Talk:Barry Bonds/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Acting

I seem to recall Bonds acting in a TV movie years ago, as a lawyer. Does anyone have any information on this? I believe it was when he was still playing with Pittsburgh. And had a mustache. --JerryLewisOverdrive (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC) He indeed played a very short role on the TV series Beverly Hills 90210, in a scene playing golf. Here is the link to that clip: http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=25504 AMurshima (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)AMurshima

error?

On May 20, 2006, Bonds tied Ruth, hitting his 714th career home run to deep right field to lead off the top of the 2nd inning.[26] The home run came off left handed pitcher Brad Halsey of the Oakland A's, in an interleague game played in Oakland, California. Since this was an interleague game at an American League stadium, Bonds was batting as the designated hitter in the lineup for the Giants. Bonds was quoted after the game as being "just glad it's over with" and stated that more attention could be focused on Albert Pujols, who was on a very rapid home run pace in early 2006. The concession stand where home run number 715 was hit in center field

The dates ... i thought its 2007????

On May 28, 2006, Bonds passed Ruth, hitting his 715th career home run to center field off of Colorado Rockies pitcher Byung-Hyun Kim.[27][28] Bonds, like Aaron, needed more at bats than Ruth to surpass the Babe's record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.93.211 (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Heroism redirect?

Unless there is some really good story behind this... why does "heroism" redirect to Barry Bonds?

ZoopTEK 04:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't, and a quick look at his editing history is that he's vandalized 3 redirects and done a bunch of other bizarre spam adds. Thanks for reverting, but always make sure to document it so it can be escalated quickly if they persist! Cheers. Old64mb 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just read and compared the opening paragraphs of Mark Mcguire's entry to Barry Bonds entry. Nothing but kind words of achievments for Mark Mcguire. Inspite of the numerous achievements that could be discussed of Bonds, it instead displays a generous portion to the alledged steroid scandal. Why not have the opening paragraphs bit more equal in structure? Grandizer5 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Milestone home runs

Why are home runs 751-754 milestone home runs? I can see why #750 would be special (3/4 of the way to 1000), but why would the following 4 be? - E2MB the museblogger 18:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted them. Chris! my talk 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Chasing home run record section

Should this section be incorporated into the "2006 season and beyond" section? It seems odd to me that it is right behind the "other record" section while it should be included as part of his career. I haven't do anything yet, and I think it is better to discuss first before I make the change. Chris! my talk 21:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This section is much more detailed and loaded down with minutia than an encyclopedic discussion of the HR record chase merits. It should be greatly condensed (two HRs, 755 & 756, discussed in any deal) and rolled into the 2006 and beyond section. In fact, from a historical perspective his whole SF Giants career section should be significantly reduced in size.--Fizbin 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

asterix Most people consider his steroid abuse to negate his home run achievement and that an asterix is needed after his record. How did this not appear on the main page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.224.228 (talk • contribs).

Have you talked to "Most People?" Bonds has never tested positive for Steroids. If MLB brands the record with an asterisk, Wikipedia should as well. Unless that happens, the "Controversy" section is sufficient. Schoop 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Before and After Image

Can somebody add a before/after steroid use image for Barry? Here is an example: Image:Http://121gigawatts.blogspot.com/bonds.jpg--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.48.248.95 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 August 2007.

there is no such image. a photo of an athlete at 20 and the same athlete at 40 is going to show changes. compare photos of babe ruth at the start of his career and at the end. since bonds has not been proven to have taken steriods, such 'comparison photos' are a red herring. all they're comparing is youth versus middle age. someday, perhaps you'll understand that. Anastrophe 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We can still show photos of when Bonds was young and what he looks like now. But they should not be labeled before & after steroids. - E2MB the museblogger 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'd love to see that argument used when a picture of Barry at 35 is used with one of him at 39.--Freepablo 04:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

your point being? oh, wait. i'm sorry. i forgot. i don't care. i'll take a wild guess that you're a twenty-something or younger. just you wait...you'll understand someday. Anastrophe 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
even better, just display his hat size at 25 and then at 40. The body changes, but HGH is the only thing that's gonna make your skull bigger. Staypuft9 11:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the image is irrelevant.--Borgardetalk 14:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT irrelevant. You morons! The point is not to mock his older shape, it is to point out that he was in far, far superior shape and build at 40 than he was at 35. It is entirely relevant. 66.157.232.183 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand the points being made by this anonymous poster. However, he/she must understand that such images would only be relevant if they were used in some "official" context, such as at a trial (and even then, they would serve a better purpose at such a trial). The problem with using such images is that even though to you, me, and most everyone who follows baseball, it's freakin' obvious that Bonds has taken steroids, this is still not confirmed by any third-party source valid for a Wikipedia article, and no image or caption should refer to steroids unless their use has been confirmed. To put that in a nutshell, using such images would be original research, and would be an instance of a Wikipedia article pursuing an agenda, rather like if the article on Deep Throat had, sometime before 2005, shown a picture of W. Mark Felt (prior to his having revealed himself). Does that make sense? \sim Lenoxus " * " 02:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference to "morons" should be deleted, as contrary to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Further, the continuing discussion on this should be abbrieviated given that there is no hard information available to document ay allegations.

69.181.188.254 04:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


can someone put in his quote saying that he believes alex rodruguez will beat his HR record —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolofalien88 (talk • contribs) 01:57, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Many men naturally get bigger as they get older. Its crazy to say that a man at 40 would have the same body as he did at 20. Furthermore, Bonds is an athlete that does weight training. Even without steroids this will also affect the build of his body. Furthermore, Bonds is on track to hit over 30 home runs, at 43, despite intense media pressure and hate. He LEADS MLB in statistical categories like OPS and OBP. Doing this, by the way, at a very low number at bats (AB). Bonds is obviously being tested for steroids and has yet to fail, but is still putting up very impressive numbers. Bottom line, Barry Bonds can play baseball and is one of its top hitters of all time. Its time to stop hating on the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.201.150 (talk) 01:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

home run ball

Poemisaglock 04:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 04:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) there should be something mentioned about matt murphy, the man who caught the hr ball. Perhaps even an article (although this would probably be more appropriate in a few weeks, once he decides what to do with it) Dang, there must have been 20 cops "escorting" him out.

