Talk:Rickey Henderson/Archive 2

message: I believe all the request have now been made, as of this revision. We can only hope that the vandals stay away from the article. Please advise on other corrections/improvements. Timneu22 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions made 

message: I am failing this article for GA. I still think the prose needs to be worked on, and the issues with the "Later years (1993-2003)" section still need to be fixed. Some of the references come from blogs, which clearly do not meet WP:RS. Given the size of the article, I think more references are needed, and the article should incorporate more prose throughout. If you want more details about his playing career from 1993-2003, check out Rickey Henderson's page on baseball-reference.com. You can access day-to-day gamelogs there. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm free, I will also give a hand with the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that Rickey has been in the news for becoming the first base coach of the mets, the edits are out of control for this page. I doubt it will ever meet GA with some of the idiots on here. Timneu22 10:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: minaya was on with russo and was very iffy about rickey being the hitting coach, almost leading one to believe that it would instead be hojo. i'm going to change mentions of "hitting coach" to "coach" until something more definitive comes out. Riphamilton 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that what you said makes any sense, but there's a citation. Your edit will be reverted. Timneu22 09:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I told you so. haha. Riphamilton 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYM Hitting Coach is not certain 

message: I know that very recent events always create a sudden uptick in Wikipedia edits, and sometimes a distortion of emphasis.  But the focus on Henderson's week-old coaching job (intro, photo) is way excessive.  (Perhaps someone who feels otherwise could provide a list of the sport's all-time great first base coaches?  If Henderson's job ranks as an instant "accomplishment," then Bobby Knoop, who held the same Angels' job for almost 20 years, must be an all-time sports legend.)  Just on a purely literary level, the Bill James quote provides a perfect coda for the intro.  To tack on the Mets gig afterwards is like Rhett Butler saying, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.  By the way, do you know the bus schedule?"
*I've switched the photos.  The one from this week is nice, and I'm glad to keep it in the article, but he's almost 49 years old in it and it's hardly the best available example of why Henderson has a Wikipedia entry.
*: CORRECT.
*I've deleted the Mets first base coach box, as the succession goes all the way back to 2003 before stopping.  To have any real value, this feature needs to be comprehensive... or at least, the historical information therein needs to predate the playing career of Jose Reyes.
*: CORRECT.
*The intro has "run" hyperlinked twice in two sentences; I've removed the second instance.
*: CORRECT.
*Henderson finally acknowledged his retirement as he was being introduced as Mets coach.  The verb tenses need to be changed.
*: CORRECT.
*There have been dozens and dozens of articles, both media- and fan-driven, discussing whether or not Henderson's lengthy non-retirement would delay his HoF eligibility.  This occurred most recently when Oakland floated the idea of signing Henderson to a one-day contract, and whether or not such a move would inadvertantly "restart" his clock.  It hardly seems necessary to provide references for a phrase like "contrary to speculation," but if it's really that problematic, I will.
*: I disagreed with this and removed it.
208.120.227.69 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have little respect for those who hide behind IP addresses, but see my comments above. Almost all of this is entirely correct. People adding "is the NY Mets coach" in the intro is absurd; it is not what makes him noteable. Thanks for these edits, 208. Timneu22 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last line of the intro said he "... currently is the Mets coach". That's not bad, I guess. The mets photo was there, too. I reverted the edit completely, even though I think the "mets coach" is an okay line for the last line of the intro. Earlier, it said "Rickey Henderson is the Mets coach" as the first line. That's just dumb. Timneu22 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There needs to be a mention that he is on the mets coaching staff in the intro. i don't care about the color of the statbox, that's kinda childish. his job is what this future hall of famer does currently. it's not promoting for mastercard. dave duncan was a great player, his article's intro states he's a pitching coach.... larry bowa, guidry, etc. the position he holds is tantamount to a roster spot on a major league ballclub. Riphamilton 05:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As mentioned before, I think it's okay to have that as the last line. The mysterious 208 user is the one to continually remove that line. It does belong, but only as the last line of the intro. The whole color-revert war is getting annoying. Timneu22 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rickey Henderson: The Greatest Coach In Baseball History

