User talk:Killervogel5/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Killervogel5. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Heyo! I've been working on starting the 1962 tie-breaker series. Just wanted to know if you like the adapted style from the single-game articles. I actually came here because I thought the B-Ref pages were disagreeing with the newspaper source I had on home field advantage, but then I realized I'm stupid and can't read. :p Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask you a more specific question? Do you see how Billy O'Dell earned a blown save in game 2? He entered in the 6th inning with 1 out with a 5-2 lead and men on first and second. He preceded to allow 4 runs to make the game 6-5. Does that meet one of the weird secondary save situation rules? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The format of the article looks good. As to the blown save, it looks like O'Dell allowed the baserunner who scored the sixth run of the game. The Giants were leading, 5–0, after 5+1⁄2 innings, and then the Dodgers scored 7 in the bottom of the 6th. You only have to give up the game-tying run to earn a blown save, rather than the loss, where you have to give up the game-winner. In the modern game, that differentiation is much more rare, because closers so often come in to a one-run game and give up a two-run homer, getting both the blown save and the loss at the same time. From the boxscore, it appears that Sanford gave up one earned run (5–1), then Miller allowed three (5–4), and O'Dell allowed two despite not pitching 1⁄3 inning (5–6). He obviously wasn't credited with the loss because his sixth run turned out not to be the game-losing run. — KV5 • Talk • 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What's confusing to me is our article on saves lists being the final pitcher as one of the qualifications for earning a save. Obviously you can get a blown save without ending the game, but I'm wondering what the qualifications are for a save situation precisely. EVERY PITCHER who gives up a lead doesn't earn a blown save, what made O'Dell's situation a save situation (yes the tying run was at the plate when he entered, but it was the 6th inning)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact I think that every pitcher who relieves the starter and gives up the lead is eligible for a save. This is because any pitcher who enters the game with a lead and pitches 3 innings without sacrificing that lead can earn a save. Although that doesn't make it a "save opportunity" in the traditional sense, it does fall under that weird §10.19 rule. What it comes down to is that you don't have to be in a save situation to blow a save, which is wacky but true. — KV5 • Talk • 21:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get the three inning save oddity, but O'Dell didn't record a single out. He gave up the lead but it's odd to me that even such a huge pitching failure counted as a BS when it came so early in the game. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit strange, but consider the following: if O'Dell had entered there, pitched out of the jam, and allowed no runs the rest of the way, it would have been a save, regardless of the fact that he entered in the sixth inning. — KV5 • Talk • 22:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

True, what a save it would've been though (3.2 IP)! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely... I did actually see one of those three-inning saves; I believe it was in 2008. Clay Condrey or Chad Durbin, one of the two. — KV5 • Talk • 23:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus there was the infamous 30-3 save. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's right! Forgot about that one... — KV5 • Talk • 00:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Check it out, went live, looks good IMO. And of course a DYK... :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bam. Done. Good job. — KV5 • Talk • 01:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Hope you're well. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite, thanks. Just been absorbed in other projects. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 16:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed. Can't wait to see that monster project (or its constituent articles) at FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to see some of the base lists (leads are being written after all of the data entry is done), you can see starting here. I'm done through K at the moment and have put images into L this morning. — KV5 • Talk • 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you do a quick copyedit of the article, you could explain baseball terms better than I. It's on FAC btw Secret ^account 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for Paul Krichell Secret ^account 17:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing it now. My apartment is without interwebs for a few days so I'm sitting in the library enjoying electronic bliss for a short while. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi KV5, as an admin, a WP:BASEBALL member, and somebody who's dealt with User:SNIyer12 several times in the past, I was wondering if you might take a look at SNIyer12's editing in regards to the St. Louis Cardinals, Busch Memorial Stadium, Template:Boston Red Sox, and Curse of the Bambino... every so often, SNIyer12 goes on a big push to just make sure that everywhere possible, Busch II is listed as "the field where the Curse of the Bambino died". I started a discussion on WT:BASEBALL some time back, where the (admittedly somewhat small) consensus seemed to be that no-one was ever using that as a nickname for the stadium, and that it (the field) didn't particularly factor that heavily into Red Sox lore, nor into Cardinals lore (i.e., a WP:UNDUE situation). Most of it's been reverted several times (sorry, it's a little late in the evening for me to go back through and gather a ton of diffs right now), except for a brief mention in the Busch Stadium article; this go-round, seems like s/he's back at it, this time with a source from a 2005 book by Dan Shaugnessy - which *might* be appropriate for buttressing the mention in Busch Memorial Stadium, but not really for pushing it back into St. Louis Cardinals, Template:Boston Red Sox, etc. I'm hoping you'll take a look at the situation when you get a few moments, and weigh in with your opinion in the section I started on SNIyer12's talk page (especially, as I said, since we keep going around on this again every few months). Thanks, umrguy 42 04:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

