famous utility player is probably Pete Rose..." -Dewelar (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not taking sides here ... but I glanced at the article and it strikes me that if one really wants to improve the way this article looks, the two things one might do to de-clutter the look and bring it within Wiki standards are: 1) de-link all the dates and years, and 2) de-link subsequent references to the same word.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best to de-clutter it. I moved the part about his head first slide under the "Big Red Machine" banner as the intro was a bit long. I've de-linked a couple of the links I've noticed were on there twice. I haven't noticed a lot, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of redundant and repeated statements that I've removed. His infobox is getting longer and longer as I add career accomplishments that-- for some reason-- weren't in there. I understand that an infobox is supposed to give an overview of a player's career, and it isn't really supposed to be as huge as his is, but when it is someone like Rose, I guess there is a degree of understanding out there that he is one of the exceptions to the rules.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most if not all of the words linked twice are now ok.
But nearly all the years that are linked (appear in blue), and there are many, should be de-linked.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if there was ever a consensus on the issue of linking to "Year in (x)"-style links, which is what all the linked years are via the {{by}} template. I did remove all the month-day links I saw on the page a few days ago, but left these up. -Dewelar (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an exception. The addition of a section link after the most important or most pertinent information to get to a complete list of accomplishments is a much more efficient idea. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been my understanding that random lists are supposed to be avoided. In any case, Rose was a member of the All Century team. In my opinion, that in and of itself qualifies him as an exception whose infobox is allowed to be a little longer than some others--Johnny Spasm (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the inline/piping of dates -- see the discussion on the baseball project page at [4].--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utility

[edit]

Pete Rose was NOT a utility player and was NOT the ultimate utility player as the section above says. A utility player is not a starter, yet gets abundant playing time do to his ability to play many positions. Rose has always been a starter at one position. Granted, the position changed several times over the course of his career. Call a utility player what it is.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you on this one, there is no way he was a utility player.--Yankees10 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as per my comments above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently on vacation in Texas. If the utility player article still calls Rose the ultimate utility player when I get home, I WILL change it. On a side note, if I hadda pick an ultimate utility player... Joe McEwing? Chone Figgins?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Freel? Mark DeRosa? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as those within my own memory, I'd have to go with Tony Phillips. -Dewelar (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'mbiased because I'm a Mets fan, but I think it's "Super Joe."--Johnny Spasm (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, if one of the requirements is not being good enough to be a regular, then Super Joe fits the bill quite nicely :-D . -Dewelar (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With that caveat, I'd have to go with Figgins--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

[edit]

I constantly have to check Pete Rose's entry because his succession box keeps getting moved incorrectly, and thus becomes invisible and other minor little stupid things like that. If its current location doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, AT LEAST IT IS VISIBLE! Go ahead and move it; I really don't care. Just move it correctly, and make sure you check your work and you can still see it afterwards. This is common sense, folks.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long term edit war

[edit]

