User talk:Killervogel5/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FAC

Yadayadayada I'm back yadayada this is back yadayada hai :) ResMar 00:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for David Montgomery (baseball)

Materialscientist (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fun fact (which may end up being the DYK hook)

This is funny, as it merges 2 things I'm working on. Matt Holliday won the 2007 RBI title over Ryan Howard by 1 thanks to his play in the 2007 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game. Had Howard won in that season then his shared title in 2009 would have been a record-breaking fourth consecutive season in which he led the league in RBI, a record held by quite a few notable players. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a great hook (and the Phillies still got to the playoffs!). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll try to review it tonight (A LOT on my plate right now). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No rush, no rush. We just entered a new Wikicup round so I've got 2 months to work up content. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

Zomg, haxxor. Also damn, you're on list #3 and I'm only halfway through #2!! Staxringold talkcontribs 18:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm thinking I may take a flier at a Supreme Court case GA over the summer, maybe Arizona v. Gant which I've written a tiny bit on off Wiki. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm still gonna do 99% baseball, I just meant for an outside-baseball article. Still have the draft pick lists (which I'm using for the Wikicup, something with a format I know I can work through), 2 Triple Crown lists, and tie-breakers. Wizardman and I have a loose idea for a long-term topic on tie-breaker games. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What do you think a 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season topic would have? Would it need every player on the roster? Trying to think how we could use 2009 World Series. Maybe an 09 World Series topic with the Phillies and Yankees season articles, the CSes and DSes, and the tie-breaker? Just throwing ideas out there. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 20:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I figured using the WS as the controller would be better since we don't have a postseason article. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That being said, we should. I created a dabpage before the 09 postseason with the hope of later expanding it into a summary article, but it was turned into a redirect without much discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • For the 2009 season, since I'm here, to get a featured topic I'd say you would need all the players, season, WS, and NLC/DS, and probably the manager too. Needless to say, a hell of a lot (I have a similar thing planned and it came up to 45 articles), so a 2009 World Series topic would be much more feasible. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:EGG

Thanks for the definition in the Nationals correction at Chase Utley. I knew there was a general awareness of intuitiveness but didnt know it was codified. Cheers. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was surprised I hadn't fixed that missing link myself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FLC - List of Athletic Bilbao players at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances/archive1

Hi K5, cd you revisit above FLC to see if your concerns have been addressed? Sandman888 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi KV5, you opposed the above list. The main concern was an arbitrary cut-off, which is traditionally done on football player lists. I took your concern to the wp:footy project here. Could you indicate whether your concerns has been met on the FLC, or if you have more, reg. the arbitrary cut-off, please indicate those at the footy talk page please. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Roster project

I think it would be ballsy, and would set a standard for modern, long-term franchises (as opposed to the various short-term dead franchise rosters we have now). Assuming you went letter by letter to break up the work that looks like about 20 full lists (discounting the few letters with only a handful of guys) worth of work. Doable, but big. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Just to be clear, it should stay one list, when I say letter by letter I mean sit down and do the As, the Bs, etc, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh, that's why I referred to the Civil War page, which uses reasonable letter ranges. BTW, mind giving my DYK hook a look-see? I'm putting the finishing touches on an FP-hopeful of Johnny Evers (labeled by Bill James, I believe correctly, as one of the worst Hall of Famers ever, in thanks to a poem). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Working on another fun hook, I noticed a notable author for one of the sources so: Staxringold talkcontribs 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Is it nominated, or just still a really great proposal at the moment? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Polishing off the article before I nom it in an hour or two. Thanks for the compliment! :) I like when I can work an interesting hook rather than some of those duller draft pick hooks I've had. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem. Sometimes I wish I could get more interesting hooks. The Jocko Thompson one was probably the best so far, but I don't even remember some of my older ones. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back; Mike Cervenak was the best one. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I see you keep some DYK infoboxes on your contribution page, but you should keep a hook list like I do for easy reading. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers FLC

Hello, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers/archive1 was listed 20 days ago, and is now also listed as one of the "nominations urgently needing reviews." So far four reviewers have weighed in. All objections have been met. There are two votes of support, and none opposed. As per The Rambling Man, "typically, although not prescriptively, Dabomb or I will look for around four votes of support." He also suggested that I contact "regular reviewers" such as yourself to see if you would be willing to comment. I'm happy to address constructive criticism. Hopefully upon resolving critiques, if you believe that the list is worthy, you will also grant support. Thanks, NYCRuss ☎ 16:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the barnstar. -- Why Not A Duck 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment - Thunder userbox

Just wanted to let you know that we are surveying wiki Thunder fans and experts on sports userbox formats to determine whether they want User:BillTunell's style incorporated into the userbox ({{User:UBX/NBA-Thunder}}), or want to use the standard version. If you you want to comment, hit the RFC discussion page here. Thanks. Tom Danson (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Albert Pujols

Not sure why my Pujols edits keep disappearing, but Albert is very active in the KFUO controversy and is THE major sponsor of the drive to eliminate the station's classical music format. So my edits have less to do with the radio station and more to do with Pujols' involvement in the community, which is why the controversy is noted on his page. Please let me know if this explanation works for you so that I may place the edits back on his Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndcat (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No references that you have provided support your assertions above. That is why it doesn't belong on his page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krichell