He does the same kinds of subtle POV pushing on articles relating to the Phillies, including the Mets-Phillies rivalry, inserting information about the "Curse of the Inauguration", which doesn't exist and isn't notable. I've warned him about these things several times, and after a lot of pushing have gotten him to discuss his edits to the above article on the talk page before making changes because I was getting sick of having to revert and/or copyedit everything he does. I felt like I had to just follow him around and make sure he wasn't putting wrong information in multiple locations, making no time for me to work on my other projects. That said, I did participate (I believe) in the discussion on the project talk page, and there are no reliable sources supporting that nickname, so feel free to revert him while referring to that discussion in your edit summary. I, meanwhile, will keep an eye on him. — KV5 • Talk • 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That curse of the inauguration bit is tough to keep out of 2009 World Series as well. :p Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've noticed. It's still on my watchlist. It's getting very tiresome. — KV5 • Talk • 15:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

KV5, the following two cats should probably be merged. They seem to be based on the aasumption that the Phillies were called the Quakers from 1883-89.

Category:Philadelphia Quakers players, which says: "This category includes players from the National League team known as the Philadelphia Quakers. The team played under this name from the team's founding in 1883 until 1889, when it was changed to the Phillies."

Category:Philadelphia Phillies players, which says: "This category includes players for the franchise that became the present Philadelphia Phillies (1890 to present). It does not include players for other Philadelphia Phillie teams:

Philadelphia Quakers (1883 - 1889)"