The long-term editing dispute over the contents of the infobox needs to end. PLEASE discuss here, without name-calling, insults, derogatory comments, or other uncivil behavior. If the undiscussed reverting continues, I'm going to request that this page be protected until the users involved settle their differences. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is too long and should only have basic awards such as All-Star selections, world series championships, MVP and other OFFICIAL MLB awards, etc. Not the Hickok Belt which most people dont no about or WWE Hall of fame induction which has nothing to do with his MLB career. This is a MLB infobox. All of this should be in a section titled Records and achievements with a link to it in the infobox.--Yankees10 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I won't blindly support a revert war. Let's set out to achieve a clear consensus (hopefully with all involved users included) of what exactly should be included. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree with mainly how the infobox should look?--Yankees10 21:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be mainly for baseball-related awards, generally defined as the scope of List of Major League Baseball awards. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add it should not be in alphabetical chronilogical order. There is no way of putting it in alphabetical chronilogical order when he has made 17 All star selections.--Yankees10 21:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in CHRONOLOGICAL order. Who said anything about the alphabet. As far as official awards go, the Hickok belt goes to the year's top ATHLETE. That's a big enough award to belong in the infobox. May I also remind you that you removed that he was a member of the ALL CENTURY TEAM!! I'm not sure it gets any bigger than that. As far as the length of the infobox goes, i believe Rose is one of those exceptional cases where his infobox can be a little longer than most given the career he had. Wanna shorten it? Take out the part about MLB records. There is a section in the article with that information.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what the Hickock Belt is not an MLB award and should not be in the infobox. The award has not been given out in over 30 years and most people dont know what it is. Yes the All Century team should have a mention. The records should def. be in the infobox, but only the main ones, because the hit record is his biggest highlight. So the record mention should def. be in there over the Hickock belt and ABC and Sporting News awards--Yankees10 21:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Records that are explicated in prose in the lead don't need to be in the infobox. The lead is a summary of the article, and the infobox is part of that. If the hit record is mentioned in the lead, and the number of hits is shown in the infobox, it doesn't need to be under achievements too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Rose's primary claim of notability is as a baseball player. The infobox is a baseball player's infobox. The stats and awards listed should be baseball awards. The Hickock Belt, given for a total of 20 years, and not in almost 35 years is not a major award worthy of the infobox. The Wide World of Sports award was never considered a major award, even when WWS was on the air. Is there even consensus that pro wrestling qualifies as a sport vs. an exhibition or entertainment venue? These things can certainly be included in the article, but really are out of place in the infobox, which should be an overview of his baseball career. I have to agree with Yankees10 on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that WWE Hall of fame is kinda silly and probably shouldn't be in his infobox. That said, does anyone know what Pete Rose thinks of this awards and how important it is to him? This is a guy who has been excluded from the MLB hall of fame. Maybe it means a lot to him that Vince McMahon gave him the respect that baseball sports writers haven't. I don't personally know.

During season one of Dancing with the Stars, Jerry Rice said winning that to him would be just as big as his Superbowl victories. I though thtat was a little extreme, but he said it. I don't necessarily believe we are the ones to judge the importance of awards someone else receives. May I also point out that Yankees10 removed "All Century Team" out of Rose's infobox. MLB thought that this award was big enough to make an exception to his banning.