Hey, just checking to see if you'll be able to finish the GA review. If not that's fine, just let me know. Since there's a GA drive going it'll be picked up quickly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will, I've just been swamped because of Holy Week. I didn't see any response from the nominator on my opening comments either, so I wasn't sure what had been looked at. I should have some time the next few evenings. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, just checking. Looks like Secret disappeared again, so I can try and work on the article on his behalf. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, sounds like a plan. Look forward to working with you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As a follow up, if you can, finish the final tranche over the weekend, and I'll do the third/fourth ones in one fell swoop early next week (have a major school project so I probably won't touch Krichell until that's done). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a very busy weekend for me too, so no telling if I'll be able to finish it up. I'll try to get another group done, but I can't do a lot at once. Tonight is the only free time I have, and I'm trying to catch a game for the first time all season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ready for the final slew of comments. Btw, you guys want Lou Marson back? Granted, I guess the batting average can't go that much further down. We'll just take back Ben Francisco to make it even. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I did the DYK for that article... I'd guess it's probably not working out at the moment for you guys. He wasn't ready to be an everyday major league player yet. He got rushed up. It's not like Francisco is getting any playing time, which is a real shame because Werth is the only Phillies outfielder doing anything to speak of so far this season. As to Krichell, I'll be home this evening to do some more reviewing. My schedule has been ridiculously full. Sorry about the delay. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright, I finally got around to fixing everything, and am awaiting final comments. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Got it; I will try to get it finished up for you ASAP. I can probably do the last run-over during my lunch break today (in about 1-2 hours). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball tie-breakers

Finally split it off. Up at DYK also. Yay! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Also (sorry to be pestering you so much lately), mind taking a look at this FPC? They only last 7 days(ish), and you need 4 votes for consensus. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Blahblah32blahblah

Hey, I know you probably have a lot on your plate but since we're familiar, I thought it would be wise to bring it to you. I have "warned" Blahblah32blahblah (talk · contribs) about his actions on the Chase Headley article. I really don't want to create a big to-do about it, but it seems to be disruptive and I have informed him that if it continues then I would take this to WP:ANI. Maybe some advise from a third party would help. Any thoughts? I really don't want to create an issue. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. He did the same thing at Roy Halladay too. He seems to be attempting to participate in the discussion at WT:MLB, but I don't know how productive it is for him at the moment. Lots of mudslinging and yelling, mostly. Hopefully a strong consensus can be established one way or the other and then we shouldn't have this fight anymore. As to advice, I was the second person he was fighting with over the issue (at Halladay, and after someone else whose conversations he blanked off his talk page), so I'm probably not the best person to talk to him. Perhaps Wizardman or Staxringold might be better since they're uninvolved. I'll keep an eye on the sistuation, though, and thanks again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I should point out that the user you guys are refering to has pledged after his most recent warning to continue to edit war and go against consensus unless changes are made to every MLB related article. The user is doing good work in articles reverting vandalism, but there is no way that his actions and his pledge to continue edit warring in articles like Chase Headley can be seen as anything other than being unconstructive.142.68.225.6 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Team colors

This could open a can of worms (or maybe beans), but a spot check of the NFL teams indicates all color names capitalized. I would guess that was done because it looks better that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And it was all done by one user, who was a single-purpose account. The fact remains that they are not proper nouns. I just don't have time to go back and fix them all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Somehow I think this was discussed at great length at some point (as with many trivial things in wikipedia). It certainly looks better with all of them capitalized, since it's a list rather than a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you there, as lists don't inherently have to be capitalized; regardless, the color name was changed incorrectly too, and even if we do capitalize them, it should be "Navy blue", not "Navy Blue", which is patently wrong. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you had them in bullet points, one on top of the other, wouldn't they all be capitalized? Oh, and you don't need to post the "talkback", as I'm watching your page. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you had them in bullet points, yes, they probably would be capitalized. But they're not; they're a series. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this was discussed at some length awhile back, but I don't recall what the decision was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked in the WT:MLB archives and didn't see anything. If it was an NFL discussion, then it doesn't really apply here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If it's a manual-of-style issue, shouldn't all the sports be consistent? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not really, as the MOS is open for interpretation on some issues and no one really knows what it says half the time. However, if we are going to use MOS as a basis for discussion, MOS:CAP says that "Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms", which these are not. MOS:PN clarifies what is and is not a proper noun, and colors aren't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe all of them should be uncapitalized? It's not a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more comfortable with that than with capitalizing them all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Strikeouts

Awesome! I haven't even started on batting average, been putting it off dreading writing a note to explain the 1910 AL race. :p Staxringold talkcontribs 17:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that fiasco... never would have dumped batting on you if I'd remembered (well, maybe I would, I'm kind of a jerk like that :-D). I'm going to take a break from numbers and focus on the Phillies roster for a little bit before moving on to the main Triple Crown list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. It'll be a while before we should bear down on that one anyways. If you get the chance, could you review one of (or both... ;) ) my GANs? I think I'll get by in this round of the Wikicup, but it's nervous making seeing such a low score currently. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I got one at least. Starting it now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • <3 Thanks so much. If you need me on anything, LMK, you do so much for me whenever asked. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a lot to do on that one, I was able to get it in one fell swoop. When it's done, it passes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I just hope my UConn library ID works over the summer (I don't think they deactivate graduates until some time in the next year) so I can Lexis Nexis up some of the older tie-breakers like I did with 99. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Major League Baseball strikeout champions