I just read and compared the opening paragraphs of Mark Mcguire's entry to Barry Bonds entry. Nothing but kind words of achievments for Mark Mcguire. Inspite of the numerous achievements that could be discussed of Bonds, it instead displays a generous portion to the alledged steroid scandal. Why not have the opening paragraphs bit more equal in structure? Grandizer5 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody added this information. --Chobbs138 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Link to Matt Murphy Article?

An article has been started for Matt Murphy, but it seems it hasn't been linked to, what with this page being locked and all.

barely passes the notability test in my opinion. but really, what's the freaking rush? this article is about barry bonds. the random human being who happened to come up with the ball isn't even much of a footnote, particularly not until, say, he actually speaks to the press and people learn a little about him. but that's just my opinion. Anastrophe 07:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The historical and monetary value of the ball itself easily puts Matt Murphy past the notability test. And while I certainly don't see any rush to put any details about Matt Murphy in the Barry Bonds article, the sooner a link is added, the less detail about Matt Murphy we'll see cluttering up the Bonds article in the days to come. 24.18.71.169 08:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt Murphy merger proposal

The home run was notable; the ball is notable; Matt Murphy is not notable. The only vestige of notability for Murphy is that he caught a ball. His article will never justly grow beyond a stub. It's allready being filled with fluff like "Matt attended college at the University at Buffalo, in Buffalo, NY; where he studied physical therapy. Referred to as "Scuba Steve" by close friends he joined the Alpha Sigma Phi fraternity in the fall of '03. After three years of tenure at UB Matt returned home to Queens where he lives while working in Manhattan." The home run being notable, merge the article here. Terry Carroll 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


I agree Matt Murphy is not notable, although his 15 minutes of fame could be put in a category that gives him just that, 15 minutes. He is an afterthought, an also-ran. Should only be a footnote in the Barry page similarly to the pitcher Mike Bacsik.

article merger

Poemisaglock 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC) The Matt Murphy article is basically already mentioned in Barry Bonds, but Matt Murphy should at least redirect to Bonds.

Wow, not only does he get the ball, the fame, (probably) the money, but he also gets his name redirected to an article on the Barry Bonds on Wikipedia! --  timc  talk   02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

updating stats

piecemeal updates of stats create more work for others. in the last ten minutes, bond's home run total has been updated to 757....in two or three places. ignoring his season stats, ignoring the park stats, ignoring the career stats towards the bottom. your thrill in being the 'first' to update the stats leaves the article in a fractured state until all the instances are updated. Anastrophe 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(in response to Anonymous Coward, since reverted, the reason I don't do it myself is because i'm not a baseball-stats-wonk. i would certainly screw it up in new and uninteresting ways, worse so than merely having all the stats a simple mix of current and outdated.) Anastrophe 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
And, if you do try to do the right thing, you get edit conflicts every time you try to save. --  timc  talk   11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bond's has 27 home runs and not 26. This has been wrong, here, for a while. Why can't something simple be updated? ESPN ( http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=1785 ) and MLB online ( http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=mlb&playerID=111188 ) has all of his information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.197.146.252 (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in the "milestone home runs" section.

"1st career home run by the known faggot." It's protected, so I can't change it. Could someone do it for me? Thanks! Nebmeister 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

gone. Anastrophe 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find this; has it been changed?

69.181.188.254 04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk of alleged steroids use in the first sentences

I just read Mark McGuire's article, and there's no mention of his alleged use of steroids in the opening paragraphs. Why should this hold different for Barry Bonds? Barry Bonds has never tested positive for any type of performance enhancement drugs, McGuire has. There shouldn't be a double standard on wiki. Kwame1234 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


The article should say little about the steroid controversy and Barry Bonds' role in it. Almost everything that has to do with Barry Bonds and steroids is allegations and not fact. Since no evidence can be introduced that would allege that Barry Bonds has used steroids, it is not legitimate to mention it, other than as allegations, perhaps in one single sentence or paragraph. There will be plenty of time to include these things when the particular investigations are concluded and the information is released publicly.

69.181.188.254 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonds threatens to sue detractors

http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6613235&siteId=56

MVP Award Error

The second to last paragraph in the Resurgence section says the MVP was first awarded in 1931. It has been awarded since 1911 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml). 216.185.210.251 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


This source says the MVP award was started in 1922:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-229957/baseball

Additionally, I found this reference:

" three different "official" most valuable player awards "

at this link:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/awards/aw_mvp.shtml

and suggest using similar wording to that found on that page, for clarity. It also uses 1931 as the starting date.

69.181.188.254 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bonds' Bat?

im curious as to info on the bat he uses. length, weight, wood, manufacturer. MrM 08:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Accomplishments in three places

Does anyone else find this list not only cumbersome, but awfully redundant? His MVPs, Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, Hank Aaron Awards, and All-Star years are listed in the infobox; his single-season records for most home runs, on base percentage, slugging percentage, walks and on-base plus slugging, along with his career records for home runs, walks and intentional walks, his status in extra base hits, bats per home run and runs, total bases, RBI, on base percentage, and slugging percentage are detailed in the "career distinctions", along with the recap of the stats from the infobox. All his "other records" are listed in the next section. Why must they show up again in another list? I'd like to see this list paired down to only the awards and accolades that are not already enumerated above. HokieRNB 13:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