I've stated before, and I'll state again that Pete Rose was the sort of professional athlete exceptions can be made for. He had that kinda career. I don't really think it hurts anyone if his infobox is a little longer than, say Kurt Bevaqua's. So what, he's Pete Rose.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts still stand that this is a baseball infobox. It is for information related to his baseball career. His infobox will already be longer than Kurt Bevacqua's, or most other players, because of the things he accomplished during his career without padding it with excess. If you'd like a comparison, see Babe Ruth, whose infobox is streamlined, clean, and attractive. Barry Bonds also follows the format that Yankees10 has been using. May I also point out to you that, although Yankees10 did remove the All-Century Team, he has also acknowledged above that it deserves a mention (which I agree with) and that comments of this nature are what continues to foster bad blood about this article. If a person made a mistake which they later acknowledge and correct, it's not in line with WP:AGF to continually refer to it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually plan on adding the All-Century Team to every players infobox. I have no idea why I didnt add them in the first place.--Yankees10 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While a discussion of what Pete Rose considers important (re: honors, awards, etc.) would be good in the article (providing it is properly referenced and cited with reliable sources), I think that is irrelevant regarding the infobox. Remember: Thomas Jefferson considered his presidency very low on his list of personal accomplishments, but I don't think that would be grounds to replace his presidential infobox with a "scientist" or "architect" infobox. While he made inroads in may fields, he is primarily remembered today as a president. With Mr. Rose, unless he becomes an executive/announcer/actual pro wrestler, he will always be remembered primarily as a baseball player, and as the infobox is for baseball players, it should reflect that. In similar situations, say Bob Uecker, the infobox does not mention his acting career ... and he is someone for whom you could easily argue that he had a more significant acting career than a baseball career.
I will agree that Pete Rose is not your average athlete based on his baseball accomplishments, but I personally don't agree that his highly successful baseball career permits for the inclusion of all minor awards and non-baseball awards. That's my two cents. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done quite a few edits, and I always put the career highlights in chronological order. this seems logical to me, but for some reason, Yankees10 changes the order continuously without explanation. The point I was making when i brought up the fact that Yankees10 removed the All Century team is that he simply reverted my edits without looking at what he was reverting. Again, he just removed the All Century Team with no explanation. The fact that he later acknowledged "Oops, I shouldn't have done that" doesn't change the fact that this, and similarly unnecessary edits on his part brought us where we are today. I'm not married to the idea that the WWE hall of fame needs to be in his infobox, but if we're sticking with only what he's done on the playing field, the Wide World of Sports awards and the Hickok Belt were given to him for what he did on the playing field.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no way of putting it in chronilogical order when he has made an All star 17 different years.--Yankees10 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not just talking about what's been done on the field; it's about the relative notability of the awards. Not in terms of WP:GNG, but in terms of relevance to the history of Major League Baseball. As Yankees10 stated above, it's difficult to put awards in chronological order in this case because of Rose's All-Star appearances. As to the removal of the award, it's time to get over it, because it's a moot issue. We're trying to decide on an inclusion criterion, not start an argument about who did what, or point fingers at anyone, or heap fault on any one user. This is not one person's fault, by any stretch of the imagination. It takes two (or more) to tango. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current look of the infobox is as per MY EDIT. Do not be of the illusion that I broke up the 17 All star appearances or did anything other than include them myself. I put the 3 world series, the three league leaders, the seven hits leaders, the 17 All Star, then all the individual awards in chronological order. Therefore, the "But there is no way of putting it in chronological order when he has made an All star 17 different years" excuse is BS.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. The World Series champion thing does not belong there. That's a team accomplishment, not an individual one. That should NEVER be in a player infobox. -Dewelar (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is in every single other infobox, why should it not be in Roses.--Yankees10 23:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was I not clear in my previous statement? It shouldn't be in "every single other infobox" either. And even if it is, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. -Dewelar (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny Spasm, your comments are inappropriate. You really need to read WP:CIVIL before continuing to comment on this matter. It is not community-minded to disparage other people's views. It is technically not possible to create a pure chronological timeline if the All-Star games come together. Whether you put the other awards in chronological order doesn't particularly matter, because this is a debate about criteria for inclusion, not about order. You also need to read WP:OWN: you do not own your edits. You release them under CC-BY-SA and they become community edits, not yours. The current version is not endorsed by anyone (except yourself) just because it's frozen that way. The page is simply protected to facilitate this discussion.
As to the format: I support the amount of information in the infobox in Yankees10's version of the article. Non-baseball awards (those not included within the scope of List of Major League Baseball awards, whose COI is in turn determined by Baseball Reference) should be included under the "Records and achievements" section, as has been done at Barry Bonds. No other player has an infobox as big as the curren version here, except perhaps Albert Pujols, and efforts are attempting to be made to improve the quality of that article at the moment too.
I don't know that I agree with the removal of the World Series champion from the infobox, but that's a discussion that needs a wider forum (WT:MLB). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, it does. In fact, I expressed this very same opinion in our ongoing discussion with BigPadresDude about the infobox. Nobody else commented on it.
All that aside, let's discuss it in the context of this particular article. In a case like Rose's, where he has a lengthy list of individual accomplishments, listing team accomplishments as well is unnecessary. Something like that is more suited to an article like, say, Brian Doyle's. -Dewelar (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly does have a lengthy list of accomplishments, but does that mean that (if we keep the WS champs in the infobox) we leave out WS titles for anyone who's got records? Babe Ruth? Barry Bonds? Ted Williams? Where is the line drawn? I think that if we have the navboxes, we should still have the information in the infobox (and I'm not for deleting the navboxes, I think they are valuable). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of where to draw the line among players. The line is between players and teams. Teams win World Series. Players do not. They are members of teams that do. Personally, I think you're approaching this from the wrong perspective. I see no justification for listing team accomplishments in a player infobox. What's the justification? Keep in mind that the navbox is a completely separate issue, because it provides a link among related articles, in this case members of the same team. -Dewelar (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the distinction between players and teams, but isn't winning a championship the pinnacle of the career of any player? Regardless of his accomplishments? I'm sure that Bonds holds a championship in higher regard than his 12 Silver Sluggers and the home run record. [5] KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that many (most?) players would consider that the pinnacle of their career. Since the section does say "Career highlights and accomplishments", I suppose that does give some leeway. The thing is, the vast majority of players who are tagged "World Series champions" got there for exactly one reason: they had great teammates. Tagging the infobox like this gives the exact same credit to players who might have been playing at WS MVP levels as it does to someone who played one inning on defense, or a pitcher who got hammered in his only appearance and whose team won in spite of them rather than with their help. -Dewelar (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that point; however, I think that this discussion is getting us off track from the actual issues at hand. I'd be more than happy to continue it on the project talk, if you'd like. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I already conceded the main point, given the wording of the infobox :-D . I don't like it, but unless we make a change to the infobox itself, I realize that I can't really support my argument properly. -Dewelar (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people who disagree with me would not accuse me of lacking civility. I don't think the term "BS" is all that uncivil, and it is an accurate description of the argument against the edits I've made.