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rosters

Not sure I'm in love with splitting position players/pitchers within letters. First off there's the Babe Ruth style question. Beyond that though, why not just format like other featured list rosters like Worcester Worcesters all-time roster? Can always still just list Triple Crown stats as the note if nothing else, but allows more specificity for players. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to do something different because this format allows sorting by statistics as well. You can't sort who's got the best earned run average if it's in a bulleted note column or something. I guess knowing which pitcher whose name starts with J has the best ERA doesn't have a lot of utility though. Let me make some changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
How about now? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Callsigns

Sorry to have shouted at you. I get very passionate about radio & I want things to be as accurate as possible. When I was creating a few of the other radio network pages, I checked the F.C.C. database to see what the actual callsigns were and their actual communities of license instead of what the page for the team said. A lot of times, they're listed in a "market" instead of the actual community. So I listed the actual community of license & then in parentheses put the larger metro market. It was a pain (Braves network with about 140 stations!) but in the long run I think it's worth it. As for the edit summary comment, I've found that most people won't revert a callsign back to having the inaccurate call afterwards so it's a preventative measure too as I've had drawn-out arguments with people over stupid things before & I just get aggravated. So, if you've managed not to fall asleep reading this, sorry about the screaming & I hope you like where I put the band. I think it's easier for a casual reader to understand too. "Oh, A.M. 790!"Stereorock (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Something else that might be beneficial: some of the stations transmit A.M. Stereo or A.M. HD Radio. There's a template that adds the HD Radio notation. I'll try to get it for you. Congrats on 2008 & I was pulling for your team to win the World Series last year. Growing up & living in New England, you develop a feeling one way or the other about the Yanks. Whilst I am not a Red Sox fan per se, I like seeing teams other than the Yanks win. So, Do It Again in '10!Stereorock (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All-America Lists

I am wondering if it would be better to have the list in two formats on a page like in the Individual All-America teams section at 2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

1/1024

Much appreciated. It's been a while, even if it was less than 0.1% of a barnstar! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize

I really didn't mean anything by it. It is simply that you probably don't understand about the subject...that is all I wanted to point out. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Roster

Its fine. It'll be long, but just follow those Civil War MoH lists. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Something like it. For now just get the content done, tho. Worry about formatting come FLC time. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1966 NBA Expansion Draft/archive1

Needs a revisit. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. I don't need to be reminded. — KV5 • Talk • 13:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Apologies; it's a bit hectic on my end, so I'm just trying to keep track of everything. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It's no problem. I understand. I'm busy too. I'll see if maybe I can get to a re-review before I leave for the soccer match today. — KV5 • Talk • 13:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown split?

Once I finish up the average list (hopefully tommorrow), mind if I show some boldness and split the Triple Crown list per TRM's request? Staxringold talkcontribs 06:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, but does that mean we have two topics now? Or are we going to have nine articles in a single topic? — KV5 • Talk • 12:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • If there's a split, I think that two topics is the only possibility, because there's no reason to have a Triple Crown, batting Triple Crown, and pitching Triple Crown article. Personally, I think we could probably pursue some serious improvement to the main article and it would be a great central article to the topic. I don't know that the pitching triple crown is really covered well enough to have its own article, as the batting triple crown is much more readily recognized. I personally think they are better off merged. I'm certainly able to be swayed one way or the other, though. — KV5 • Talk • 16:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with them together as well. Want to push them as one topic, and worst case the split wouldn't be hard if needed? WP:FTQ agrees with you, BTW, if we split 2 topics is the only way. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say that's best. I'm going to start working on a new format for the lead article in the next few days. I don't think it's a problem to have that article be in two sections; that's why we have level-2 headers after all. Lol. — KV5 • Talk • 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, I'm reviewing it as we write. — KV5 • Talk • 20:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh

So now telling the truth is impolite? If that is your definition of impolite, then I don't want to see how you react when someone is being rude... Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow...thanks for the laugh! Good luck in finding other "puppets" seeing as this is MY ONLY ACCOUNT! I really hope you are not serious since this is showing me more of what little you understand about certain things. BTW, stating that someone doesn't understand about an issue i.e. saying my 2 year old niece can't understand algebra, is far from being an offense...she doesn't understand. There is no other way around it. Just like you people don't understand that not everything in the world can be categorized and structured the same. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This must be April fools...because the link you put up goes directly into Sockpuppet investigations. Seriously, now... Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! That is the problem with you and your "friend": you keep insisting you are right no matter what, regardless of what anyone shows you. Anyone could go on and on about a subject, trying to tell why certain things are the way they are and you keep insisting that "the Earth is flat" because that is the general standard/thinking. And only when someone has to point out how things really are do you get it (and even that doesn't work all the time). And you still have the balls to say that being blunt and honest is an insult when that is probably the only way you might, and that is a big might, understand? Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Good! Don't comment on my page either. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/1991 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1

Could you please reconsider Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1991 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1 and offer further guidance. Please strike where appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What are your current thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget about this one. I need some feedback on if this is the right direction to go.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi KV, can you revisit this when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
1991 College Baseball All-America Team is approaching its 10th day at WP:FLC. Could you please revisit your comments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It is getting close to decision time on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1991 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Stat updates

