Category talk:Major League Baseball team navigational boxes

Format
It seems like we should try to put together a page of consensus on how to format these team templates and what to include. Then a hatnote could be added to each template page discouraging all these needless edits that get reverted quickly (especially to the Important Figures section). — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested layout, do edit freely
In all cases, try to avoid using linebreaks and single-entry rows. They clutter the navbox, making it less and less useful.

'''Formerly. . . • Based in. . .': Any of the franchise's former names used in the Modern Era (post-1901) should be included (prefixed with "the", and with only the names'' in bold). The location of the club's current home park (city + state/province) should be used, with each wikilinked. If the location is not the principal city of its metropolitan area (or perhaps even if it is, à la the Bay Area), the name of the metro area should be included afterwards in parentheses.

Ballparks: Each ballpark used (or to be used) as home park for more than n regularly-scheduled games in franchise history, along with the current spring-training facility and future parks at the end. Parks should be put in order of when the team first made use of them, and the current facility should be in bold.

Culture: Any other subject related to the mythos of the franchise and worthy of its own page (or significant subsection of another article).

Rivalries: Try to include only rivalries worthy of their own page (note: worthy of a page, not necessarily requiring the current existence of one). Use the unique name if one exists and is sourceable.

Important Figures: Current players, managers, etc. should only be included here if their accomplishments to date would merit inclusion. Don't let recent bias creep in here. A good rule of thumb would be: "Fifty years from now, if this person did nothing else, would we consider what they have already done with this team important?" Basically, "important figures" should never cease to be "important". Outside of that, some good guidelines for whether a person belongs: Figures should be ordered in a roughly chronological fashion (obviously subjective), perhaps considering the "peak" of their "importance" as the point to be ordered.
 * Inclusion in the Hall of Fame, and is associated largely with this team (not to the exclusion of others, but playing one season doesn't necessarily count)
 * Inclusion in a team hall of fame, retired number, ring of honor, etc.
 * Setting a major record or being a member of a prestigious "club" (300 wins, 3000 hits, 500 homeruns, etc.)
 * Large media/cultural attention (Fernando Valenzuela, Bo Jackson, others of that ilk)
 * All-Star selection while with the team.
 * Long-term association with the team regardless of specific accomplishments (perhaps in multiple roles, like playing + broadcasting)
 * A certain premium should be placed on those associated with a club's glory years (i.e., a manager who was in charge for 3 years and won two pennants likely merits inclusion more than a manager in charge of 7 mediocre seasons)

Retired Numbers: Links should be to players, but displayed only as unitalicized numbers. If an unnumbered person (like a pre-1930 player) is included by the team, their surname will have to suffice. Jackie Robinson's 42 should be included in its proper place. Any numbers retired multiply (Bill Dickey and Yogi Berra's number 8s) should be listed separately. Teams instead using a Ring of Honor or somesuch should list all players there; an entire section just to list Jackie Robinson is a bit redundant (perhaps the note "retired" would be appropriate).

Key Personnel: Current (principal) owner, President, General Manager, Manager. Try to avoid lengthy official titles if at all possible, and keep the list of owners to at very most three, preferably one.

Championships: Avoid putting counts in the title section, as it becomes difficult in some cases to provide a fair count, as well as the clutter introduced by the numbers in parentheses. If the pennant title is kept to only "Pennants", subtitle thingys can be used to differentiate pennants of different leagues (necessary for some old NL clubs, and the Brewers). Same with Division and Wild Card titles, as many clubs have won titles in multiple divisions. This also keeps the sidebar title free of clutter. Ideally, the format is:
 * Championships (For modern as well as pre-modern World Series titles)
 * Pennants (For championships of ones league. Note that post-1969 this means the winner of the LCS, not the club with the best regular season record. The Chronicle-Telegraph Cup of 1900 should probably go here.)
 * Other titles (For all division titles, including the 1892 & 1981 half-season titles (and which should be noted as to which half was won), as well as Wild Cards. Any current title the team could be eligible to win yet has not should be noted with "none")

Seasons: Clubs with more than, say, 25 or 30 years under their belt should get a subnavbox for the links to the season articles. Clubs with fewer can be left in a standard row.

Important Figures
I largely agree with the criteria above. But I think "All-Star selection while with the team" is a bit too lenient. Many, many players get a single all-star selection and they are not all important in the context of the team's history. I would suggest at least a 3 time all-star selection. Better yet (combining this criterion and the long term association), something like: Or maybe that is too technical.
 * 15 years with the team in some capacity, or
 * 10 years and at least two all-star selections, or
 * at least 3 all-star selections.

On the other hand, winning a major award (MVP, Cy Young, ROY, WS MVP, manager of the year) with that team could be considered to qualify someone as an important figure.

The milestone criterion as described above may be too strict. Anyone who meets that is likely in the HOF or meets other criteria (long term asscoiation, all star selection, media attention in the case of a Pete Rose situation). But a lower threshold (such as 200 wins, 2000 hits, 300 HRs) may work.

Another criterion might be an all-time leader in a major category (games, hits, HRs, RBIs, runs, batting average, ERA, wins, strikeouts).Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)