message: The "henderson coach" image has some problems:
* it should not be in the infobox. Rickey is notable for being a ballplayer, not a coach.
* it is likely that the image isn't being used with proper copyright; it will be deleted soon.
Because of this, I've left the image in the "coaching" section but removed it from the IB. Timneu22 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image issue 

message: Can someone please explain how the info box colors work - because this seems to change on a weekly basis based on people's individual discretion.  I agree that based off his playing career, there is no argument other than Oakland A's for Henderson's colors.  However, he is currently the first base coach for the New York Mets.  That said, I would think that he should show Mets colors being that he is, at the present time, a high-profile coach for the franchise on the major league level.  Someone pointed out that the info box is based on playing career only, but if that is true, then Willie Randolph should be shown as a Yankee, Mike Scioscia a Dodger, Joe Torre a Brave, etc.  I don't understand why people can randomly assume there is an exception for managers but not coaches?  I have even gotten into arguments with people saying that players should be shown by the colors of teams they are presently ANNOUNCING for (that I don't agree with - Ralph Kiner has announced for the Mets for 46 years but he should still be shown with Pirates colors for his playing days).  If an individual is on the field, in uniform, on a nightly basis for a MLB team at the present time, I believe that team should bear his colors.  If I am overruled, then fine, but we should establish a set precedent.
: It should show A's colors. Rickey is notable for being a player, not a coach. Timneu22 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be current affiliation. He wears a Mets uniform, bench coach is an important position. I don't like the Mets, but it's most fair (in my opinion) to list Mets colors on Mets coach/player roster. As per the argument above, Willie, Scioscia... noted players for other teams. Mghabmw 22:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we acknowledge coaches or not?  Kirk Gibson is a coach on Arizona and is shown with D-Back colors but Rickey is not shown with Mets colors.  What is the wiki standard?  Gmh224 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Rickey Henderson is a couch with the Mets, then he is currently wearing a Mets uniform and should have Mets colors. Rickey is a classic Athletic, but he works with the Mets. Mghabmw 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rickey is notable as an athlete. The current colors are appropriate. Timneu22 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Willie Randolph as one of the few Yankee (co)captains.  He is also notable as a bench coach, which is his current status. After he stops coaching, then I see no problem with him being in green and yellow. Mghabmw 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care either way but it should be consistent.  If Rickey is shown with A's colors, then Kirk Gibson should be shown with Tigers colors, etc.Gmh224 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take this discussion here. Timneu22 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is that I don't care so much about whether his info box shows Mets colors or A's colors.  I'd think it probably makes more sense to show A's colors as the info box is designated for him as a retired player.  However, I think it is definitely notable to say in the opening paragraph that he is presently coaching for the Mets.  It is noteworthy in that it is his present position, and while nobody would dispute that his playing career with the A's is what he is most notable for, it is worth noting that he is in an MLB position at the present time. Gmh224 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Mghabmw's constant reverts and updates to this article are just annoying. Why won't everyone just stop with the color wars already? The colors don't need to change every two days!!!!!!!!! 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The colors should be A's colors he is not the manager of the Mets he is a coach--Yankees10 21:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's probably true. But Mghabmw will revert anything like that. I wish that infobox had no colors and only allowed black/white or something generic. Timneu22 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box colors 

message: There was an interview with Rickey on mlb.com on July 21st in which he states his true birth name, and how he came to have his current name, and that he was born in a 1957 Chevrolet, not an oldsmobile. 
The appropriate links have been provided, I dont understand why they would be removed again.
It comes DIRECTLY from an interview with the subject where he makes these statements. 
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070721&content_id=2100450&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
: His autobiography says Oldsmobile, and "... born Rickey Nelson..." isn't important enough for the first sentence. Timneu22 09:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Name/Early years 