So, just a policy question. But my understanding is that we update stats twice a year. Is this correct? Once at the all-star break, and the other at the end of the season. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That was the proposal that I put forth at the project talk page, which met with little opposition. — KV5 • Talk • 22:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So, given that you used Baez as the example, you're only listing stats w/ the Phillies (not overall #s)? I'd either show previous stats, or just say "Joined team XXXX" Staxringold talkcontribs 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am only listing Phillies stats, yes. The "joined team 2010" proposal is similar to what I did, so that's what I'll keep doing. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

JCBC (Ox)

Thanks! It's rather odd seeing one of "my" articles in prime position on the main page, but very pleasing. Glad you enjoyed it. BencherliteTalk 12:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies template

Why don't you change the linking from team names to the existing rivalries on the templates? WayneOlajuwon (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary explained it pretty well. By showing the team names instead of the rivalry article, it encourages editors to add rivalries that don't truly exist. Only rivalries that are notable enough for their own articles should be shown in these navboxes, and this helps to prevent the addition of non-notable information. — KV5 • Talk • 23:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tiebreaker

  • Heh, no, you've got tons of stuff you're working on (plus 1999 is the one that's really been idling). I just like to let you know when I work on a new project. :p Staxringold talkcontribs 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Though, thinking about it, a DYK check would be appreciated (as sometimes that can take ages). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My hero. — KV5 • Talk • 02:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

I am currently creating an article on the Arlington Ladies and I was wondering if it could be put on Monday's did you know page as it is Memorial Day in the United States. I know that this is extremely short notice but it would fit right in to the day's theme. I understand if you won't take it though because this isn't usually standard procedure. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't promote DYKs; I only write and review them. Sorry. — KV5 • Talk • 12:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Darn. Well that was worth a shot. Do you have any idea on whom I should be speaking with here? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Phillies gray uniforms (1989-1991)

I wanted to make a suggestion about the former uniforms section on the Phillies page. It should be noted that the Phillies dropped the pale blue road jerseys in 1989 in favor of the traditional grey color, but were otherwise identical to the pale blue ones used from 1970-88. And these gray uniforms were in use through 1991. Baseball-Reference's "Dressed to the Nines" feature as well as 1990-92 baseball cards verify this uniform change. Dodgerdave (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mayberry

see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 18#Overlinking in infobox--Yankees10 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hal McCoy

He was "honored by the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 2002 as the winner of the J. G. Taylor Spink Award." The J. G. Taylor Spink Award being the highest award given by the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) to its members. His writing is not considered a reliable source? 208.102.64.24 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

208.102.64.24, please note that the nickname "Golden hands" is only used on that webpage by someone who leaves a comment under the name "Jim T". Hal McCoy does not use the phrase. "Jim T" is not a reliable source. He does not become a reliable source by commenting upon an article written by Hal McCoy. BencherliteTalk 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, KV5. I'm now off to scribble in the margins of a First Folio to become a reliable source on Shakespeare... BencherliteTalk 19:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah true. My mistake. Still he was called this all the time by announcers such as George Grande and Marty Brennaman, and Hal McCoy when he would stop by the booth.208.102.64.24 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, without a reliable source, we can't substantiate it. Regardless, since the use is not widespread (limited only to a few commentators), it wouldn't belong in the lead anyway. — KV5 • Talk • 19:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamen's FLC

Yep, almost certainly. I'll give it a day or so then archive it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You feeling ok?

You've been agreeing with me an aweful lote lately. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what's happening! It's an issue that I feel should be addressed. I don't know if it's a losing battle or not, but I think it makes more sense to do it your way. — KV5 • Talk • 17:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Baseball is a more statistics driven sport than hockey so it might be something you will never get everyone on board with. I know alot of people get their fun out of baseball through keeping their own stats etc. Something that doesn't really happen with hockey. Which should account for why there is/will be alot of pushback from various editors of baseball articles compared to the almost universal acceptance at the hockey project, I don't think there are any regular editors there that object to waiting. Its usually just IPs that don't realize thats what we do. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Halladay

Hi, KV5. The following sentence is not correct grammatically: "On December 16, 2009, they acquired starting pitcher Roy Halladay from the Toronto Blue Jays,[20][21] who pitched a perfect game against the Florida Marlins in his first season as a Phillie, the 20th in MLB history and the 2nd in Phillies history." The word "who" modifies Halladay, not the Blue Jays. Thus, "who" should follow "Halladay". Another way of wording it would be to divide it into two sentences, e.g. "On December 16, 2009, they acquired starting pitcher Roy Halladay from the Toronto Blue Jays.[20][21] Halladay pitched a perfect game against the Florida Marlins in his first season as a Phillie, the 20th in MLB history and the 2nd in Phillies history." As a Phillies fan, I'd like for the article to read well grammatically. How about if we divide the sentence into two sentences? Did you see tonight's complete game by Moyer? Go, Phils! Eagle4000 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to just trim the unnecessary information, and have it say On December 16, 2009, they acquired starting pitcher Roy Halladay, who pitched a perfect game against the Florida Marlins in his first season as a Phillie, from the Toronto Blue Jays. — KV5 • Talk • 02:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I like your proposed wording. Would you like me to make the edit? Eagle4000 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
If you'd like. Feel free. — KV5 • Talk • 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pirates Page Edits