Baseball is a team sport. The team accomplishing the ultimate goal-- winning the World Series-- undoubtedly belongs in the infobox. Yankees10 & I agree on this; we disagreed on other matters. As far as I noticed, he'd removed "All Century Team" from the infobox and took it out of chronological order. That was mostly what I was reverting.

Another point that Yankees10 & I disagree upon that would like to throw out for debate: "17 X All Star Selection" vs. "17 X NL All Star". Rose played during an era when players took pride in being NL vs. AL players, and as a tip of the hat to that mentality, I prefer "17 X NL All Star", and believe George Brett, Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, Reggie Jackson and other pleyers from that era who made all there All Star appearances for one league should have infoboxes specifying that information. Agree? Disagree?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mention the civility policy because I disagree with you. I mention it because I consider your remarks possibly inflammatory in a delicate situation. Discussion can become contentious, and calling someone else's opinions (which we are all entitled to) BS could be considered offensive, whether you deem it so or whether you intended it to be as such. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are players who were an All-Star in both the American League and National League. Look at Randy Johnson. He was a 10-time All-Star: five in the AL, five in the NL. But to me, there is no reason to differentiate between which league he was in. His article should say "10x All-Star selection", not "5x AL All-Star" and "5x NL All-Star". To achieve consistency amongst all infoboxes, I think they should all be written as such, even if the player only made the All-Star team for only one league or the other. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ksy92003. It would be just plain stupid to seperate for guys like Randy Johnson or Alfonso Soriano or Ken Griffey Jr., etc.
While I am full agreement that infobox info needs to be reasonably curtailed ... and I am not saying this needs to be infoboxed ... but having a quick reference that shows # of AL/NL championships and World Series championships is nice for quick research. The issue with All-Star Games to me is more problematic. Do you include "played in" (of course), "voted/named to", "voted/named to, but did not appear due to injury"? I think there are different editors who deal with this differently, and it has led to a problem. This is a broader issue certainly beyond Mr. Rose's article, but I think it illustrates a further potential problem with listing All-Star notations (at least until an absolutely clear definition is included).
Would it be possible/desirable to include a very small tag under an infobox (similar, but smaller, to what you see for Hall of Famers) that just says "Member of 'x' World Series Champions"? This could be a compromise that allows for some quick fact gathering by researchers, while maintaining the integrity and uniformity of the infobox across all Major League players? LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Randy Johnson's infobox should read five time AL and five time NL. That was not what I was saying. Rose played in an era when players took pride in being AL or NL players. I would only specify AL or NL if the player exclusively made appearances for one league or the other. The examples I gave were George Brett, Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan & Reggie Jackson, and they all fit into that category.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well why should there not be consistancy with the infoboxes? Just because a player played in that era why should they be different--Yankees10 18:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no difference between All-Star appearances made for either league; clicking on the link to the ASG tells you what league they played for, and their team for the year is listed in the infobox. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, thats why it is pointless--Yankees10 21:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it pointless, for more reasons than the fact that it's an opinion, and everyone's opinion matters. It provides information, and there is a difference between the teams, of course; there's just no distinction necessary, IMO, between an appearance in one league vs. the other. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The era a game is played in makes all the difference. Ballplayers took pride in being NL or AL players in Rose's time, and I don't think it is a big deal to write "17 X NL All Star" instead of "17 X All Star Selection". I wouldn't write 5 X AL and 5 X NL All star on Randy Johnson's like someone else suggested. And if you disagree with this distinction, is it really worth changing in your mind? Is this making the article all that inconsistent? To me, it is just giving it a little distinction.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same standard should be applied for all articles, all players, regardless of era. A league is a league. Do you have reliable referencing that supports your claim that players were more proud to be AL or NL players than they are now? To me that sounds like WP:OR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Orlando Cepeda good enough for you? http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8565559.html --Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in front of the paywall that says it's a matter of pride; the teams just hated each other. That's no more hatred than this. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief this is a long debate.. I couldn't care less about the all-star game debate.. but the Reds should be linked in the info box each time they are mentioned, not just the first time as is standard on all other articles. Spanneraol (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I unlinked that. I was of the impression that it was only supposed to be linked the first time it is mentioned. If that is wrong, that's on me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it is supposed to be linked each time. Not only is it standard but it looks terrible if it isnt.--Yankees10 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, teams with multiple tenures should be linked each time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