Eagle4000 (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they should, since the names "Quakers" and "Phillies" were used simultaneously. I don't have time to do it, however. You could recruit a botmaster or someone who's a hot hand with HotCat or AWB. — KV5 • Talk • 20:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that really is a mega-project you've undertaken. Any ideas on when you'll be done/what you might want to do next? I have to figure out what I want to get writing once I get properly into the swing of law school and have interwebs at home (should be today or tommorrow at worst). I have to admit I'm still thinking about trying my hand at a legal article, but on the baseball front I dunno (outside of going further back on the tie-breakers, though that 62 one took a lot of work). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to keep myself from dying of tedium, I'm working on writing some articles on redlinks on the roster as I run across them. I wanted to just start some in terms of racking up some more DYKs if I can, but I ended up getting really in-depth with a pitcher from the post-WWII era who has no article even though he had a nine-year pro career. So I'm hoping to move that out into a GA nom, and maybe do some heavier content work in terms of article-writing by turning some of my many redlinks blue. If I felt like a non-baseball project, I'd probably do something music theory-related, but I'd have no idea where to start for sources (maybe my college textbooks!?). As to a potential completion date, I have no clue but am aiming for the end of the season. Some of the biggest lists weigh me down; right now, I'm working on "M", which has exactly 200 players in it. I thought some of the other ones were long. I really dread "S", because I have no idea how many players it has. — KV5 • Talk • 18:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The DYK mining opportunities that something like that provides is definitely a neat side-shoot of your project. It'll really be nice to have a proper style guide for something like that. Obviously we have the defunct 19th century "roster" lists but that's a rather different animal in terms of scale. I would tend to agree on the whole "content" (aka non-list, in this case for me) work idea, I feel like I've powered through most of the lists I can think of/have come upon to work up. As for musical theory stuff, do you have any access to Lexis Nexis or similar sites? You can find awesome stuff on there, like the vast archives of old sports pages I dug through to build the tie-breaker articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had Lexis; I have a local friend who's formerly a law student who has farmed it for me a few times, but I don't have regular access, unfortunately. — KV5 • Talk • 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific searches in mind feel free to shoot me a request (as I've got access). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you supported Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1991 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1, I thought you might be intersted in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1992 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly, as I'm not interested in having my talk page light up with reminders to do reviews that I can't get to right away. That's why I didn't review it to begin with. — KV5 • Talk • 19:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On 4 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scott Barry, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Killervogel5. You have new messages at Sandman888's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Did you know...that three Philadelphia Phillies' have hit four home runs in a single game, more than any other franchise? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And I'm dumb, I forgot the Beaneaters were the Braves. So make that...that three Philadelphia Phillies and three Atlanta Braves have hit four home runs in a single game, more than any other franchise? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers, good work. — KV5 • Talk • 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw that last year you commented on the this template's talk page that you might go ahead and add Retrosheet code. I would do it if I knew how to do such things, but was curious if you tried but was too time consuming.Neonblak ^talk - 01:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I never even got around to looking at it. — KV5 • Talk • 12:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, KV5. As you know, I posted the following note on the WikiProject:Phils talk page ("I just noticed that Minnesota Twins award winners and league leaders includes a list of all Twins who have been selected to an All-Star team. It would be nice to have such a list in the List of Philadelphia Phillies award winners and league leaders. Would it be possible to add this to the project's "Open Tasks" section?"). You then posted a reply ("Done.").

I just looked at the project page's "Open Tasks" section. The entry says: "Cleanup: Philadelphia Phillies award winners and league leaders".