it's good that you brought your concerns here. however, it doesn't create consensus. this is a major change to the article. if this were an article about a non-notable ballplayer, then being ruthlessly tight with the editing would be appropriate. however, we're talking about a ballplayer who holds some of the highest records of distinction. comparisons based upon how many records he holds, and the extent of those records, is certainly notable - again, for this article. i'm restoring the removed material. perhaps it can be reduced, revised, rearranged to some degree with consensus. until then...Anastrophe 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm glad that my edits brought someone to the table to discuss this. I will continue to edit the area formerly titled "career distinctions" to include all the information in the long list of "accomplishments" and then we'll see if we can get rid of this section. Note that I don't believe any information was actually "removed", only refactored and, if redundant, then one copy was removed. HokieRNB 18:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
agreed as well - that is, i don't disagree that there's redundancy. with a player of bond's stature, coupled with the controversy, it's very hard - imo - to strike a balance between the article being a puff piece, and dealing with the relentless stream of sockpuppets (not you, obviously) who have been trying mightily to chip away at bond's reputation through subtle and not-so-subtle edits (see 'canseco, a-rod, soriano'!). i think some redundancy can be ...'forgiven' isn't the right word, but again, Bonds is at the pinnacle of baseball right now. getting across the magnitude of his accomplishments to joe-random-wikipedia reader, who may not know a thing about baseball but has heard the name, is to some degree established/reinforced through repetition of the stats in comparison to other stats. hope that makes sense. Anastrophe 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think if you look at the refactored "career distinctions" area, you'll see that the "impressiveness" of his numbers comes across with a significant amount of force, and works in everything that is included in the "accomplishments" area. I still don't follow the argument that by putting the statistics in twice it somehow makes it a better article. HokieRNB 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
i'm not suggesting that repetition of the stats makes the article better. statistics can be presented in such a way that they provide no useful information to the average person. baseball is a game of statistics; how statistics are presented can make a big difference in what people learn and understand from them. yes, some of the stats are listed multiple times. however, it's not like there's one fixed form of the stats in the article, and that boilerplate is simply dumped multiple times at random. stats relative to other stats gives the reader a sense of their scope.Anastrophe 03:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It still makes no sense to have the same statistics presented multiple times. All the information has been presented under career distinctions. Unless other editors can present some good reason why it should be duplicated, I'm going to remove the redundant section of the article. HokieRNB 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of redundancy in the various trivia and milestone sections. There's just too much detail, especially compared to other players of similar caliber. I've put the {{trivia}} tag on them again. --Madchester 03:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm curious who the 'other players of similar caliber' are. Bonds stands alone as the home run record holder, and holds - as the article shows - an extraordinary number or other records. I agree that some trimming of the stats is needed - but tagging as 'trivia' isn't the way to deal with the problem. Anastrophe 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
following up on myself here with an example: you tagged as 'trivia' section seven, which begins with a list of the top-5 record holders for home runs, runs batted in, extra base hits, etc. - you'll note that in those lists, only one other active player is in the top five, and for only one of the records. that's significant - and it's illuminated by the presentation of those stats in that format. Anastrophe 06:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak, i'm doing a manual diff of 'accomplishments' and 'other records', with any leftovers possibly remaining in 'accomplishments. that shoudl reduce raw duplicates a fair bit. it's a start. Anastrophe 06:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Error in the single season records

I'm pretty sure Barry wasn't walked 2000 times in 2003--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.32.118.175 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 August 2007.

Fixed HokieRNB 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


"Controversies" section

The "Controversies" section contains a disclaimer that it should be incorporated into the rest of the article for neutrality purposes. In the case of this individual, however, I would suggest that this is valuable. I am not a follower of baseball and while I had heard of Mr. Bonds, I was unaware that he had generated any controversy until the past few weeks. I decided to look him up on Wikipedia to see what the fuss was about. Had the "Controversies" section not existed, I would have likely elected not to read the whole article to find the relevant information. I would suggest that the disclaimer be removed and the section retained.ThomasIrvin 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Career distinctions section

The whole career distinctions section is a mess. How can he hold the major league season records in categories he is not listed as having ever led the major leagues in. This whole section is stinking of WP:OR. I am thinking of reverting this section. Didn't bonds have a separate article for career accomplishments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
this was discussed immediately above this section. there's no original research on my part, i took the stats that were listed in the 'accomplishments' section, culled duplicates, and brought them into the 'career distinctions' section. if i made errors, please correct them. i'm not sure what would be accomplished by just reverting it. there are fewer duplicates now than before. Anastrophe 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony - Please put some effort forth to improve this article instead of taking it several giant steps backward. It is not considered Original Research to take statistics and organize them. Also, you said in your comment "I am thinking of reverting this section" at 05:21 (UTC) and then deleted the section without further discussion several hours later. HokieRNB 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I do agree that some work needs to be done to make sure the list of "Single season records" is reflected in the list of "Major leagues season leader". This does not have to be original research, it's just a matter of looking at the references and seeing for which seasons he led both leagues and for which seasons he led only the NL. HokieRNB 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the information is redundant. We should use asterisks, italices, and bold in the career statistics section to make all the single season leadership points. The phrase "black ink" refers to excellence on the back of a baseball card by the number of seasons in bold or italicised as league leader. Let's use traditional notation instead of creating all kinds of cumbersome charts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. go here and enter Barry Bonds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


"Let's use traditional notation instead of creating all kinds of cumbersome charts". this is wikipedia, not the back of a baseball card. Anastrophe 05:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur. I think bold for league leader and italicized bold for ML leader would be appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what useful information editors gain from following the link provided by TonyTheTiger, but in general, I think the spirit of Anastrophe's comment is that as a wikipedia article it should present information that is clear even to people who don't know how to read the back of a baseball card. Therefore, having the categories and years explicitly listed for when he led the NL or both leagues, having the categories for which he is the all-time career leader or holds a single season record, and having other key statistics spelled out is very important. My contention is that it shouldn't be necessary to do it three or four times in the article. HokieRNB 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I read the comments too fast. Look at conversion and see what you think. For me it is easier to read. I can see bold more easily than asterisks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The link was a response to your coment about my need to "put some effort forth to improve this article". I think if you go to the link and enter Barry Bonds you will question who you should be giving those instructions to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
i'll state up front so there's no misunderstanding: i'm not assuming good faith. these changes strike me as yet another attempt to try to minimize bonds's accomplishments. the disinterested reader who isn't a baseball stats wonk is not going to look at the monolithic chart of his stats and get the same impression as with the stats broken out as they were before all these changes. the block of stats is useful to baseball stats wonks, and as a convention in that arena, it's appropiate. that doesn't mean that the other presentations of the stats aren't useful to others. Anastrophe 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've done to update the enormous chart with the ML records and season leaders, however, I don't think that what you've done is an overall improvement to the article. While I don't think that the stats need to be repeated in three or four places, I think they ought to be presented in a way that is clear and concise to the average reader. Color coding and bolding and italizizing is all fine for your chart, but there should remain a comprehensive list of the notable accomplishments of his career. My earlier comment had nothing to do with how many edits you have on this particular article (if anything, I would see that as a detriment... it probably points to a need for more balance in the article), but rather with your sweeping revert to erase changes aimed at making the article better. By the way, your most recent changes don't seem to account for his National League career or single season records, only his MLB ones. Am I missing something? HokieRNB 02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Approaching Good Article quality level