Look, I don't know how to respond to you any way but by posting something to this page. And I'm not trying to be vitriolic or abusive of the Wikipedia policies, as you seem to believe. But I also don't know why you keep removing established facts from the Pirates page by claiming (without merit, I might add) that they are unverified. I don't know what you personally consider to be a reliable source, but anyone who follows Major League Baseball on anything more than a casual basis knows that only five teams have recovered from a 3-games-to-1 deficit to win a best-of-seven World Series; and two of those teams were Pirate teams (1925 & 1979). Perhaps one of these additional references are more suitable to you? All cite the same facts that I was placing on the Pirates page, and nowhere on any of these lists (or the initial one I provided on the Pirates page — and you summarily rejected as "unreliable") does it show that another MLB team has repeated the feat:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3666008

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081014&content_id=3620586&vkey=ps2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb (note that this link provides and incomplete list, on which two separate readers correctly point out [via comments] that the 1979 Pirates should also be included; nevertheless, I presume that MLB is a reliable source for information on itself, and that if the reader comments about the 1979 Pirates were incorrect, they would have been removed or corrected themselves...? At the very least, MLB acknowledges that the 1925 Pirates were the first MLB team to recover from a 3-to-1 deficit in winning a best-of-seven World Series...)

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/12457210 (includes the 1903 best-of-nine series, for which the important point to remember in regard to this entire discussion is that Boston was not facing elimination going into any game in that Series)

Here is another link (Sports Illustrated — I think they're a pretty reliable sports authority) that covers, to date, all MLB "3-to-1 comebacks" during the postseason:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/gallery/featured/GAL1146816/8/11/index.htm

The five teams to do it in a World Series are listed, in reverse chronological order, as #7-11; the 1979 Pirates are #8, and the 1925 Pirates are #11: making them the only team to repeat the accomplishment (in 1979) after being the first team to accomplish it (in 1925) — which SI also acknowledges as a fact in their caption.

So, you tell me which of these references is acceptable (and please don't try to tell me that none of them are reliable, because we both know otherwise) in restoring the edit I made to the Pirates page, and I'll be more than happy to use it.

Furthermore, the 1925 World Series Wikipedia link I supplied in my edits to the Pirates page (I presume Wikipedia is a reliable source unto itself...?), clearly acknowledges that the Pirates were the first team to recover from a 3-to-1 deficit in the World Series. The facts are that the Pirates were both the first team to recover from a 3-to-1 deficit in winning a best-of-seven World Series (1925) and the first team to repeat that feat (1979). Both World Series championships are verifiable through a variety of source (including Wikipedia itself); both were recoveries from 3-to-1 deficits (again, verifiable through a variety of sources, including Wikipedia); I really don't know what more to provide in order to satisfy you that I'm not just randomly and maliciously editing Wikipedia pages with things that I've dreamed up or that I wish were fact... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.120.2 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the proper way to contact me; it would have been better if you had contacted me or left a message on the article talk page before getting to the point where you were risking being blocked. I didn't think you were trying to be malicious, but everything should be properly sourced. Just food for thought for the future...
As to the information, the sources you provided on my talk page are more than sufficient to satisfy the reliability of this statement. Saying "anyone who follows Major League Baseball on more than a casual basis" knows this is not true, as I'd never heard of it before. However, blogs, like the source you originally provided in the article, are not reliable, and Wikipedia is not "a reliable source unto itself", as you mentioned. Simply verifying that the events occurred, as if using a source like Baseball-Reference or Retrosheet, is not sufficient for something of this nature.
You need to have a source that clearly states that the team was the first to recover from a 3-to-1 deficit, and a source that states that the team was the first to repeat. Otherwise, it's improper synthesis and original research. The sources you provide do verify the fact you are stating; however, you should make clear in your writing that you are referring to 3-to-1 deficits where the Pirates faced elimination. Otherwise, it's not factually correct, regardless of whether Boston faced elimination in 1903 or not.
Feel free to re-insert the information using the proper sources. Cheers and happy editing. — KV5 • Talk • 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Sports team userboxes

I oppose your monochrome proposal for the userboxes. Not allowing blue text on red background because of "inaccessability" is, to paraphrase Twain, "like telling a grown man he can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it." Tom Danson (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Then bring it up at WP:ACCESS, not on my talk page. It's not a "proposal", it's sitewide policy. — KV5 • Talk • 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Phillies box

1) You can't threaten me with a block. 2) Your "evidence" is NOT valid. 3) You cannot use your own preference as authoritative.

As I said, you have zero power to block me. You have zero authority and your mention of contrasting has nothing to do with Wikipedia's rules. You're merely interpreting the policy to bully other users. BTW, you have no authority to tell what to do.

I know that it's an abuse of admin privileges to use your responsibility for personal reasons.

There's not a single mention of userboxes in this policy. Why? 1) They're not articles. 2) They're designed to emphasize personal tastes and cannot violate WP policies unless they have fair-use images. The point is that you don't like the addition of blue in the Phillies' box and are abusing your admin privileges for personal reasons.

