Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-12/Albert Pujols

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Albert Pujols
Status	Closed
Request date	12:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Killervogel5; Katydidit; Assorted members of WP:MLB
Comment	Closed as stale. (20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The dispute is at Albert Pujols, specifically the sections #Statistics and #Yearly Averages for career. The related discussions exist at Talk:Albert Pujols/GA1, Talk:Albert Pujols#Too many tables, WT:MLB#Stat Boxes, and Talk:Albert Pujols#Season summary tables.

Who is involved?

The following users have taken place in the discussions regarding this issue on the article talk page:

User:Killervogel5 is actively involved in the current discussion.
User:Katydidit is actively involved in the current discussion.
User:Phoenixrod opened a talk page discussion and has continued to contribute to the current conversation.
User:LonelyBeacon made several discussion comments on the article talk and the project talk.
User:Wizardman performed the original GA review.
User:Athaenara gave a third opinion on the matter.

At WT:MLB, the following users were involved in discussion:

What is the dispute?

The dispute revolves around statistical tables in baseball player articles. Discussions at the WikiProject Baseball talk page appeared to be overwhelmingly in favor of deletion and, indeed, many of the tables throughout player articles have been deleted in favor of links to Baseball-Reference and other, similar reliable sites devoted to statistics. However, attempts to delete the tables on Albert Pujols (1, 2, and 3) have been rebuffed (1 reverted, 2 reverted, and 3 reverted), both during and after the GA review. Many editors have made the case that this article deserves to be featured, and it likely could become so with some work, and definitely should considering Pujols' importance to the modern game. However, no featured baseball articles include these statistical tables.

WP:NOTSTATS is also a concern here, because many of the statistics displayed in the table are either redundant with the statistics given in the infobox or are not yet mainstream stats (like Value over replacement player). From the tone of some of the talk page edits (1 and 2), I believe—though I may certainly be wrong, and am not making any sort of accusation—that Katydidit believes that there is some kind of cabal trying to subvert his efforts to improve the page. However, the "every day" statistical updates to both the infobox and the statistical tables are making the article inherently unstable, causing difficulty for anyone who wishes to make progress.

Other editors have also raised concerns, and I agree, regarding the inclusion of the "yearly averages" table. I find nothing wrong with averages, but the inclusion of "pro-rated" statistics falls, in my opinion, outside the realm of "routine calculations" as defined in the "no original research" policy. This issue could simply be resolved by removing this table, which doesn't exist on any other player article.

What would you like to change about this?

I am requesting mediation on this issue based on a suggestion from Athaenara, who graciously gave a third opinion on this issue when asked. Based on the number of involved editors, it was suggested that mediation may be a more appropriate step. What we need are outside eyes to review this and determine if consensus does exist.

If the discussion at WT:MLB#Stat Boxes is considered to be a straw poll, the result comes out heavily for deletion of the tables. In discussing consensus on the talk page, I have acknowledged, and do again acknowledge, that consensus can change; however, the previous consensus was that stat boxes should be removed, and the straw poll would seem to indicate that this consensus is still in force.

How do you think we can help?

Attempt to determine if consensus to keep or remove statistical tables in MLB player articles exists.

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Closed as stale. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Update: It appears that the discussion has resulted in a compromise solution. This case can likely be closed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]