Template talk:Infobox MLB yearly

message: Try not to change things in the infobox that would affect the articles where the infobox has already been placed (i.e. changing OWNERS to owners), as this requires someone to go back and change the code in the other articles. Thank You. --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates are not static things. If they need to be fixed, they need to be fixed. Someone who watches the pages where the template is used will notice and update the template accordingly. I mean, what you are saying is that one a template is created and transclused in an article it can never been changed. That is just silly. — Linnwood 16:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates can be changed in an article, I'm fine with that, but something as unnecessary as changing the capitalization of a variable so that many other pages need to be edited isn't worth the work. That is silly. --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't silly, it is standardization, something Wikipedia could use a lot more of. I have gone through and changed all of the templated in each article it is used in. — Linnwood 04:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to delete Uniform Logo from this box, as it requires unneccessary use of a fair use image that can be looked at for the main article on the team, under WP:FURG. Thank you. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to the infobox 

message: I think 90% should be a good size for fonts in the infobox. "Smaller" is too small and 95% is too large. Agree/disagree? --Zimbabweed 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Font size

message: I don't know if this is a good idea, but could we add former cities and/or ballparks to the infobox?  Just wondering, maybe it would help. jj137Talk 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think that is necessary since the infobox is focusing on the team in one particular year, not previous years.  --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea? 

message: I reverted the addition of the primary/secondary color schemes to these info boxes.. It made reading the text really hard on some of the teams.. for instance the blue text for NL West champs on the Dodgers season articles disappeared completely when the Dodger blue color was added.. I really don't think its necessary on this template anyway. Spanneraol (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Color

message: As reflected by Help:Infobox, one of the purposes for an infobox is to allow for a quick relevant summary of the season so it can be used to quickly compare seasons between each other.  It's my opinion, that the infobox in its current state is lacking that ability.  For example, this infobox does do a good job of noting postseason outcome, but requires a reader to scroll down to the standings section in order to determine what the regular season outcome was if the team didn't make the postseason.  For another example, we are provided with local broadcasting info, which changes very seldom, and makes no statement about the success or failure of the season, but should we really be displaying this sort of thing when we're omitting basic season info such as how many games a team won or lost?  As of right now, the reason why it's not working is because the information provided in the infobox is much less indicative of the actual overall gameplay than it is for secondary informational aspects.
Here are my proposals to improve:
#Add divisional place finish
#Add regular season record and percentage
#Perhaps add season's All-Stars?
What are your thoughts? Is there a consensus to improve the infobox in this manner? If you do not personally agree, why not?  --Brian Reading (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if a different field is needed for the standings.. if you want to add that info just use the "misc" field... thats normally used for things like World Series or Division championships but the regular record can easily be put into that... a lot of work to add it to every past season though... Not sure about all-stars. Spanneraol (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that using "misc" doesn't standardize anything.  Also, I'm not proposing standings in the infobox, simply the place in which the team finished in their division. Brian Reading (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I've decided to be bold and add both the divisional place and season record/percentage to the infobox as optional parameters.  I will be updating some articles with this info.  Feel free to add this info to existing and new articles.  It should be much more helpful to compare seasons. Brian Reading (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if "divisional place" is the right header... as the divisions have only existed since 1969.. and that header wouldn't be appropriate for pre-divisional standings. Unless you also want to add a "league place" for non-divisional standings. Spanneraol (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, remember this infobox is only for post-1969 seasons.  There is a pre-1969 season infobox as well. I may do the same change there as well and use the "League place" text as you suggest though. Brian Reading (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After evaluating the pre-1969 infobox, I've determined that it is almost identical to this infobox with the exception of no divisions.  It looks like that was the initial reason for creating the pre-1969 infobox, and has only been kept that way because of a technical limitation regarding formatting.  Now that I have overhauled this infobox, that technical issue is gone, and so I have made the changes to allow editors to use an optional league finish parameter and made the division parameters optional.  Because it is now immediately usable for all of the pre-1969 season articles, I will be moving forward with the deletion process of the pre-1969 infobox.  We still won't need to make immediate changes to the articles because we can simply have it redirect to use this one. Brian Reading (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to improve quick yearly comparisons 

message: Regarding this edit, I'm not certain that a link to the baseball portal is directly relevant to a team's seasonal article and thus if inclusion in the infobox is warranted. The typical standard to be met is if the information is essential for a summary of the key characteristics of the subject; I don't think this criterion is met. What do others think? isaacl (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Brian Reading (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've self-reverted. It was an attempt to get the portal link on all appropriate pages, but that's not the way to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your consideration—I appreciate the practical nature of your change, but the general Wikipedia practice that I'm familiar with is to place links at the top of an article only when there is a direct link to the topic (for example, if the article is one in a series of articles covering the history of the main subject). More indirect links, for better or worse, have been placed near the bottom of the article. Part of the issue is that an article could easily fall under the scope of multiple portals, and so these links could end up taking a lot of valuable space at the beginning (particularly on a narrow-screen device). isaacl (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal link 