First, you threatened me. A userbox isn't a template in the sense that you're making it out to be. They're for personal expression and not used in any articles. You don't threaten someone in an impersonal way - that's psychologically impossible.JaMikePA (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm using your talk page for this discussion as you are mine. It's apparent your concern isn't for WP policies as it is your personal preference for white letters in a particular userbox. Unlike most users, you decided to threaten me with blocking b/c you didn't like my edits.JaMikePA (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Your persistence proves that this is personal and that you love to pursue arguments for the sake of argument. I have nothing else to say.JaMikePA (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at LaurelHillCemetery's talk page.
Message added 17:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Union --> Zolos Union --> Onions

What was the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.86.76 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You did not provide a reliable source. Without one, it's nothing but original research. Don't insert it again. — KV5 • Talk • 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Glossary of baseball

I moved it because it's not simply a list, it has definitions and examples, and it includes a wide range of terms from "diamond" through to some extremely obscure phrases. It makes the grade as a glossary. Rich Farmbrough, 12:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Roster

  • If Kalas is on the roster, then sure. If not, he doesn't really belong. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Pat-Burrell.jpg

You asked to be notified of the outcome of the PUF for this file, so here it is: deleted under F3: improper license. I will be shortly nominating every other file listed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/June#Wikipedia use only for deletion on the same grounds, if that affects your plans. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Could I float an idea by you? What would you say to just including the MLB crowns as a color-key thing rather than a separate section? I'm going to give the Batting section a redo to try and set a style. Also, want to work on the lead in my sandbox (I'll clear it now) so we can get a DYK credit for the expansion? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes to both of those things. — KV5 • Talk • 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
On another note, does this Triple Crown loser crap really need to be in there? Sounds like a neologism with retroactive application moreso than something notable to be included in featured content. — KV5 • Talk • 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Cut away mein broseph. It's a random list from the SABR record books. Kinda interesting, IMO, but really random I agree. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • We're not going to be able to have a HOF color, unless we double up and have a color for players who have done both, which I hate. — KV5 • Talk • 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not color the year or the stats for an MLB crown and the player for HoF status? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, coloring the stats is a great idea! Would rather use an asterisk if we are going to do that instead of the carrot, though, if we can. — KV5 • Talk • 19:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure what to do there. I'd say worst case clone the template to your own userspace and just style it how you like. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The thing is A. It's a userpage infobox not an article-space page, B. It's not really actually that hard to read as is, and C. WP:ACCESS (and really the whole MOS) is a guideline, not something hardcore like 3RR. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Eh. Maybe I'll just kill off my userboxes and forget about it. — KV5 • Talk • 20:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Great, except for superscripting the daggers. — KV5 • Talk • 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the abbreviations are a little much in that proposed lead. I really think they look sloppy in prose. That might just be me, but I think it looks a lot better in what we call our best content to say "wins" instead of "Ws". — KV5 • Talk • 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I guess wins don't need the abbreviation, but at least the rest do as they are abbreviated in the table headers. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That can be done with a key. Doesn't have to be done in prose. — KV5 • Talk • 02:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Think it's done, besides refs. — KV5 • Talk • 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Refs are done. If you give it a once-over, I'm good. I also did a potential DYK at the top; it can just be copied and pasted as I used the nom template to generate it. Prosesize says we're around a 10x expansion. — KV5 • Talk • 14:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks good. If it's no problem for you I'll transfer and nominate it once I'm home from work in a little bit. The only annoying thing is that the refs you used in the lead are repeated in the table, so I'll just name them "XXXXal" or whatever and use that name in the table refs. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's fine. I knew some refs would be repeated. Double away. — KV5 • Talk • 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • According to DYK check we're still about 3500 characters short of a DYK expansion. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Really? That far? That doesn't sound right. — KV5 • Talk • 19:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember, it's all prose not just the lead. The old version had the ML and Losers intros as well. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah shit. I guess since it's a pure mathematical calculation, it doesn't matter if we cut out a bunch of unreferenced junk that didn't belong in the article to begin with. — KV5 • Talk • 19:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. DYK is boiled down to simple length to avoid POV creeping in over the idea of "improving" an article. FLC? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Hit it, bud. Just so you know, I'm going to be away until Sunday afternoon, my time (about 46 hours from now). I'll be around to help the nom after that. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Killervogel, I think you are insane in your insistence that only the "Triple Crown" stats can be listed. I tried to delete Ichiro Suzuki's excess stats and got reverted by another user! Either you "lighten up" on your insistence on only BA/HR/RBI stats in the Infobox, or be consistent and DO IT FOR EVERY PLAYER, AND MONITOR THEM ALL-THE-TIME, SO THERE IS NO FAVORABILITY. Deal or no deal, and have this insane insistence (by you, mostly) that only BA/HR/RBI stats be listed in the Infobox? I tried to explain your insanity on this to another user who complained to me about it and I explained it was YOUR idea. Look also at Alex Rodriguez, and I'm sure many others who "escape" your excess deleting. I think it's time you reconsider and stop deleting other stats on the Infobox. What harm does it do, anyway to show a couple of extra stats? Katydidit (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Twins first-round draft picks/archive1

Hey. I see that you usually review baseball lists rather quickly over at FLC. Looks like this one slipped past you though, so just pointing it out. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't miss it, I've just been absorbed in my giant project. — KV5 • Talk • 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Random project

