Talk:Stan Musial

Hit Leader

I altered this because it makes no sense that Ty Cobb could overtake him when Cobb retired in 1928."His 3,630 career hits made him the NL's all-time leader at the time he retired, and still ranks fourth all-time, behind Pete Rose, Ty Cobb, and Hank Aaron."

At no time did Musial have more hits than Cobb; it's just that all of Cobb's hits came in American League games. But you're correct about potential confusion: The original writer must have figured that "all-time" implied "all major leagues" as well. WHPratt (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Stan the Man

The use of the picture of Musial, while free, isn't instructional with respect to the article. The reason Musial is of interest is due directly to his physical attributes as a player. Showing a picture of him when he is in his 70s is not helpful. We have sources for non-free images of Musial as a player. We should use those pictures, so I edited to add the picture of Musial during his days as player. Never been to spain (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a note on the discussion page about this topic. While I understand your point of view that the picture copyrighted by the Baseball Hall of Fame is in some ways better than the free use image located on Commons, I respectfully disagree with your arguments for using the copyrighted picture now that a free-use image is available. Consider this quote from paragraph four of the "Wikipedia policies" section located on the Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues page:

"Basically, fair use content should be replaced by free content whenever possible, because we want our content to be truly free. The rationale we use to claim fair use on Wikipedia (a non-profit website) might not apply to someone wanting to distribute a version of the article elsewhere, forcing them to remove the image anyway."

As a frame of reference, I recently completed a one and a half year goal of getting Ozzie Smith's article up to Featured Article status. Like this article, at one time the infobox used a copyrighted Baseball Hall of Fame image of Ozzie as a player. As I pointed out to the user who reverted the infobox pic back to the copyrighted picture, Ozzie's article likely wasn't going to reach Featured, or even Good Article status, when an available free-use image was not used in place of a copyrighted one.

Second, I also respectfully disagree with your assertion on the free-use rationale explanation of the copyrighted picture that finding a free-use image of Musial as a player is "likely impossible." Considering that cameras where invented before Musial's MLB debut in 1941 (I can get a reference for that if you request one), and that Musial played before crowds of thousands of people thousands of times during a 22 year period, I don't see the logic behind that rationale. I have hope that one day one such photo will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Until then, we can aspire to achieve Wikipedia's goal of a free encyclopedia by using the free-use image.

Third, I also respectfully disagree with your assertion on the free-use rationale explanation of the copyrighted picture that Musial's, "importance in history is due directly to his physical attributes." With the article in its current incomplete state, I would argue that there is no referenced material that could support such a statement. In terms of "physical attributes," the only important thing I can think of is his unique batting stance, but again, when this article goes up for its Good Article Nomination, I still believe that aspect of the copyrighted image will not justify its use when a free-use image of Musial is available for the infobox to illustrate the article.

In short, because Wikipedia's goal is to be the free encyclopedia, I believe there is no question the free-use image should be used in place of a copyrighted one.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter. Particularly I'd like to know if you would object to me using the free-use image in the infobox again. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do object.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain valuable information regarding the subject of the article.

You do agree that the only reason an article should exist in Wikipedia is because he was a baseball player and what he did as a ball player? The article exists only because of Musial's playing days. Using a picture of an 86 YOA Stan Musial makes no sense in an article that is 99% about what Musial did under the age of 40. That picture does not help understand the subject of the article. It is kind of like writing about a destroyed building and then preferring a picture of the vacant lot over a picture of the building itself.

In this instance, what if I did a crayon drawing of Stan Musial and dedicate that to the public domain? That image would be free. Should we use it simply because it is free?

As to obtaining a free image, if one exists, where is it? You can't find one. I can't find one. I'm sure you've looked. I've certainly looked. A free image is one where the owner gives up the copyright. Stan Musial is one of the biggest names in pro baseball, so if a free image hasn't surfaced by now, I doubt one will. While cameras did exist when he played, but few people had cameras capable of taking pictures of a good quality (fixed focal length, poor film, etc.) Again, you are simply wrong when you say that a free image will turn up some day. And, if one does, then we can use it.

Your last point is simply ludicrous. Exceptional athletes exist because their bodies can do things "the rest of us mortals" can't. Seeing athletes at their prime is extremely important to get a flavor for the athlete. Musial looks just like any other 86 YOA, overweight old man.