[edit]

OK, so here's an informal straw poll. The article is unprotected again, so it's time for us all to make a decision. I will put some proposals below. Mark below all that you support with an indented bullet (:*), your rationale, and your signature if you endorse it. Thanks.

Proposal #1
Limit inclusion in the infobox to the scope of List of Major League Baseball awards. Link to the records section from the infobox.
Proposal #2
Include all baseball-related awards won in the infobox.
Proposal #3
Include all awards in the infobox.
Proposal #4
Keep World Series championships in the infobox.
Proposal #5
Remove WS championships from infobox.
  • Oppose I think a better question would be do you put in division championships and World Series losses? In other words: 1970 World Series, 1973 NLCS. Perhaps not in Rose's case, but I've included that information on players who've never won the World Series.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal #6
Keep MLB records in infobox.
Proposal #7
Remove MLB records from infobox.
Proposal #8
Denote "league" for all-star appearances, batting championships, etc.
  • Endorse only for players of who've made all their appearances in one league. I also don't think it would be a bad idea to denote elected starters and #1 vote recipient in there as well. Right now, there is no distinction between Mike Schmidt and Joel Youngblood making the 1981 All Star team.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal #9
Remove league denotation from the infobox.


Guys, I think this is something that should either be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball or Template talk:Infobox MLB player. Let everybody get their opinions in. Don't restrict them to those of people who have Pete Rose on their watchlist. Ksy92003 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "restricted", per se, but I notified the WP. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be support in the thread above for including awards such as membership in the All-Century team, yet I don't believe any of the proposals above covers this. Also I have the same query as LonelyBeacon for MLB records: some guidance on what records are deemed important would be useful. In the past, I have had a disagreement on whether or not a player's rank in the switch-hitting leader lists are important enough to be included in the lead; I wouldn't want to see switch-hitting records in the infobox. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the All-Century team wasn't included in these proposals; there seemed to be such an overwhelming consensus above that I didn't think it necessary to include it. I don't believe that switch-hitting (or any hand-specific) records are necessary for the infobox; they can be mentioned in prose in the lead instead. World Series champion is a tricky subject; I would support WS roster or postseason roster. I don't think Frank Thomas should be listed for the Sox in 05, or Nomar for the Sox in 04, etc. As to the limitation of statistics, I think that anything included on a "main page" for one of the major stat sites could be included. Whether that's Yahoo, ESPN, B-Ref... that has yet to be decided. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, proposal #1 excludes listing membership in the All-Century team. On an aside regarding switch-hitting rank in leader boards, I disagree that this info should be in the lead, as this is typically not a relevant context used to rank the skills of a player (an example of a more relevant context is ranking by defensive position), and so is not a summarizing characteristic of the player. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider proposal #1 to exclude the All-Century team, because it's not an award; it's recognition by the league. I know the distinction may be slight for some, but I don't consider them to be the same thing. On the switch-hitting aspect, I don't understand how you believe it to be an irrelevant context by which players are ranked. Could you elaborate? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, additional clarification is required about what shall we say honours should go into the infobox—perhaps all official MLB honours?
Regarding switch-hitting, I've never seen any analysis of a player's worth take into account his rank solely among switch-hitters. As a result, I don't think it is notable that a player is, for example, seventh in career total bases and at-bats among switch-hitters. Isaac Lin (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, I hear commentators talk all the time about "most home runs by a switch hitter", "highest batting average among switch hitters", "home runs from both sides of the plate", etc. Where are they getting their analysis, and why put it on the air, in print media like Baseball Digest and The Sporting News, and in online analysis by sportswriters (found here hosted by USA Today), if it doesn't matter? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you hear commentators speak about someone being "seventh" in the career switch-hitting singles list? Commentators and media talk about many things that are not adequately indicative of a player's skill level, and there's nothing wrong with that—they have lots of time and space to fill. I believe the lead in a Wikipedia article should focus on the key defining characteristics of a player. Being a switch-hitter is a key characteristic, but the ranking within switch-hitters for every hitting category under the sun isn't terribly revealing; the player's ranking among all hitters is much more relevant. Results in the end are what matter, not the sides of the plate from which the result was obtained. Isaac Lin (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about someone being seventh on the career switch-hitting singles list (though I'm sure Joe Buck and Tim McCarver would talk about it – it's not like they ever have anything else useful to say). I was only talking about record-holders among switch-hitters. Sorry if I wasn't clear. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox, redux