Would it be possible to change that entry, by replacing "Cleanup" with "add all Phils who have been selected to an All-Star team"? Eagle4000 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's a "cleanup" issue specifically, you're welcome to change the "to do" list yourself. I just listed it under "other" because I didn't think it fit specifically into one of those categories. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits like that are what being a wikignome is all about :-D ! -Dewelar (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too. It seems obvious that the stadium itself is still called the "Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome", but the football field is referred to as "Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome". I mean, I doubt that the stadium is referred to as "Mall of America Field" by Minnesota Golden Gophers baseball supporters! – Pee Jay 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the Gophers baseball schedule from last spring refers to it simply as the HHH Metrodome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yerp. I was going to move it back after the original move but decided I didn't need a fight. — KV5 • Talk • 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a fair amount of confusion when they cooked up that new name last fall. The exterior signage is misleading, which doesn't help. But at this point the only tenants are Vikings football (which calls it MOA Field at HHH Metrodome) and Gophers baseball (which calls it HHH Metrodome). So it seems clear enough that the MOA stuff is wedded to the Vikings, and refers to the field, as the initial reports were saying last fall. Another point of confusion is when an NFL game comes on TV and the announcers say, "Welcome to MOA Field at HHH Metrodome." That blurs the line a bit, as the broadcasters are in the booth, not on the field itself. Maybe it's a bit like the University of Illinois, with Zuppke Field at Memorial Stadium. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is; Seattle Sounders FC have the same deal, with the "Xbox Pitch at Qwest Field". — KV5 • Talk • 15:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If they're going to name the field, why stop there? "The field goal will be attempted from the Famous Dave's 35 yard line. Real home cooking, just like Mom used to make, only greasier. Here's the snap..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I want to score a touchdown in the "Baseball Bugs end zone"... lol. — KV5 • Talk • 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, whatever. I was figuring the end zone would be sponsored by Wells FarGOAL or something like that. And let's not forget the Hormel benches, where all the hams and hot dogs reside. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good lord, man, what has this discussion become? Are we going to sell naming rights to plays and formations too? The Purdue wishbone? Or how about the LensCrafters I? "Today's Hail Mary brought to you by the Archdiocese of Minneapolis..." — KV5 • Talk • 16:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Today's kickoff brought to you by the Sven and Ole Mortuary." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah, the old tie-breakers made for a nice re-entry to GAs. I know you're wary of the FAC process, but the 62 tie-breaker is up at FAC and could use a review (so far it's mostly been source checking and minor things) if you're willing! I'll check that DYK right now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, CBL beat me to the punch. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved it to Prep 1 (removed "short" from "short cup of coffee" per someone's comment it was redundant). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently an RfC in progress at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#RfC - 3.b review in progress regarding Criteria 3b of the featured list criteria and whether it should be modified or eliminated. As you participated in a previous discussion regarding Criteria 3b when it was first introduced, this discussion may be of interest to you. –Grondemar 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've commented at WT:FLC, I am certainly aware of that discussion. Not participating because there's too much drama. — KV5 • Talk • 16:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I didn't realize the Bowa note was a "transclusion" from another page. I'm not sure what a transclusion is, but .... Go, Phils! Eagle4000 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is no problem. Basically, there's a footnote for Bowa in the main Phils managers article, so the footnotes in the Phillies article are basically photocopies. Because there is nowhere for the Fregosi and Manuel links to jump back to properly, the format for all three notes is then broken. — KV5 • Talk • 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On 19 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Schultz (pitcher), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! 28bytes (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 15:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted the move I made regarding this player. I used Retrosheet for this change, they claim that the man who played the one game for Philly in 1883 was this guy. Baseball-reference.com uses Retrosheet for much of their statistical calculations. I could only assume that when their next player update happens, they will merge the two players, just as Retrosheet did, who use SABR research for most of their biographical information. I wasn't able to find a/the SABR article regarding the research on this man yet however.Neonblak ^talk - 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that I "reverted" anything; I did rename the page per Baseball-Reference. If it does happen to be the same person, my bad. — KV5 • Talk • 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not that your work is not featured quality, it is, but it's just hard to push an article of a player with a short career to featured status. I'm sorry I had to oppose, you are 10 times better in writing prose than I, but I just felt Thompson article was lacking, and it's likely going to stay lacking. Eppa Rixey (which I haven't gotten to because the book source still haven't arrived, and I been disgrunted lately see my user page), can become an easy FA. I had to drop some classes because of my health so this semester is the time I could work on articles before I become inactive with 15-18 credits in the spring. I want to work with you on Rixey (and other Philles players bios that easily become FAs Roberts, Schmidt, Dick Allen, maybe a current player) before I become inactive. Thanks Secret ^account 02:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll gladly have a go at some of those others with you, but it's become pretty obvious to me that I'm not going to be able to get an FA passed on my own. I'm resigned to making lists, but that's ok because I seem to be pretty good at that. — KV5 • Talk • 11:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you pick the right article, you could, it just can't be any smalltime baseball player. Just pick an article that is a little more than a stub Curt Simmons or Granny Hamner are good examples, you could easily expand the article, claim it your own and become an FA. I'm in the process of looking for stubs so I could expand and claim it my own, like what I did with Bob Meusel or Ben Paschal. I saw a few good candidates, I think I'm going to try Mark Koenig next, to keep my 1927 Yankees topic alive. Thanks Secret ^account 02:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I decided I'm going to work on Reggie Jackson next, afterwards Koenig, Rixey, and Shoeless Joe Jackson, unless Carribean H.Q decides to co work the Clemente article with me. I still haven't gotten my Rixey source though I ordered it over a week ago, if it doesn't come I'll just get an excerpt from it from my university library, as another state university has the book (which is Ghosts in the Gallery at Cooperstown) I got all my other books already. You could copyedit and review Jackson when it's done. I got Sarastro1 to copyedit it as well when it's finished, but he's a cricket editor not a baseball editor. Secret ^account 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you supported Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1991 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1, I am calling your attention to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1993 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1 as a list you may be interested in reviewing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wooooo megaproject! My first question is if you feel confident about the groupings you've made. I see you've already merged a few small letters. This is a good idea, you want the lists to be as long as possible, IMO. That is, if two letters CAN be merged together without becoming crushingly long it's a good idea (as the fewer separate articles the better, both in terms of accessibility and just general sanity). This may be an issue that comes when you make them go live. We have lists with as many as 500 elements in them. Also, what about making the last list X-Z even though there are no X's yes on the Phillies? That way the possibility exists for a Xavier or a Xerxes, and there isn't a confusingly missing letter from the lineup.