message: An introduction should state who the subject is, who he was, and a summary of what he's done.
Rickey Henderson is not dead, so stop concentrating on who he was.
Mghabmw 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully disagree here.  See the Babe Ruth analogy in the recent invisible edit.  While it is true that Henderson is not dead, it is also true that his status as an ex-player disproportionately outweighs it to a huge extent.  Cal Ripken's intro (rightly, I would suggest) does not mention that he is a State Department envoy... and that's a far more unusual and high-profile gig than being one of 30 current first-base coaches.  In the hope of compromise, I had previously added Henderson's Met job into the infobox, which is something you typically do not find in Wikipedia baseball articles.  I hope that that edit accords it the sort of prominence you prefer.208.120.6.222 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the most part, I have stayed out of these edit wars, but I gotta agree with 208 here. Timneu22 12:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I completely agree with Mghabmw.  Nobody would argue that Henderson is more prominent as a first base coach than as an ex-player, but that is what the man currently is at this moment.  It is certainly relevant and encylopedic to list that in the opening paragraph.  If you made that the focus of the intro, then that would be wrong, but there is nothing wrong saying, "Henderson is currently serving as..." Jjj222 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This information is really redundant, as it's already in the article twice.  Furthermore, you and your various sockpuppets have been blocked countless times from Wikipedia, so your abuse of the website and longstanding users makes your opinions very suspect.  Work more on regaining your good standing in the community, instead of making provocative edits, and perhaps you'll find other people will trust you. Googie man 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, of course, with Googie man. I ask this: if Rickey were currently serving as the owner of his own restaurant, or as a hotel owner in Vegas, or as a Subway sandwich artist, would that information be added to the intro? Highly doubtful. So there's no reason to add that he's a coach. Timneu22 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: We're going to try this article again. Hopefully the vandals will stay out this time. Timneu22 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your patience during that admittedly ugly flame war between myself and Jjj222/Gmh224/JoeIdaho/Pascack/RandomIP.  I'm simply on the warpath against vandals and he's a particularly bad one.  I'll do what I can to help with the RH article.  Thanks, Googie man 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am here to help as well.  Just let me know. Jjj222 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nominee 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):   - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: October GA Review

message: Article fails for same reason as previous review.  Article needs many more references.  The lead can also use some improvement and expansion.  See Wikipedia:Lead section.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely disagree with the lead section improvement. Currently, it is concise and accurate; it gives a perfect encyclopedic introduction of the article's topic. Timneu22 (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review Feb. 2008

message: Apologies for not simply putting this article on hold, but I feel as though the problems here are substantive and will likely take more than a few days.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
As you can see, most of the problems exist in the prose. The main problem, and the most glaring is the often unobjective and unencyclopedic tone. To bullet points:
*The first paragraph, and really the whole lead, spells this POV out. The lead should establish the entire topic, not be a run down of everything great Henderson ever did.
*: The lead was said to be "too short." So we expanded it. Now it's a run-down of everthing? There is no consistency in the GA reviewers. What are the GA standards for this? Timneu22 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortness was a major problem and we did good to fix that.  I tried to guide the intro to improvement, and despite the reviewers concerns, the intro and the whole article have really improved.  I'm sorry I didn't catch more of these issues and I'll try to help, so don't give up.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the guideline for it comes from WP:LEAD. While users can interrupt it differently, I guess, to quote it: 
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." I think it does a good job of establishing notability, and giving context. But I'm not sure if it totally explains controversy or could stand alone as its own article. SorryGuy  Talk  17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think a good example of how you want the lead to look would be Lee Smith (baseball). While he also had a great career, it does not go straight to the achievements or the numbers. It summarizes who he played for and when, says why he is notable, and then gives a short overview of his career is two good, solid paragraphs. Your current length is fine, but the coverage could be improved. SorryGuy  Talk  17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't contest your assessment of the lead at all.  I just think that despite the current leads limitations, it is actually an improvement from what was there before.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history, you are probably right. I do like the current version though. It could probably still use some work, but it is a far more neutral, general overview of the topic. SorryGuy  Talk  16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current revision is the best yet. I agree with 208 — it's not notable to put Oakland High School in the lead. The quote from Bill James is a powerful thing and gives instant credibility. It definitely belongs in the intro. Timneu22 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I GIVE UP.  Timneu22 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Fail