This article has come quite a long way during this season. I think we are getting close to a viable WP:GAC. We need a little more work properly citing articles consistently. There are a few places where people just stick links in the article. We need to change such links to proper citations. Aside from that we have one significant tag to address. I hope as 3000 hits and 800 homers approach we get this cleaned up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

database

so here's an incredibly dumb meta question: wikipedia is a database, right? so, is there not some mechanism whereby values on the page could be tied together? so that, when barry hits his next homer, or steals another base, it's manually updated in one place, and all the other values fall in line? it seems....pathetic...that a database-driven construct such as WP doesn't have such a mechanism.....Anastrophe 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be set up like the signatures are... Make a page for the HR value and add the value code to each page it needs to be on 24.252.65.147 14:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

stats section use of color

the use of color to specify records, rankings, etc, probably violates style guidelines meant to assist those who are color blind, or using monochromatic output. as it stands, it looks like a crude attempt at a piet mondrian, and that's not a compliment. it needs to be redone. how? no idea. but as it stands it sucks the interest out of the stats for me. Anastrophe 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone goofed up the team links. This is an attempt to follow traditional baseball black ink format to make league leadership visible to the statistical chart reader. I think it is much easier to see his dominance in this format. I do not know what guideline it fails.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:WAI, section 4. to reiterate, i said that it "probably violates", not that it does violate. the onus is upon you to ensure that your edits meet the guidelines. Anastrophe 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The stats section is nearly impossible to look at. The colors should be converted to symbols, and only bold, italic, and red should be used to format the text. eae 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is getting out of hand. Chris! my talk 05:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:WAI section 4 says color should not be used as a substitute for conventional print information delivery. It must be supplemented. It does not mean it must be removed. I concur with the interpretation that the colored text information needs to be added back for accessibility reasons. However, for unimpaired readers the color is also an aid. I think that the color that was removed for WAI reasons should be added back, but the other changes made to adhere to WAI were for the good of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The chart is more readable with fewer colors, because it is less visually distracting overall. There is too much of an attempt to use color to convey these statistics. Even with the removal of two bands of colors from the chart, it's still unpleasant on a purely visual basis, and interpreting the colors against the stat against the year against his age against the team....it's too much. there are nine colors/color-combinations in the chart, and that's after i removed four already. Standard typographical notations, such as † and ‡ can be used rather than color (for obvious reasons, the use of asterisk should be avoided for neutrality) Anastrophe 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
and as is often the case, i find myself wanting to take the bull by the horns/be bold, so i'm going to try that conversion for two more of the color combinations. Anastrophe 04:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
well, i tried the symbols, but they didn't look good either. if i knew better how to manipulate the chart, i'd go for, say, putting a thicker black border and bold text on the actual MLB records, and maybe italics for NL season records...then who knows what for MLB season records....Anastrophe 05:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as readability for the unimpaired goes, I have never been diagnosed, but I believe I have ADD and consider the version with color for MVP and All-Star years better and easier to grasp than trying to dig through the text. As one who gets distracted, the colors grab my attention as opposed to distract me. I think adding back the two colors for these honors is the way to go. I do think the text should also describe these details as well for the impaired in accordance with WP:WAI.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)informally, there are three editors who have weighed in against the heavy use of color in the chart. while we can't claim consensus with so few responses, it provides a guideline. the colors are a disaster for readability in my opinion, as i've stated before. please don't put back more colors. you may find it satisfying; that's not a good enough reason to keep pushing it. if there were some 'magic' available so that one could interactively turn off/on the various colors realtime while viewing the chart, that would be ideal (click on 'mlb records' and it 'lights up' those particular boxes with color - click 'mlb records' again, it turns off the color). that usually depends upon AJAX or some such, so i doubt its possible.Anastrophe 05:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in colorizing Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Good article Chris Young (pitcher) and Good article Hector Lopez. I am going to try to find some of the editors that I have interacted with to reach the schemes that were used for their opinions here. Bonds was really where it all started. The editors will take some time because it happened during the heavy editorial involvment period surrounding 756. I will spend the next hour or so going through the history to try to find people who may have an opinion. I know at Lopez and Young I worked with User:Ksy92003. However, the idea came through interactions at Bonds. I will try to solicit the other editors this morning.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have found three editors who I think should have opinions for us. Lets wait for User:StormXor, User:HokieRNB and User:Ksy92003 who should have opinions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I will also post at WP:MLB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been asked to weigh in with an opinion, I will give it. First and foremost, "former MLB record" must go. Second, I think the chart as a whole is cumbersome and wearisome on the eyes. I think a link to the baseball stats website is probably sufficient, since people who really care about season-by-season, stat-by-stat analysis are not the audience of this wikipedia article. Third, I think if editors are in consensus about the chart staying, then some way of highlighting which stats are superlative is a reasonable upgrade, and I understand the logic behind the gold/silver/bronze scheme, but it does render it a bit more confusing to me. I'd like to see a bold number for "led NL", a bold box around "led MLB", and a star next to "MLB record". As a side note, are there no stats for which Bonds holds the NL record but not the MLB record? HokieRNB 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First, these types of stats sections are often requested to bring an article to WP:FA or WP:GA status. I was told to add one to Chris Young (pitcher) to bring it to WP:GA status. Many player bios with FA and GA stats have such sections. Replacing the chart with a link to a baseball stats website is proper as a reference for such a section, but not as a substitute. I consider myself somewhat of an expert on WP:GAs and think that the section is appropriate and think few reviewers would request its removal. I hope to help take Bonds to WP:GA this offseason. Thus, lets focus on whether the section that will likely remain should or should not be colorized. NL records are not held in the same high regard as MLB records. Adding such info to the chart would be burdensome, IMO. The former records information needs to be very visible. There are many who have edited the Bonds article with the suggestion that he first set the major league record at the current record levels. It is necessary that he first held the record at earlier levels. The chart makes this stand out. I think it is helpful and hope you would reconsider your opinion with this in mind. You can check the edit history for attempts at using bolding and asterisks to highlight superlative performance. Your response need to be more thoughtful. It is less constructive to remind us of 3 alternatives that have already been attempted. Please attempt to help us resolve whether reverting to the colorized left columns would or would not be constructive and whether or not removing the remaining color would be helpful. Also keep in mind removing colors here means removing them at the other pages mentioned. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, but you are wrong. My response does not need to more thoughtful. I think it's silliness to colorize it, I think it makes it look like a 6th grader just got his first set of highlighters, and it makes me skip down to the text that actually lists his records in a way that helps me understand what he has actually done in his career. I stand by my suggestions, regardless of what the consensus of other editors is. Please don't ask me for my opinion and then tell me it's not thoughtful enough. On a side note, if "NL records are not held in the same high regard as MLB records" wouldn't it stand to reason that years a player leads the NL are not as notable as years they lead MLB, and thus another goofy color could be eliminated? Thus, I would like to amend my recommendation to say BOLD for "led MLB" and Box for "MLB record". HokieRNB 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have taken my request for clarification badly. I apologize. I see you are against colorization here at Barry Bonds and I presume at Roger Clemens, Hector Lopez, Chris Young (pitcher) and any other bio articles that may have adopted color schemes. WRT NL, annual statisitical leadership by league is commonly tracked. Annual batting titles and home run crowns are awarded by league. However, for some reason, few people know who holds the National League Stolen base King crown, or the National League Strikeout King crown. It is not my decision what people tend to follow. It is just common knowledge that career lists are mostly followed for major league baseball. I think this is because over the course of a career it is common for a player to switch leagues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the colors are absoultely "necessary." I think it adds unnecessary color to the table and can be removed. I also think that if it truly was a significant record, then it'd be in the "Highlights and Awards" section in the infobox. Ksy92003(talk) 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure they're not necessary to the displaying of the stats, but that doesn't mean the colors don't make the table less boring and easier to read. That said, the colors are only helpful when used in moderation. Coloring the years he was on the All-Star team and even won the MVP would be better suited to being in a different section of the article. I wouldn't be opposed to using some other form of showing the league leaders/records (bold, italics, etc.) if it looked good and was easy to understand. Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with showing the team/league colors; they don't really distract from anything. However, I think the first instance of a team having flipped colors to hilight the link is just tacky.--StormXor 22:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I used a different approach in Connie Marrero#Career statistics, using asterisks or letters to highlight league leading numbers. I think this approach is more attractive than the color scheme used here and I believe it's compatible with WP:WAI. BRMo 03:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The approach in Connie Marrero#Career statistics is much more appealing to my senses. HokieRNB 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest however that the use of asterisks should be avoided, due to the POV issues related to this particular player. Anastrophe 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
BRMo, do you want to lead the way on a conversion to your format?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll try to put together a first draft and see what people think. BRMo 00:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
See two draft versions on User:BRMo/testpage2. I think I prefer the second (centered) version. Comments are welcome. BRMo 03:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
looks good. my only suggestion would be to unbold the 'totals' row, then use bold for the MLB records. it's clear by the format (and heck, by the values alone) that they are the totals, so 'consuming' bold for the entire row seems a waste to me, when it makes a very serviceable identifier for exceptional values.Anastrophe 05:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What can I say? I don't like it as much as the color, but I am in the minority. It is so hard for me to see the important distinctions, I have to look elsewhere in the article to double check that I did not miss something. Did we agree not to restore demarcations to All-Star and MVP years? It pains me to look at this. Please if we are going to convert to this could someone else also do Roger Clemens, Hector Lopez and Chris Young (pitcher) because I can not cope with removing all the details myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I made a change to the right-justified version on User:BRMo/testpage2—I moved the special characters in front of the numbers so that they still line up. If you don't like it, I'm not going to impose this version of the table on anyone--edit it if you like, or if you're satisfied with it, feel free to move it over to the main page. But I'm not planning to convert tables on the other pages you've mentioned. BRMo 05:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been following you're guys' discussions and as you've seemed to reach a consensus, I moved the new stat table over. Hope you guys don't have any problems with it. firenze127 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm going to replace the MLB record stat with bold as i'd mentioned previously. there's no point in 'wasting' that visual method on the 'totals' line. Anastrophe 21:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the colors should be brought back, but this time, don't make the colors so BOLD. Use some lighter colors that are easier on the eyes. 198.62.88.89 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i am, to my own surprise, somewhat in agreement. having viewed the decolorized version for a while, the symbols used tend to be hard to distinguish. unfortunately, the use of colors alone is/was problematic as noted previously for matters of printing on non-color printers, and for visually impaired readers. probably the only middle ground is to retain the symbols and use color - but that conjures even more visual distraction IMO. i don't know if there's a reasonable solution. Anastrophe 17:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I used to have some baseball cards, I forget which brand, maybe Topps, that used the following convention: bold if the number led the league; bold italic if it led MLB; bold italic red if it set a record, and there was also a diamond, I forget exactly what it meant but I think it was for records still standing. I don't think we should use italic because it's kinda hard to spot in a table this big, I do think we can use one color (not 10) (and it should be red since it's the most visible, and never lime as the cell background), and I also propose using some or all of the following symbols for increased legibility: † ◊ ▲ ‡ I think using bold as the base modifier for any number which led the league (which all the other stats we're pointing out are sub-types of) and then adding other decorations like a color or a symbol . And more standard typographical markers would be better, like that dagger-cross thing, I've seen that in many books, not on sports stuff though. eae 03:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hot (Cold) Box