As for the lead, it looks good. I especially like specifying both HoF managers and HoF "primary team", these are very helpful nuggets that sometimes get blended in with just saying general HoF status. In that paragraph I would say "Ashburn, Alexander, and Richie Allen are also members of the [Wall of Fame]", not simply "Each" as that is somewhat undefined. Does it relate to everyone on the list? All 3 of the previously mentioned HoFers (that's what I thought on first read)? Lastly I would link single in the lead when talking about Ashburn's record. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually feel very confident about these groupings. I don't think that there's any list in here that's short enough to be considered a content fork. The X-Z thing I considered, but in looking at List of Major League Baseball players, there are no Xs there either, and the "X" list redirects to the main article. So I would create that redirect in case someone decides to type it in, but I don't see any reason to link it, especially because someone could then look at that and say "There's no X, this doesn't cover the defined scope". I'll re-word that sentence a little bit, I struggled with it a bit, and I'll take care of that link too. — KV5 • Talk • 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just realized something, by mentioning the # of people who've been Phillies you're requiring 20+ edits every time someone makes a debut! Think it'd be worth creating a "Philliesplayercount" template for use in multiple articles, so the text can just read "There have been {{Philliesplayercount}} players in a Phillies uniform" on the various pages? Then you've only got 1 target to update. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already done... {{PhilsNum}}. — KV5 • Talk • 16:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You sir, are a smarty. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha. I do what I can. — KV5 • Talk • 18:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Killervogel5, I hate to be a bother, but I think this part needs to stay in the article. Recording the final out in a perfect game IS NOTABLE and if you continue to remove this you could be accused of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriolesfan8 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gc34NHMFWeNaF2tZLT4vuILSW3lgD9ILO6PO3?docId=D9ILO6PO3 Hudson, Liriano win comeback player awardsMichaelProcton (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fine, I see that now. Next time cite your sources on the initial edit when changing featured content. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 20:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

- Sorry, I felt like the official Twitter account of the Atlanta Braves (vetted by the team's main beat writer, David O'Brien) seemed pretty legit. The AP had not yet written the article up at the time. MichaelProcton (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  - Blogs are rarely reliable. Since the AP has the story now, it's no big deal, but next time I suggest waiting so something like that doesn't happen again. You riled up Stax too, that's never safe... :-D — KV5 • Talk • 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I AM THE FLAME BREATHING DRAGON OF WIKIPEDIA!!! :o It's all good, I'll give the text some tweaking (and write up Liriano) in an hour or so. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