message: In an attempt to be bold and modernize this infobox, I have converted it to use the  meta-template as a base.  I have done this for several reasons.  Firstly, it should allow for easier modification as it uses a far more user-friendly syntax, and now matches Wikipedia's documentation.  Furthermore, among other advantages, it will now automatically conform to the consensus upon general updates to infoboxes.
We should not have to worry about updating any articles with these changes, as I have designed the new infobox to conform to all of the old parameters and continued with the same colors and format.  It should look and behave very much like it did before.  Most editors and users should not notice a difference.  I have also updated the documentation accordingly, but intend to improve upon this as well in the future.
I should note that I have also made some minor changes that I thought were appropriate.  I have removed the vCard microformat, as it did not appear to be appropriately used here.  A vCard is typically used to provide metadata regarding a person or organization.  This should be left to the main team pages, as a particular season does not have much relevance in providing such info.  Secondly, I have changed the last section of the infobox from "Season information" to "Other information" as the former designation seemed awkward.  After all, the entire infobox is about the season's information, not just that section.
As far as new additions go, I have also added an optional "Results" section for reasons that I discussed before.  If you'd like to talk about this particular addition, please use that section.
I have done my best to test this infobox with several articles while it was in its sandbox, so I don't think we'll run into any technical issues, but if there are some, let's discuss this here.  Brian Reading (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to use the {{[[Template:Infobox|Infobox]]}} meta-template and other changes 

message: I think having the team logo in the infobox would make the articles more visually appealing.  I see in the discussion above that there was also a uniform logo at one point that was deleted.  I'm on the fence with that one - I feel it could also be interesting and important, but the greater issue to me is the team logo.  Some of the articles 1986 New York Mets season have a logo field and logo that don't show - the field must have been deleted.  Any thoughts about bringing it back?  The logo can change depending on the season http://www.patriots.com/news/evolution-patriots-logo-and-uniform, so that seems relevant. Timtempleton (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It would visual appeal, but it would not help the reader better understand the topic. That infobox field was removed because the use of non-free logos on these season pages fails to meet WP:NFCCP. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add the logo the team was using that year to the template  

message: The line for location, such as the city name, the bullet is missing from the format, so a period appears OUTSIDE the template box. Example is on [Braves Season] Atlanta622 (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, that seems to be a lint error, caused problem due to accidental remex switch Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 24 April 2018 

message: To fix a missing end tag lint error, remove the three apostrophes from
| above       =  '''
— Anomalocaris (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2018 

message: The template currently lists team personnel in the "Other information" section, in the following order:
* Owner(s)
* General manager(s)
* Manager(s)
* President of Baseball Operations
See for example 2019 Boston Red Sox season or 1986 Chicago White Sox season.
There is a pecking order to these roles, which should really render as:
* Owner(s)
* President of Baseball Operations
* General manager(s)
* Manager(s)
I would like to revise the template accordingly.  Comments welcome. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of "President of Baseball Operations" in infobox 

message: The ESPN stats link is no longer working. Need to replace ESPN.com with  ESPN.com
Thanks! Tommie91•Talk•Contribs 19:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 22 September 2020 

message: Change the line
| data3       = 
to 
| data3       = 
Using ":*" breaks the HTML bulleted list (as noted at MOS:LISTGAP). — Goszei (talk)  22:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't render correctly. It shows two bullets instead of one indented bullet. Please test in the sandbox and on the testcases page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I think I've fixed it in the sandbox now. — Goszei (talk)  23:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's better. I have added a pathological case to the testcases to show that this template could use some error-checking for required and dependent parameters (using ifboth or similar), but if nobody is currently complaining, we can let it slide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 28 April 2021 

message: Change the lines
| abovestyle  = background:lightyellow;
| above       =  
to 
| abovestyle  = ; line-height: 1.5em;
| above       =   DaveTheBrave (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I realize changing the background and foreground colours of table cells based on team colours is widely used, due to legibility issues that arise, my personal preference is not to introduce this convention into more locations such as this infobox. Using colour borders instead was discussed a number of years ago at , though it didn't get implemented. isaacl (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree here - allowing fg/bg colours to be based on team colours seems to be the road to a whole heap of WP:CONTRAST issues... firefly ( t · c ) 08:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 15 July 2021