We should have an image of Barry Bond's Hot (Cold) Box for batting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.244.248 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Ecko

I added that Mark Ecko was the winning bidder for the home run ball, and User:Anastrophe. removed it without discussion or a valid reason. Since he/she refuses to allow people to post on his/her talk page (despite Wikipeda rules), I'm bringing the dispute here. How is it wrong to have that information, well sourceable, here? Corvus cornix 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

because it is irrelevant. this is an encyclopedia, not a trivia storage device. the fact that mark ecko bid on the ball can be found at the directly linked to page. this article is about barry bonds. please note: i do not 'refuse to allow people to post' on my talk page. no rules are being broken. Anastrophe 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant. Ecko is a famous person. Corvus cornix 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
fame alone doesn't make the information relevant. if britney spears was at the game when barry hit the record setting home run, would that be relevant to the article? she's famous, therefore, relevant? i don't think so.Anastrophe 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I am shocked that Anastrophe. wants to edit war over something so trivial, so I will be the bigger person and back off until such time as there is a consensus here. But your Talk page is in violation of WP:OWN. Corvus cornix 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
what edit war? you're adding unencyclopedic information to this article. as well, i defy you to cite specifically how my talk page is a violation of WP:OWN. there's a suggestion at the top of the page. that's all. Anastrophe 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
i should note, you've already cited the very reason it doesn't belong in this article. in your own words: "over something so trivial". exactly. Anastrophe 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
i see that jpgordon has added it back. whatever happened to WP:Weight? Anastrophe 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Anastrophe. I don't really see anything wrong with Ecko's name being there. The article is about Barry Bonds, that piece is about the baseball. I could see your argument working if Ecko didn't want his identity revealed but, since it's in the news and Ecko is a famous major clothing designer and he bought the baseball, then his name should be that little bit. I totally disagree if somebody were to write a whole bit about Ecko on the page since that's what Ecko's article is about but the simple mention of the man who bought the 756 baseball doesn't hurt. Just my thoughts. No big deal. TabascoMan77 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks for sharing. now i guess you're stalking me because of the dispute at the ecko article? lovely. Anastrophe 20:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow...no. I'm not stalking you. This isn't the XBox Message Boards or the IMDB where we use "troll" phrases such as "I'm being stalked" or "I p0Wn you".
Let's put 2 and 2 together, m'kay?
The Ecko article has the name, "Barry Bonds" in it. I clicked on the name and came over to check out the article. I read the discussion as I do after I read every article. Sorry if your comments were on the same page. I was under the impression that I lived in a free society where my input was appreciated. I know you're bitter because you somehow think I "bested" you on the Ecko page which gives you a couple options:
  • Shake it off, get over it and cowboy up. You're not having major surgery to remove a tumor at the base of your spine. It's friggin' Wikipedia.
  • Repeat after me: This is NOT a contest. This is NOT a contest. This is NOT a contest.
Having an entry (one I wrote and edited personally) added to an article for an extended period of time (however long that is around here) is hardly something I would put on my resumé or nominate somebody for an award for, especially since said entry can be altered by the next young punk coming around the corner who thinks he knows better. I'm not altering anything you've written. I like your color schemes on the page. I'm not suggesting change. If this little tiny sliver-sized edit is making you THAT angry, I would hate to see you react to something more serious than a tiny edit on a "wannabe encyclopedia" (your words, not mine). Peace, brother. I mean no offense to you. TabascoMan77 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
feel better? good. have a nice life! Anastrophe 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bonds leaving Giants

If anyone wants to write about Bonds leaving the Giants, here are a few good articles that could be added to the page. [1][2][3].[[User:calbear22]] 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am using more national sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Tag on "Controversies"

As outlined in the Quick-failed criteria of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, there can be no clean-up tags of any kind for an article to achieve GA status. The "Controversies" tag on this article prevents it automatically from becoming a GA and to remove it, we must smoothly integrate the info listed in that section into the main article. If anybody is interested in helping out or has some good ideas, reply here or on my talk page to let me know. All thoughtful ideas are welcome. firenze127 02:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of exact description of Bonds' current status

There's been some overzealous reverting of info from the lead paragraph about Bonds' current status and next year, and the reverting has been accompanied by calls to not revert again without discussion, however it hasn't been accompanied by discussion. Also WP:Crystal has been mentioned, but with no attempt to establish what relevance that policy has to the subject at hand. It has been reported by numerous sources, including the Giants, Bonds himself, and countless news sources, that the Giants will not bring Bonds back next year. This is not conjecture, this is a fact, backed up by citations. The fact that he wasn't going to play (and hasn't played so far) in the last series, which ends later today, was also well-sourced. He will stop being a Giant after today, and if Giants management changes their minds and brings him back (by the way, this part sounds suspiciously like peering into a crystal ball), then that information will be presented in the lead; until then, the facts are, he is currently on the Giants, isn't starting, and isn't returning next year. Having a correct, up-to-date, concise description of Bonds' current status in the lead paragraph is appropriate. Reverting edits which add this info, without oneself initiating any discussion on the subject, isn't helpful. Please to cease and desist. eae 18:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eaefremov. The fact that Bonds won't be Giants anymore is adequately sourced according to Bonds, Giants and news sources. Also, I have the feeling that editors are using WP:Crystal incorrectly. Speculations are allowed if sourced adequately. WP:Crystal reads: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Chris! my talk 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