- - Fair enough, fellas. I just got excited (Braves are my team) and wanted to get it up ASAP. Will try to hold off in the future. MichaelProcton (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have fun with that one. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you been editing them, can you edit my uploads, and lets also find a non-ebay source from these cards, as ebay sources expires after 90 days. Right now I'm uploading them slowly as I'm working all this weekend. I should do a mass upload on Monday, or if I'm not working Sunday night. Thanks Secret ^account 13:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Also about these cards, I'm thinking about mass buying the commons as this weekend is one of the biggest money weekends of the year in my occupation. So some of the cards can be mentioned as my collection. I only own one Goudey card, which I just bought and uploaded (the Pete Fox one), got it for 5 bucks including shipping. Thanks Secret ^account 13:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can edit up some of the ones you uploaded, sure. It probably won't be this weekend, more likely next week. But if you can find non-eBay sources, that would be fantastic. How's the template look? — KV5 • Talk • 14:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks good though "believed" would rise some hard core deletionists in Commons to try to delete the template. Though it would likely be kept as there is no evidence that it didn't laped into Public Domain. Topps and Upper Deck used copied the cards design freely, so that's more evidence it's in Public Domain. Secret ^account 14:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I just searched Bowman, only three sets are copyrighted out of like a thousand of them, including none of their 40s and 50s sets, and none after 1993. I also searched Topps. It seems like everything before 1964 wasn't renewed and they forgot to copyright many of their 1970s years and everything after 1994, with a few sets in between. It's not registered at all with the copyright office I asked Commons what does that mean, is it in Public Domain until they decide to register though the copyright office. And everything Pre-1964 can't be renewed so I think I found a goldmine of images. Secret ^account 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok it's everything before 1978, not after. So Bowman and most of the Topps sets before 1978 which weren't registered though the copyright office is in Public Domain, like the 1958 Topps which I searched. Secret ^account 16:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the template. All that is good to hear. If you need any other copyright templates made over there, just let me know. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 16:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea I found a website for Goudey, Play Ball and early Bowman. I'm a bit weary of uploading Topps as the copyright expert said "I believe is in Public Domain" if the cards were tagged with a copyright but wasn't registered with the copyright office like all those early Topps sets that weren't renewed. Secret ^account 02:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Talk:Mark Buehrle's perfect game about the merit of play-by-plays in perfect game articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anything I added is controversial. The 2008 incident helps to show how the crowd along with his team mates went wild with approval when he said it, which adds value to the article. I can add a source citing this exactly as I wrote it. The 2009 post season entry also adds value by describing Utley's appearance during the World Series, and sources can verify this along with he NY press poking fun at it. If I neglected to properly source my edits I will gladly go back to the tutorial and do the edits correctly, but as far as subject matter I don't see how this material does not have a place in the Chase Utley article. BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It does not have a place because it's trivial, non-encyclopedic information. If you do re-insert it, it will be removed again. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the relevant policy. — KV5 • Talk • 15:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's trivial according you, and I respect your opinion. However, is their a third party that can play the role of arbitrator because I do not see how edits, that help to explain Chase Utley and events that he was involved, are "trivial, non-encyclopedic." I can see how you can argue that the edit about his hair is trivial (I personally don't see it as trivial), but the sentence about Werth's reaction definitely adds value to the piece about what he said during the World Series celebration. How is my sentence about his teammate's (Werth) reaction any less relevant then the next line about the crowds reaction. BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

First, it's not referenced. Second, it's not important in the context of an encyclopedia (which is what this is). Third, it's inappropriate to re-insert the information while there's an ongoing discussion about its relevance, so I'm asking you to revert your last re-addition until we come to an agreement. As to your concern about the degree of relevance: honestly, neither of those sentences add anything. They should both be removed. There's no need to involve a third-party mediator right now, as this isn't any sort of big deal; however, if you see the need, you can go to WP:3O to ask. — KV5 • Talk • 18:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will go get a source to cite my latest edit. I will not put back in the information about his slicked back hair because I can see how this is not important (or maybe you're jealous you don't have hair like him haha, jk) If you feel my edit about Werth jumping up is not important and you see the need to delete it please consult a third party mediator. However, considering the line about the crowd's reaction, I do think adding something about how the fellow players reacted is important and gives the readers a better understanding of how his comments were received. I don't see how a sentence about the fans reaction is any more relevant then the team mates reaction. Thus, if my edit is "not important in the context of an encyclopedia" then neither is the sentence about the crowd. Thank you. BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I just said above. Glad we're in agreement. I'll remove both sentences. — KV5 • Talk • 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You can remove both sentences, but I feel as would many other people that the reaction to his comments add value to the article. Without them all that you have is that Chase said "World Fucking Champions" and the reader has no clue how people reacted to this. Some may come away thinking he was booed and will change how they think Philly fans look at Chase. When in reality they, along with his team mates, love him. Where would we go to have a 3rd party decide if these two sentences are important and add value to this article. BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before: WP:3O. — KV5 • Talk • 19:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I copied this discussion into the Chase Utley talk page, so that I could post a request for a 3rd party to take a look at this. Hopefully we hear back soon. 19:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk • contribs)