[edit]

The scope of List of Major League Baseball awards has changed, so we should revisit the Lou Gehrig and Hutch Awards, etc. Also, the Sportsman of the Year isn't part of the COI either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hutch, Lou Gehrig, etc should def. not be removed, but the SI Sportsman of the Year should probably be.--Yankees10 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The proposal above notes that we should stick to the criteria for inclusion of that topic, and those criteria have changed. In the grand scheme, those awards aren't particularly important. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Problems

[edit]

Putting them in chronological order was never agreed to.--Yankees10 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was never disagreed with either. Is there any rhyme or reason to the order you want his accomplishments in? It seems pretty random to me. Why not have them in some kind of order is the real question.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, it looks like the awards were put in order of precedence (although I think the World Series should be first). I'm still of the opinion that those awards not within the scope of List of Major League Baseball awards shouldn't be included, and it would be nice if this was made a hard criterion for the whole WikiProject, but this is at least a good place to start. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put them in this order:All-Stars, World Series championships, Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, Awards in order of impotance, and at the bottom retired numbers, etc.--Yankees10 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason my comment was moved? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the IP that reverted was not me. I have no idea why they randomly reverted you.--Yankees10 16:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is and isn't important is a matter of opinion, but given that baseball is a team sport, the World Series titles should go first. As far as individual honors, multiple honors probably should go next (All star selections, batting titles, etc.). Then, I believe that chronology would be the best order. Who's to say that the silver slugger is more important than the Roberto Clemente award?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The order of awards goes after the World Series, All-Stars, Gold Gloves, and Silver Sluggers are listed since they are usually won multiple times.--Yankees10 21:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is necessarily an "order" to it. If someone only won one gold glove, and multiple of the other awards, I think it would be foolish to list the gold glove among his multiple awards. I added the runs and hits leaders to his infobox in that order. It seems to me that runs are more important than hits, so I put one ahead of the other. I think, however, once the multiple awards have been listed, chronology is the best way to list the other awards. As Yankees10 himself pointed out, in doing that, retired numbers usually wind up at the end.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the grand scheme of things, awards won on the field should be placed ahead of awards presented for work off the field. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as presige... maybe (and I mean maybe) but I really feel that there is no real way to determine order of prestige for certain awards and it is probably best to list them chronologically.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief (but appropriate) Film Role

[edit]

Rose had a brief acting apearance in the TV-movie biography Babe Ruth (1991), playing none other than Ty Cobb. I'm told that Cobb isn't depicted in uniform because of conditions in Rose's ban from baseball. WHPratt (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That program does not have a Wikipedia entry? It does, however, have an entry in IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed for 4000 hit club?