does he indeed cease to be a giant at the moment of the last out of the game today? so, from the second the final strike or whatever hits the mitt - he ceases to be a Giant? i was under the impression that it's a bit more complicated than that. there's a contract, there are obligations besides gameplay. you miss the point i made in my edit summary. stating that 'he will not be back' is peering into a crystal ball. perhaps more accurate would be to say "Giants management have stated that he will not be back for the 2008 season". because as it stands, we do not know the future (that's what the ruminations on giants management changing their mind was intended to demonstrate). all that the intro sentence can say is that it's been reported by XYZ that he will not be back. come january, maybe bonds will sign with the giants for a salary of $1. prove me wrong! you can't - because we can't see into the future. Bonds is a San Francisco Giant until the terms of his contract end, and the Giants formally release him. I don't know the mechanics of how releasing him works - but it's worth getting the facts from a reliable source and using that, rather than stating baldly - and incorrectly - that he will not be back as a Giant next season. adding crystal-ball edits is unhelpful. please cease and desist....Anastrophe 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Bonds said he is not returning. The Giants have said he is not returning. The Chronicle, ESPN, everyone else has also said he is not returning. That means he is not returning. There's no "releasing" involved here - releasing is the act of breaking a contract, whereas his contract is simply over. This isn't like renting an apartment where your lease runs out and you just stay on month-to-month; this is like any other contract - when the job that you're hired for is over, you no longer have any relationship with your prior employer, it just ends with the end of the contract. I was at his last game; there is no chance in hell Bonds is returning - they won't bring him back, and he won't come back. He won't sign for a dollar, the players' union would never allow a player who produces like he still does to take anything less than market value for his statistics. When you bring up the Crystal Ball policy, are you referring to yourself? Because everyone else is clear as an unmuddied lake on what the relationship between Bonds and the Giants will be in 2008. Can you find a single source expressing any doubt whatsoever about his non-return? eae 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"That means he is not returning". no, it means that XYZ sources have reported that he is not returning. this is a narrow distinction, but it's what wikipedia lives and dies by. sentences three and four of the first paragraph state it correctly. the added "will not return for the 2008 season" is incorrect, because it is predicting the future. it is just as inaccurate as the previous attempts at this nonsense that others have tried - previously, someone edited it to state "but he will begin the 2008 season with a new team", which has the exact same characteristic as this: crystal ball.Anastrophe 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
i suppose i shouldn't have to point it out, but apparently i do: read the whole first paragraph. you'll see that the repeated addition of this info to the first sentence looks silly. or at best, it looks like it must be an excruciating chore to read further, and get all the way to sentences three and four! Anastrophe 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's great that you take exception to the writing quality of the first paragraph and this article in general, and I agree that it needs work, but what you're doing is removing entirely accurate, verifiable, neutral, sourced statements, and you've been justifying your edits completely differently, this is the first mention of quality. If you don't think this info reads well in the place where it's mentioned, then you should move it to wherever it belongs better in your editorial opinion, and adjust other sentences to taste, not revert the edit, especially with a snide comment which you yourself don't even follow. eae 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
what are you talking about? i'm not switching arguments to one of quality, i'm adding further information to my argument. sentences three and four state this matter PROPERLY. they don't predict the future, they state what has been reported, WITH CITATIONS. it's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of having a coherent article that doesn't sound like it's being written by committee. oh, wait....Anastrophe 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's make a NEW Article to get rid of the bullshit on the Bonds page- Controversy Surrounding Barry Bonds

This article Sucks shit with all this 6. controversies. I want to propose putting all that bullshit in it's own little article for all the punk ass complainers/asterix humpers. how do I do this with the tags let me know. I propose putting all The stuff under #6 CONTROVERSIES into one article, can someone do this with tags for me thanks.

2007 Leads MLB in OBP, incorrect

In 2007, he appears to lead the MLB in On-Base Percentage, however, he did not have the minimum 3.1 plate appearances to qualify. His average was around 2.9. 67.17.144.95 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference addresses this. They added the necessary number of hitless at bats, and he was still the leader.--StormXor 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

team colors

user yankee10 has twice now attempted to remove the team colors for the infobox, stating that 'he's not coming back to the giants'. which is irrelevant. there's no precedent for removing the team colors from the article simply because the season has ended and bonds isn't in another team's uniform - or retired. the colors stay the giants colors until such time as he's part of a different team. if he retires - or gets hit by a bus, who knows? - the colors stay the giants colors. see willie mays, for example. Anastrophe 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Anastrophe (et al),

You appear to be using Willie Mays as a conduit to peer into a crystal ball. While Mays played briefly for the Mets at the end of his career, Mr. Mays continued to work for the Giants as a team representative. He has never harbored any affiliation with any team other than the Giants. You can only speculate that this will happen to Mr. Bonds. The fact is: Mr. Bonds is no longer a part of the Giants organization. He has had a lengthy past affiliation with the Pirates. As to what the future holds is unknown, except for that fact that he is no longer affiliated with the Giants. He may retire and join Willie Mays as a team representative (in which case, keep the color scheme). However, for the moment, he is a free agent, and is a man without a team. IMO, your wanting to keep the color scheme hedges toward a point of view that is not so neutral.

You mention that a player's colors stay the same if that is the color her retires in. I couldn't disagree more. If that is the case, then Willie Mays' should be Met colors (that is the team he retired from). If a retired player is to retain a color scheme, then it should be the team he spent the most significant part of his career with ... of course this will set off endless debates for players like Nolan Ryan and Carlton Fisk. When a player retires, I think the team colors should come down as well, short of a player (like a Cal Ripken, Jr.) who spent an entire career with a team.