ZOMGZ... I've been doing so little Wiki'ing with law school and you finish dis giant project! Jealous... :) Congrats Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. It's through phase 2 now... all I have to do now is push all 21 lists through FLC (eep!). — KV5 • Talk • 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Think it's worth asking Dabomb/TRM about a specialized FLC for this set? They're all so clearly related it seems wasteful to run them through 1 by 1 if it can be avoided. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Could be. I did the Silver Sluggers and Gold Gloves separately, but I do agree that this is a larger scope and a lot more tedious than those. — KV5 • Talk • 16:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Question, any idea why the extra innings in the linescore for game two here have stopped working? I think it has to do with the recent merging of another template into Linescore, but I think I have it formatted correctly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You have it done correctly, but something did go wrong with the merge which I can't sort. I'd suggest reverting and asking Afaber to take another look at what he did. — KV5 • Talk • 01:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BOOM, I did exactly that before you suggested it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BOOM! You win a chance to review my giant hook. (Kidding.) — KV5 • Talk • 01:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy to if you want, I was saving myself to move it and do out the credit links since I think that'll be the bigger job. :O Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no rush. If you meant the DYKmake templates, they are already done (I did them myself). — KV5 • Talk • 01:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, then I'll review away. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Left you a small question but approved. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded. — KV5 • Talk • 01:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with the Mets–Phillies rivalry article. However, as I work on this article, I would like your help and assist me in putting this New York - Philadelphia rivalry article and make the necessary corrections. You can leave messages as to what should be in this article on my talk page or in that article's discussion page. I need some assistance in putting it together. It is currently in progress. The article is Flyers–Rangers rivalry. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though I'm a hockey fan, I'm not nearly well-versed enough in the team's early history to be of much help. I can copyedit and such, but I'm working on a very large project right now that's taking most of my attention. — KV5 • Talk • 20:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. You can be of assistance. I'm working on it and I've asked other users for help. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry for striking out, cheers-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