I've been cooling off a bit recently readying myself for the 3rd round of the Wikicup. As I rev up I was looking for some random one-off little things I could fix up. First on my list is List of Major League Baseball All-Star Game winners. Got any other ideas I can nick/help you with? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know of anything. The only thing I'm working on right now is that bastard of a roster. I have to take a break from it every so often or I get burnt out. It's such a huge project but I am so committed to getting it done. It's going to be an event. I am working on formulating a 21-article DYK hook in my head. If you wanted to, you could go this route. You've even got a model. — KV5 • Talk • 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oooh, good idea. I may do that. And a 21 article hook would get you to #2 most in a hook, although how would you word it? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster has included Alberts, Bennetts, etc, etc? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably something along those lines, or mention the lead person of each article or a Hall of Famer from each letter. — KV5 • Talk • 11:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the box and see what you think. — KV5 • Talk • 13:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think redlinks in something like that are perfectly fine. Plus they give you future DYK project ideas. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree. Just wanted an outside opinion. Tx. — KV5 • Talk • 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Silver Slugger Award winners at shortstop

I found a few mistakes.

"Larkin is third all-time in Silver Slugger wins among all positions." I think Larkin is fourth because Barry Bonds(12), Mike Piazza(10) and Alex Rodriguez(10).

"52 home runs in 2002 are records among winning shortstops." Alex Rodriguez hit 57 HR in 2002 season.[1]--KANESUE 00:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) My English may be inappropriate, because I am Japanese.

The Larkin is correct, because 9 is the third-highest win total ("third in wins", not "in third place"). The other was a mistype, which I've fixed; the year was correct but the total wasn't. — KV5 • Talk • 00:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Mike Piazza won 10 Silver Slugger Awards. Barry Larkin number of winning Silver Slugger Awards is behind Mike Piazza. but, There was no mention on the article.
"Larkin is third all-time in Silver Slugger wins among all positions, behind outfielder Barry Bonds[5] and third baseman Alex Rodriguez, who won his first seven awards at shortstop before a position change."--KANESUE 00:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)My English may be inappropriate, because I am Japanese.
Exactly like I said. He is third all-time in wins. 12 is the highest total. 10 is the second-highest total. 9 is the third-highest total. It makes no mention of number of players at those totals. Third-highest in wins is correct. — KV5 • Talk • 00:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • 1. Bonds (12)
  • 2-t. Piazza (10)
  • 2-t. ARod (10)
  • 3. Larkin (9)
  • Though I can see what he means, KV5. While it is the third most "wins", it would probably clearer to say he is 4th. Even your own response is a bit confusing. Larkin isn't 3rd all time in wins, he's 4th. His total is 3rd (what you were trying to say, but it's an unnecessarily confusing separation to make). Staxringold talkcontribs 01:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Phillies

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at Eagle4000's talk page.
Message added 16:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roster

Seems fine, maybe use a diff symbol for team record or Philly Wall? Look quite similar. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I'll take a look at the possibility of something else. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 19:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2006 boys high school basketball All-Americans/archive1

Hi KV5, I know you don't like these reminders, and you must be busy, but it's been 10 days since you last commented at the above FLC so it would be great if you could revisit when you get the chance. Hope things are going well on your end. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I notice that not all of your comments have been addressed, but if you could cap the resolved ones, I would greatly appreciate it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you think now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2006 boys high school basketball All-Americans/archive1 showing in my watchlist?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A week ago you said you were going to wait before deciding whether to support. This is now the oldest FLC. Your decision is needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, but it has been a week.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Stan Lopata and other Phillies

Thanks much for your words of encouragement. I figured my expansions of old ballplayers wouldn't be noticed, but it's still inspiring to know I'm doing some good. Guys like Lopata and Hobie Landrith need to be more than just footnotes in history. I was about to start work on Tito Francona, but that will probably be a very large project. For thanks from a Phillies fan, I think I'll try an expand Don Demeter next. Vodello (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at SteveRwanda's talk page.
Message added 04:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Philadelphia Union

Well since I added the pictures, I figured I should have say to the location of them. I wanted to keep the layout balanced. I liked that you added the visibility of the Commodore Barry Bridge in the background. Sorry I didn't reply sooner I'm not very good at user talk.

My personal thinking is that the picture may not be seen by viewers browsing the page since it is under the references heading. I think it is a very good shot. Do you think the latest change was considered sandwiching? User_talk:Spinerod