I don't want you to take this personally. I am a baseball fan and amateur historian, and hold a fairly neutral opinion on Mr. Bonds, and will likely do so until more information comes to light in future years. His Giants days have ended (at least for the moment). The article, I believe, should refelct as such. LonelyBeacon 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your comments. what i'm looking for is a guideline on this matter. is there one? is it formalized somewhere? i'm interested in whatever is appropriate. at the same time, i have little patience for informal status quo. your second paragraph contains your opinions on the matter, which are interesting, but absent a formalized schema for this, i see nothing but headaches. Anastrophe 05:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

dispute over balco mention in lede

i managed to get myself blocked for part of a day due to exceeding 3RR for the first time in the couple of years i've been on WP. user WiiCameToWiki had been 'silently' changing the reference to the balco case in the lead of the article. i say 'silently' because this user has included an edit summary only once out of the sixteen edits performed on this article, and then only after i used an edit summary of 'revert vandalism'. I made that judgement based upon the account history and the behavior, to wit: the WiiCameToWiki account's very first edit on wikipedia was on 12 october 2007, when he/she changed the existing lines:

Since 2003, Bonds has been a key figure in the BALCO scandal, though he has never failed a steroid test. He is also under investigation for perjury by a federal grand jury regarding his testimony in the BALCO case, but he has not been indicted.

to the following:

Since 2003, Bonds has been a key figure in the BALCO scandal. He has never failed a steroid test even though Bonds testified to a grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream given to him by a trainer who was indicted in a steroid-distribution ring. He is also under investigation for perjury by a federal grand jury regarding his testimony in the BALCO case

all but one of his edits on this article have been modifications of the above to eliminate the balancing (NPOV) points that though bonds is a "key figure" in the scandal no proof of malfeasance has been proferred, and that while he's been under investigation by multiple grand juries for a couple of years, he has not been indicted. those 'caveats' are important, as absent them, it leaves an implication of guilt, which is POV. shortly before WiiCameToWiki was blocked, he finally produced his justification for his edits - on his own talk page (which he has since blanked, so you'll find it in the history if you're interested). i found this justification to be POV, which was what I had surmised by the edits and edit behavior. another user gently requested that WiiCameToWiki engage in discussion on the article talk page - ignored. i requested on more than one occasion that the user engage in discussion on the article talk page - ignored. the account's contributions, in my opinion, speak for themselves as the rather standard vandalism this article has been subject to ( User Contribs ).

my reason for this lengthy commentary? i'm interested in improving this article, and working with other editors to maintain good quality writing and NPOV. WiiCameToWiki's block will likely be expiring in a few hours, while i'm happily dreaming of Edyta Sliwinska; WiiCameToWiki may resume this relentless edit. on the other hand, perhaps WiiCameToWiki will be willing to engage in actual cooperative discourse with other editors here, where this matter should properly be hammered out. I extend that invitation to others as well, it should go without saying. Anastrophe 07:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Name space?

I believe that the text above the image of Barry Bonds near the top of the page should say "Barry Bonds", not "The Cheater"? I'll change it, but if it's supposed to be that way... Please change it! Just thought it was awkward. Andy pyro 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate Perjury Investigation article

Does anyone want to take a stab at creating a separate Barry Bonds perjury investigation article so that we can cut down on the Perjury investigation section? I have already begun moving some of the charts to separate articles (Milestone home runs by Barry Bonds and List of Barry Bonds 73 Home Runs). The former is listed at WP:FLC right now and User:Maple Leaf may pursue the same with the latter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have created List of Barry Bonds' home runs by parks. Chris! ct 01:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See also section

Can that be culled a bit per WP:GTL??, I also added Bond's nationality to the lead sentence,Thanks, --Tom 14:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

'legal problems of barry bonds'

moving the legal timeline outside of the article is a bad idea. it's no different from moving a 'controversies' section of a biography into a forked page. besides, the article name is...weak, and unencyclopedic. -- Anastrophe (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


The Bonds Armor

Several years ago, the fact that Barry Bonds was allowed to wear that huge piece of armor visible in the image at the top of the Bonds article was controversial. Because of his substance abuse issues, that question seems to have disappeared. Rather than adding my limited and aged knowledge of this subject to the main page, I ask someone more knowledgeable to add it either to the main page or comment here where I will quietly delete this question. I have always thought that the armor which allowed him to crowd the plate and force pitchers to pitch him outside added much more to his HR total than any alleged steroid or HGH use ever did. Autkm (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This article does not splitting

This article was so long, I was having trouble viewing it on my mobile device. So the other day, I started to split it, and I have since formed a new category called "Barry Bonds" for all these articles. Someone said I should start a discussion about this.Massbox (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry you had trouble viewing the site on a mobile device, but that's not a valid reason to start chopping an article apart. the article is long, but by no means extraordinarily so. please at least wait for some commentary from other editors before continuing to gut this article. i'm firmly against these forks. Anastrophe (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. According to Wikipedia:Article size, this article is not too long. Chris! ct 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
When I tagged the other article for merger proposal, I did not realize its material had actually been deleted from this article without consensus. --Blanchardb (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo to be fixed

Since the page is locked I can't fix the error under the "BALCO Scandal" section: "Bonds said he that he used a clear substance and a cream..." The first "he" should be removed. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.17.218 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for pointing that out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA attempt

I am going to nominate this for GA at the end of the month if there are no objections. Ordinarily, I just nominate, but this article is a collaborative effort of so many, I want make sure there is general consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks and not opposition. Here I go.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Barry Bonds SI Cover.jpg

Image:Barry Bonds SI Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

The article is excellent, but a few areas of the article prevent it from reaching good article status.

1. Prose- Generally good.

2. Verifiable- this is where the article needs the most work. The article has a lot of references, but some sections lack references. Particular places to note are "In the strike-shortened season of 1994,"YesY to "In January 2007, the New York Daily News reported" (seems sourced) and BALCO scandal to the end of the text.YesY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

3. coverage--Some sections like "Love me Hate me" and the other sections below it need to be expanded for the article to be more complete. Isn't their an internal link to Love me Hate me?

4. Neutral-check 5. Images- check 6. Stable- Check

When these concerns are addressed, please feel free to renominate the article. ThanksUser:calbear22 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The improvements made to the article are looking great. Just something I didn't add to the review but might be helpful, make sure the article has no problems with let fact speak for themselves standard and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The article looked pretty clean in these areas, but there was a few instances.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the end of the article. The last sections Love Me Hate Me, Perjury investigation and Federal indictment, Bonds on Bonds, and Personal life still have a problem with length. WP:Layout discourages short sections and paragraphs. These sections should be combined with other sections (or themselves) or expanded. Considering the number of headlines Bonds has grabbed for his legal trouble, that section is very short. When you have a subtopic of the main article, its important that a complete summary is given in the main article.User:calbear22 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Large parts of the article still lack sourcing too.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)