KV5, I respectfully disagree with your reversal of my edits based on "wordiness" (except the one re days and dates). I believe that my edits addded clarity to the text, especially the addition of Atlanta, which is not mentioned in the phrase about the wild-card team not facing a team in its own division. If, however, my edits are "wordy" and "unnnecessary", I believe the first sentence in the NLCS section is likewise "wordy" and "unnnecessary". It says: "Having collected a 22–10 record against the National League West during the season,^[1] the Phillies faced off against that division's champions, the San Francisco Giants, in the National League Championship Series." The intro clause should instead go in the main article; the remaining text would then be: "The Phillies faced off against the West division champions, the San Francisco Giants, in the National League Championship Series." Even though the Phillies had a 22-10 record vs. the West, their record against the Giants was a split, 3-3. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of that section serves to introduce the section itself. If you'd rather it say they had a 3-3 record against San Francisco, that's fine, but it doesn't serve to highlight the fact that Philadelphia always plays well against the NL West, which is where I was going. You can "respectfully disagree" with any of my edits (it's a lot better than some of the disrespect that goes on around this joint!), but I still feel that the reversions and changes that I made were in the article's best interest. Atlanta doesn't need to be mentioned, because they didn't play Philadelphia. If they had, or especially if Philly went on to face the Braves in the NLCS, it would be a whole different ballgame. But with the way things played out, the fact that it's Atlanta, not Florida, New York, or Washington, that made the playoffs is, in my opinion, best confined to the article on the NLDS. — KV5 • Talk • 19:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's one reason why Wikipedia has so many disagreements; each editor has his own perspective. I agree that the Phils always play well vs the NL West, but it seems that in the playoffs all that matters is how well they played vs their opponent. Based on your invitation, I will add the 3-3 split and see how it looks to you. I realize you head the Phillies project, so I will have to defer to your final say. Thanks for all you do for the Phillies articles. I too am keenly disappointed by the NLCS loss. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because I coordinate the project doesn't give me any special say. No big deal. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I decided to work on this article next after Paul Krichell is finished, as it was a little more than a stub for a Hall of Famer. As he played half of his career in Philly you maybe interested in working with me on the article. Thanks Secret ^account 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I did look at it recently, as I just completed the R sublist of the Phillies all-time roster. I can probably help here and there lightly until the roster is finished, and then after that, I have one more article to finish and I can dive in with you. Cheers! — KV5 • Talk • 23:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I expanded it some more, and I'm just in the first page of the google news archives, I haven't even gone though the NYT and Sporting News archives yet, nor many of the book sources. Should be an easy FA once we finish with it. Secret ^account 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Would be my first, believe it or not. — KV5 • Talk • 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea I'm putting Rixey on hold for now, see the talk page of the Baseball Wikiproject, I'm trying to start a drive for the 50 most vital articles to become GAs or FAs. Mike Schmidt is in there, so you could work on that article. Thanks Secret ^account 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In second thoughts, let me complete what I've done with Rixey and of course you can join in, then I'll go to vital articles, most of them are close to FA status anyways, just needs citations. I'm going to be a little less active as school intencifies as I have a bunch of research stuff for classes inc I have to do to first, read six books (which I would just provide the content to Wikipedia while I read along), do a 15 page research paper, do more papers, etc. That what I get for picking history as a major. But I should be done with Rixey by next week. Secret ^account 00:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, great. Let me know when you are finished with what you are doing, then I will go back through, add some info, copyedit and so forth, and maybe we can knock this thing out. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea got the proper source from another library, an excerpt but whatever. Now there's a thing in FAC which you could nominate two articles at the same time, but one needs to be a co-nom. I'm thinking about Rixey or another Phillies player of your choice for one and my I need to get started Reggie Jackson article as my own nomination, it would likely take us a month. Secret ^account 02:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rixey is fine with me; Dave Bancroft is another who I've had my eye on for a while. The stuff I'm working on alone, I'll keep going with, but I'd like to do some cooperative work too. — KV5 • Talk • 12:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on Bing Miller now, I never seen so much PoV and tone problems in an baseball article, I'm going to rework it from scratch. That's a small delay for my Rixey, and Reggie Jackson projects, but it should take me a day or two to rewrite the article from scratch and place a GA nom. As he was a Philadelphia Athletics player maybe you want to help out with copyediting User:Secret/Bing Miller, will start working on it on thursday (I have an essay I need to do for the next two days, and I want to finish uploading all the Goudey cards). Secret ^account 04:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No rush, just let me know when you need me. I'm building out a redlink article right now after doing so many lists. The roster is basically a linkfarm for me right now, as I want to get at least all of the redlinks in the lists of the leads eliminated before they hit FLC. More articles created and DYKs for me! My current project is Andy Hansen (see here). Thanks to Bowman, I've even got a free image now! Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 12:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I decided to go back to Rixey and Reggie Jackson, I had the Miller article deleted as a copyvio and there isn't enough sources that I could turn it to a GA or FA. Secret ^account 00:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Moyer has become a free agent. The transactions page on MLB.com confirms this. Moyer is also no longer listed on the Phillies roster on the Phillies official website. Doh286 (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg Dobbs also became a free agent. Moyer and Dobbs were placed on waivers by Philadelphia and elected to become free agents after they cleared waivers. Doh286 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

But they cannot file for free agency until after the World Series, so they are not free agents. That's the way the system works. — KV5 • Talk • 11:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

On 30 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On 30 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On 30 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On 30 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (C), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.