As to the Ozzie Smith article, I'm not crazy about that picture either. The articles are supposed to be informative, and I think a picture of Smith when he was playing is infinitely better. But at least Smith could walk without assistance in that picture. Never been to spain (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As I anticipated, it appears the copyrighted picture was removed from Wikipedia on 23 May 2009, by something called the User:ImageRemovalBot. I'm surprised there wasn't any listed reason given by either the bot or the user controlling the bot, but unfortunately it has left the article without a picture. Therefore, I once again propose using the free-use picture of Musial from 2008 as the Infobox picture, since it is temporarily the only resource available. I welcome further comments and discussion. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, he's one of the greatest ballplayers still living, so the old-age picture is somehow satisfying. I'd say, hold off and replace it with a younger pic only after Stan shuffles off the mortal coil (not for some time, it is to be hoped.)WHPratt (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

20 vs. 24 All-Star Games

Recently the anonymous user at IP address 64.218.96.58 has made edits classifying Musial as a 24-time All-Star Selection, as opposed to the 20 times currently listed in the infobox & in the body of the text. If need be, I'd like to open discussion on this issue to eliminate the conflicting edits on this matter. As I'm sure the user at 64.218.96.58 is aware, the official line from the Cardinals is currently that Musial is a "24-time All-Star", as the team phrases it on promotional material such as 2009 season schedules. As some editors may be aware, the conflict in number of All-Star games arises from the years when MLB hosted two All-Star games in a single year, one picked by fans, the other picked by coaches and/or players. I vaguely recall this issue being discussed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball page sometime ago, so it may be helpful to refer back to such a discussion if need be. Personally, I'd like to stick with "20-time All-Star selection" for now, at least until all the missing gaps in the article are filled in. Again, I welcome thoughts and comments from anyone interested in this issues. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why you would advocate 20 when Musial did actually play in 24. I'm not familiar with the history - was there only one selection, even in the two-game years (1959-1962)? But yes, you should certainly get smarter people's opinions at WT:MLB - and find previous discussion. Wknight94 ^talk 11:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and used Hank Aaron's article as a basis to include the extra All-Star games Musial participated in during 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962. By listing Musial's involvement in both of the All-Star games held that year, it's a lot easier to justify the phrasing "24-time All-Star selection." Again, this seems to be the best fix for now, but any other ideas/comments are certainly welcome. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Monowi, you've cited WP:LEAD, but WP:LEAD urges the following:

• Briefly summarize the most important points, in such a way that the intro can serve as a concise version of the article.
• The relative emphasis given to material in the intro should reflect its relative importance to the subject.

Here are some of the problems with the introduction that you've restored:

1. Repetition-- Musial's 3,630 hits are listed twice; so are his 475 home runs.

2. Excess text-- signing a "professional" contract, "concurrently earning" an MVP, 1966 being later than 1963, etc. This kind of prose can be trimmed from an intro.

3. Misplaced emphasis on lesser details that have little to do with Musial's reputation-- specifically, his hometown and high school days (all MLBers played baseball as teens), his Navy service (numerous MLBers had careers interrupted by WW2, many to a greater extent than Musial), the specific date of his debut (every player has one of those). Relative placement is also a problem-- in the reverted intro, his sandlot Donora play gets preference over his three World Series wins.

4. Missing emphasis and context-- e.g. the text I added about his relative rank in various offensive categories at the time of his retirement, and the two supplemental quotes. (Incidentally, your edit accidentally excised those quotes completely.)

My reading of WP:LEAD suggests that the deleted intro meets the standard more than the current one does, and I would appreciate specifics as to why you feel otherwise. Thanks.208.120.7.152 (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for Musial being Honored in Donora in 2007

As the headline above explains, there is currently no citation for Musial being honored in Donora in 2007. I have little doubt it actually happened, but I was surprised I couldn't find any web article to back it up. If another editor can find a citation for him being honored in Donora, please feel free to post it here or in the body of the text. Until then, I'll most likely remove mention of the Donora celebration as I plan on submitting this for a Good Article review soon. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stan Musial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this over the course of the next couple days (splitting it up due to size). Here's some issues I found:

• All hyphens for numbers need to use ndashes, i.e. 6-6 record needs to be 6–6 record.
• "Musial also played one season on the newly revived Donora High School baseball team, where one of his teammates was the grandfather of future major league player Ken Griffey, Jr." By extension, he's be the father of Ken Griffey Sr. too, so that should probably be added.

Done. Monowi (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Images need WP:ALT text (I could care less about it, but if you want to go for FAC then they'll want it).

Done. Monowi (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• "However, the Cardinals finished one game behind the Dodgers in the standings." Be more specific; were they one game away from the pennant, or were the two further down in the standings; how many games did they win?
• "The twelfth All-Star appearance of Musial's career occurred in 1955, when Cincinnati's Ted Kluszewski outpolled Musial by 150,000 votes to win the start at first base" Reword; now it sounds like he got the appearance because of losing the voted.

I'll put the article on hold and pass when this is fixed. I was surprised how little there was to modify, so good job on it. Wizardman _{Help review good articles} 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the final couple points, so I'll pass this as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Desk Question

I was reading the article on Stan Musial largely because I was reading my acquired bobblehead box that Stan Musial played in 24 all star games as of 1963. It also noted he was a rookie in 1941. That doesn't seem to compute. Your article says Musial played his first all star game in 1943 and served in the Navy 1945. Your article further says he played his 24th all star game in 1963. I don't see how that is possible. Thanks 68.93.10.251 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cross posted from WP:HD#stan musial. GB fan (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that there were 2 Major League Baseball All-Star Games in each of the seasons 1959 to 1962, which would help with the accounting. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also cross-posted from WP:HD --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)