Template talk:Seattle Mariners

message: While it is difficult for anyone to decide who is worthy of being included in a short list of "important" people in Mariners history, there should be some kind of criteria.  Things like All-Star Game appearances, individuals' noteworthy achievements (300th home run, 300th win, etc), post-season awards, and longevity with the club would all be reasonable filters when reviewing a potential candidate for inclusion.  For example, Alvin Davis, the 1984 AL Rookie of the Year, would qualify; however, a part-time role-player like Willie Bloomquist should probably be overlooked, even if some people feel he is a fan favorite- there are, after all, dozens of similar players over the team's 32-season history (like Rich Amaral).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funktasm (talk • contribs) 07:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, though Bloomquist would be pushing it I think if they are notable to Seattle Mariners, on or off the field, they should be added. They should be a career Mariner or have spent a good amount of their career with the M's. The career milestone criteria is ridiculous, I'm going to have to say Rich Amaral or even Willie Bloomquist will be remembered as a Mariner much more than Gaylord Perry. I am not however saying that they are better or Gaylord Perry should be taken down. It seems stupid to make a rule like this. I understand It's so people don't put up the Mariner they liked the best but fan favorites (if notable) should and can be put up. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that, since what makes a person an "important figure" is relative, there should be some general guidelines in place to keep that section from becoming a copy of the club's all-time roster.  Career milestones are most certainly a valid criteria to consider.  Additionally, people editing that section should make the effort to weigh current players' popularity against the accomplishments of people from the team's past (i.e., Mike Blowers is a decent broadcaster and was a solid player, but should he bump a guy like Mark Langston off the list, who was an all-star and one of the faces of the franchise in the '80s?).  If someone's got some other criteria they think we should all be considering, then by all means, speak up.  The only way these things get better is through collaboration. Funktasm (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, your point on Langston, "one of the faces of the franchise in the '80s," Freddy García was one of the faces in the early 2000's (and he was an All-Star in '01 and also the lowest ERA in the AL that year). Blowers was a noatable player but also is the current broadcaster for the Ms and has been for quite some time. I feel fine with putting Langston up but players who were just all-stars? That's too vague. Whats the point of this if we only think of milestones? "Important Figures" says to me, people who you think about when you say, Seattle Mariners. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for Inclusion in "Important Figures" 

message: I propose adding "Tuba Man" Edward McMichael to the "Culture" section. Given what some other teams have in their navboxes under "culture", I say it's only fitting. Thoughts?? Kuyabribri (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuba Man 

message: Is Kenji an Important Figure? This seems odd. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenji Johjima