[edit]

Under the Montreal Expos section of Rose's playing career, it says "citation needed" regarding his going in the 4000 hit club (he's only the 2nd member, Ty Cobb being the 1st). There is a "4000 hit club" redirect on Wikipedia going to "3000 hit club", whose members included Rose and Cobb at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

412 or 426

[edit]

Both those numbers are given, in this article, as how many games Rose won as Reds manager. So, which is the correct total? GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

412 according to http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/rosepe01.shtml Silicon retina (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pete Rose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pete Rose. 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:

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) 01:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The out call

[edit]

The article reads "Dave Pallone made a late call at first base that allowed a runner to score from third base what would be the eventual game-winning run."

That's actually not correct. In baseball a play continues until all Runners have scored, or all Runners are safe on a base, or an Umpire has recognized a request for a timeout, or an Umpire has made a third out call. Until the empire makes that call to play a still alive. Watching the play it's easy to see that the call wasn't even close. The throw pulled his foot off the bag a half a step before the runner got there. If he had any doubt as to what the Umpire was going to call he should have made a play at the plate. It was a serious lapse of attention. Not to mention the first base coach was on the playing field when the call was made. And you'd think Pete Rose of all people would have recognized that lapse because as Charlie Hustle he feasted on situations just like this where the Defenders were distracted or caught with their backs turned to him. I actually loved that about him but he had nothing to argue about here.. The first basement should not have been waiting for the call allowing a runner to score from second base on a ground ball to the infield. So let's not whitewash this. It was sad to see what had become of Charlie hustle and the worst was yet to come. What I removed in my edit was he said she said. Jackhammer111 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rose referenced in Billy Joel song

[edit]

I recently got several Billy Joel songs from my young adult years stuck in my brain. One of those is "Zanzibar" from the 52nd Street album. Pete Rose is referenced in that song and I think it could make an interesting addition to this entry. (I was also a Big Red Machine fan back in the day.) My suggestion is inserting the following brief paragraph in the "Personal Life" section just before the paragraph beginning "As of March 2014":

Pete Rose was referenced in the lyrics of the song "Zanzibar" originally released by Billy Joel in 1978 on the 52nd Street album: "Rose, he knows he's such a credit to the game / But the Yankees grab the headlines every time." The Wikipedia entry for that song provides more context on the lyrical reference, and also notes that in later live performances "instead of singing of Rose being 'a credit to the game,' Joel jokes that he will 'never make the Hall of Fame.' "

There are WP entries for Billy Joel, the album, and the song, so those would become internal links. (Sorry, this talk page apparently only allows source editing, so I didn't create those links in the draft above.) The WP entry for Zanzibar already has good context for this (with citations), although it does not have the quoted lyrics. My hesitation is that my only source is that WP entry (with its external citations).

I'm still new at this and obviously this is a high-profile entry, so I'd appreciate constructive feedback. Willard1979 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ?

[edit]

Muboshgu, wouldn't you want to wait until we have better sources than TMZ? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu 45BearsFan (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pete's agent, Ryan Fiterman of Fiterman Sports, confirmed the news, saying, "the family is asking for privacy at this time."[6] And "better" sources are confirming the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, TMZ shouldn't be the only source in the article. But it's moot now, as ABC has confirmed it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1972 Caption for Pete Rose batting.

[edit]

The 1972 Caption for Pete Rose with a bat is WRONG. That is from 1970. The team had gotten rid of the belts by 1972, and had stripes on sleeves, waist, and neckline. 2603:6010:E000:1031:30BE:AACB:2DF0:787D (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPOSED 1972 HITTING STILL -- WRONG.

[edit]

The 1972 Caption for Pete Rose with a bat is WRONG. That is from 1970. The team had gotten rid of the belts by 1972, and had stripes on sleeves, waist, and neckline. 2603:6010:E000:1031:30BE:AACB:2DF0:787D (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC) 2603:6010:E000:1031:30BE:AACB:2DF0:787D (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. The Reds wore that style of uniform between 1968 and 1971, so there is no way that picture came from 1972. The picture is from a 1972 baseball card, which would almost certainly use a photo from the year before at the least, and maybe even one from several years before that. This is not a Topps card, but Topps was notorious in those days for using the same picture two or three years running. I am going to change this. Indrian (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Rose&oldid=1254045405"