I can't find the article talk page, where is it? User_talk:Spinerod

Major League Baseball Triple Crown

Congrats! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • My next thing is I have to get 30 Rock (season 4) up to snuff to keep that topic retained. Outside of that nothing major, I just did the last of the tie-breakers I can do reasonably (I might try the 59 series next, but that's a WAYS back). Staxringold talkcontribs 22:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing that article lacks is a history of the term within baseball. It apparently originated in horse racing in the 1850s, and terms from popular activities such as racing, boxing and card playing found their way into baseball. It's pretty obvious where the term comes from. More to the point, I wonder when it was first used, i.e. who was the first player who "knew" he had hit a triple crown? Certainly Paul Hines wouldn't have known. I'm guessing the term might have been invented in the 1920s. Of course, if I get real desparate, I might check the Dickson book. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My edition of the book, dated 1989, does not indicate when the term was first used in baseball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This item[2] which I found via google, indicates the term really wasn't first used until 1941, and that Ty Cobb in 1960 said the "triple crown" in his day was average, RBI and HITS. Knowing Cobb, I might take that with a grain of salt. In any case, triple crowns going back to Hines, Browning, etc. were obviously retrofitted. The two guys in 1880 didn't know they had thrown "perfect games" either, at least not necessarily by that name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Did anything ever come of that WP:MLB Triple Crown, BTW? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Not yet. Ironic, now that we have the Triple Crown topic done. I did ask Durova but haven't heard anything for quite some time. I can check again. — KV5 • Talk • 18:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No worries, I misunderstood his edits at first also. I know you don't like canvassing, but mind re-checking Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/3,000 hit club/archive1? Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. I actually checked it this morning but forgot to leave my support before work. — KV5 • Talk • 01:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A's

Someone messed up the Oakland Athletics page by moving it to a new name and then copying it back so the page history was lost. Can you fix it? Spanneraol (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. I'm sure that other guy meant well, but he was getting a little carried away, as the team's own official website[3] still calls them "Oakland". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If and when they move south, I wonder if they will rename them the "San Jos-A's"? Or maybe the "San Francisco B'A's"? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone should probably nominate the redirects created for deletion. — KV5 • Talk • 22:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Emperor list

Third FLC. It bugs me that I have such severe trouble with FACs and FLCs...ResMar 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Marlins rings question

If you get the chance, mind giving an opinion on Talk:List of Florida Marlins first-round draft picks? I can't figure out a way to tell if they won rings. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops

I was completely wrong about that edit -- sorry for the fuss. Coemgenus 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — KV5 • Talk • 13:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Domonic Brown

Crossing Broad is in no way a reliable source for the Domonic Brown call-up. You need to wait until it's officially announced by the team, per WP:CRYSTAL. Stop inserting information that's not verifiable by reliable sources. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Already changed source to USA Today. - PhillyPartTwo

That's a community-edited forum, not a reliable source, regardless of its being hosted on USA Today. — KV5 • Talk • 18:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourced MSNBC as well. - PhillyPartTwo

Fine dude, you win. If you really want your 'special' writing in the article instead of mine, so be it. This clearly is quite important for you for some reason. You could had just undid or put back my edits - since I was right - but it's fine whateverdude. - PhillyPartTwo

J. A. Happ

The J. A. Happ trade has been officially announced by both teams, and Ruben Amaro, Jr. appeared on Philadelphia's KYW-TV on their 4 o'clock news program on July 29, 2010 to officially announce that the trade was complete. I was about to add further references, including cbs3.com (KYW's website) and both teams' websites when you prematurely removed my addition. Bill S. (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the official team website references.[1] and [2]

  1. ^ Phillies.com page on trade Retrieved 2010-07-29
  2. ^ Astros.com page on trade Retrieved 2010-07-29

DYK for Bill Gray (baseball)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Article title, revisited

After writing the text for the new list you helped me name, IUCN Top 25 Most Endangered Primates, I have had some doubts about the title. I wrote some more comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#List title suggestions, but have not received any replies. Because the IUCN does not exclusively publish this list, I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to name the list "List of The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates". If you have a moment, would you mind sharing your thoughts? (I'll be watching your talk page, so no need to use {{talkback}}.) – VisionHolder « talk » 13:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, shortly after posting here, discussion resumed and I decided to go with the title The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates. However, I'm still open to discussing it if you disagree. I'll be watching this thread over the next day or two. Thanks for your time. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

ref's vs fn's

Did I do the footnote correctly in Philadelphia Phillies, re only NL teams with 2 perfect games? Originally, I tried putting it in a footnote. I didn't realize, until I saw your reversal note, that Wikipedia distinguishes between footnotes and references. Ever since learning how to write term papers in high school, I always thought of everything as being "footnotes". Now I realize that what I learned were footnotes are actually references, and that footnotes are notes added at the end. Thanks for helping me to realize this important distinction in Wikipedia. Eagle4000 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost perfect. I fixed it. — KV5 • Talk • 18:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "almost perfect" reference (so to speak) .... Thanks also for fixing the footnote.

I was thinking of adding the following to the footnote. Do you think's it's appropriate, or should I drop the idea?

"Four other Phillies have pitched almost-perfect games. In 1953 and 1954, Curt Simmons and Robin Roberts, respectively, retired 27 consecutive batters, after the leadoff batter reached base in the first inning. In 1971, Rick Wise gave up a home run to the leadoff batter in the second inning. He did not allow another baserunner until the 12th inning, with two outs. He had been perfect for 10 2/3, retiring 32 consecutive batters—the record for most consecutive outs in a game by a winning pitcher. See: Perfect game #Nine or more consecutive innings of perfection. In 1990, Terry Mulholland lost a perfect game in the seventh inning when the batter reached base on a throwing error. The next batter grounded into a double play. Thus, Mulholland faced the perfect-game maximum of 27 batters, but did not qualify for a perfect game. See: Perfect game #No-hit, no-walk, no–hit–batsman games."

Eagle4000 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be better to incorporate those pieces of information individually into History of the Philadelphia Phillies, rather than footnoting them in the main article, which is an overview. — KV5 • Talk • 18:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Killervogel5/Archive_12&oldid=1148112200"