Jump to content

Talk:Ken Griffey Jr.

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muboshgu (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 12 August 2016 (→Main Picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Napgate

This is a WP:BRD discussion of the recent removal of the "Napgate" description from the header of a section which covers the issues leading up to Griffey's retirement (dubbed "Napgate" with multiple citations) and actual retirement. As the term appears well-sourced and is a core part of the section as currently written, the edit has been reverted to prior consensus. Explicitly, consensus can change. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back, since in a BLP, those concerns trump BRD. I really don't think this "napgate" is so important that it needs to be in the section header. It's a part of the story of his midseason retirement, so it should stay, but "retirement" seems sufficient as a header to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What "concerns?" I'm unaware of a WP:BLP policy which restricts the use of non-pejorative terms about an event which are extensively used in the ensuing media coverage and well-cited. About half of the section's content is explicitly about Napgate rather than retirement, hence its appropriate use in the header. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.. the section is about his retirement and why he retired... "napgate" is a term that was used at the time but i dont feel it has real lasting notability today and its use in the section header implies a bigger controversy than it really was. The section should be "retirement". Spanneraol (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs, two different topics. Napgate didn't cause his retirement, it preceded his decision to retire. If he didn't retire, Napgate is still notable and well-cited. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree that "napgate" is important enough in the scope of his career to have its own section... the material should either be included in the Mariners section or in the retirement, and I feel retirement makes more sense as it led to his retirement. Its undue weight to give it its own section. Spanneraol (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the two topics are linked, they should share the section as has been the long-standing treatment. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oknazevad: I am unaware of any policy which precludes the common name of an event from being used as a section header. Also, you specifically referenced a WP:MOSHEAD violation, but there does not appear to be any on-point issue therein. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization was incorrect. But I also agree it's WP:UNDUE to include in the header. It's described in the section, that's all that's really needed. oknazevad (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:UNDUE, what viewpoint is lacking representation or being under-represented? UW Dawgs (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. But UNDUE is also about overstating things as well. oknazevad (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As most of the section's content is about Napgate, how is using the term in the section header "overstating?" UW Dawgs (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It inflates the importance of "napgate" in the scope of his career. Spanneraol (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ken Griffey Jr.. 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 19:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture

Griffey Jr. played for the White Sox so his main picture has every right of being a White Sox picture as it does Mariners. I propose that the main picture is him with the White Sox on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with the remaining days being with the Mariners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFlamingTurd (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think Griffey is better identified as a Chicago White Sox (Sock?) than as a Seattle Mariner? He spent 13 seasons in Seattle, and less than one in Chicago. You're really proposing we alternate the image on an ongoing basis? Articles are supposed to be stable in content. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Put another way, let's look at his games played totals. Griffey played 1,685 games for Seattle, 945 for Cincinnati, and 41 for Chicago. If you really wanted to alternate the lead image, it should be with a picture of him with the Reds, not with the White Sox. And since the article body has images of him with all three teams, there's no issue here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it needs saying, but subject mostly known as pictured with Seattle. I honestly can't imagine this to be a legitimate suggestion or sincere editor, fwiw. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but I'm treating the comment seriously per WP:AGF. It was serious enough for the editor to edit war over. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Griffey_Jr.&oldid=734214948"