Wikipedia

User talk:Killervogel5/Archive 10

< User talk:Killervogel5
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Dabomb87 in topic Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gunsmoke television episodes/archive2

Topic idea

Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments2 people in discussion

I thought of another small FT I'm going to work on once my clog of FLCs starts to thin out, Triple Crown (baseball). It's nice and clear, that's the lead article with 6 sub-lists (seasonal HR, RBI, AVG, ERA, Ks, Ws leaders) underneath. Should be fun, I'll start once the .400 OBPers list is promoted so I have some kind of a style guide for stat lists. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea... do you want a hand? It would be easy to split in half, if you have a preference to pitching or batting (I actually prefer pitching, but I'll do either). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't hurt to ask, though I personally don't think it would be necessary, as winning the RBI title, for example, doesn't have anything to do with an RBI as a unit of measure. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I was thinking the same thing. The difference with the Triple Gold club is those awards are part of the club, in this case the Triple Crown is not simply RBI, HR, and AVG, but the winning of those individual seasonal titles (so the respective lists cover both the "award" if you can call it that and the members). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Is there anything we want to set out first, like formatting elements and so forth, or just go for it? Are we marking only MLB triple crowns, or NL/AL triple crowns too? Do we include any other relevant statistics in the list or just the single stat (for example, adding number of earned runs and innings pitched in the ERA champs, K/9 or something similar in the strikeouts list, losses and winning % in the wins list, etc.)? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think for the individual stat lists we should only include the stat at hand, since that is really all that is addressed in the winning of the RBI/HR/AVG/W/K/ERA titles. Maybe for SB (a different beast) include CS as a direct partner to that stat, but that's all I can think of. I would also include the next closest qualifying finisher, as we did with NL/AL pennant winners. As for the Triple Crown page we should definitely recognize AL/NL crowns (since they are universally regarded as proper crowns), but the full ML crowns likely deserve special merit (perhaps highlight their statline on the Triple Crown page as ML leading. Also probably worth marking who had the ML leading total for each year on the stat pages (and a note for the rare cases like Mark McGwire in 1997 who led neither league in home runs but led the Majors, because he was traded and his total was split between the two leagues). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, what about the extraneous leagues? Currently, most of these lists have the AA, Fed League, NA, etc. included. I assume we remove those and go 1876-present for the NL and 1901-present for the AL? Or do we go 1901-present for everyone since that's officially MLB? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the criteria for inclusion in the list is "Major League Baseball [xxx] champions/leaders" (which we should standardize). So the NL, part of MLB, has been around since 1876, and the AL since 1901 (not counting the Western League, which was technically minor). Since the other leagues are not, and have never been, part of MLB, I think they can safely be excluded. I'm not a big fan of doing these in two really long, skinny tables, though, because I don't think it will look right. So the two options there are to add extra stats (why I suggested that) or to have a bunch of blank cells/em-dashes in the AL columns of a single table from 1876 through 1900. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Year Player Total Team Position Second Second total Ref
2010 Staxringold 74 New York Yankees Designated hitter Killervogel5 56 [1]
  • I really like that a lot; it is definitely wide enough to be aesthetically pleasing. Might it be better to use "Runner-up" instead of "Second"? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes to both. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • All right, I'm starting work on the ERA champions in my sandbox now; do you know if the main article is already anything or not? Will we make it a featured list or a good article? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely lists. They're all just garbage lists right now with no real lead or formatting. Should probably leave Triple Crown for last, can work together. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Triple Crown a list too? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Most definitely. A lead which discusses the usual things like MVP/CYAs won in the year of the Crown, HoF status of winners, multiple winners, etc, etc, but this really isn't an "article". Staxringold talkcontribs 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, that's fair. Can you take a look in my sandbox and let me know if the format I'm starting with works for you before I get too far into it? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Including runner-up team to make-up for no "position" on pitcher lists? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but it doesn't have to be there. If you like, I can remove it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If you're going to mark the Triple Crown winners (I wouldn't, that's something unrelated) I certainly wouldn't do it on the name field. You'll need that for HoFers. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Triple Crown winners certainly isn't unrelated, as it's the focus of the topic, but you're right about the location. I'll move it to the year and adjust the key accordingly. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • But you're thinking in terms of a topic, it has little to do with having the lowest ERA in the league. I would think the only things you would mark are HoF status on the name and whether the total led the Majors (on the stat). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The topic's the whole point here, and the ERA is an essential part of the pitching triple crown (obviously). All three can easily be marked. I didn't mark leading the majors because I didn't even think of it, plus I'm only in the 19th century still. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And none of those lists or topics are featured, at least not that I can see. I honestly don't see the harm in it considering the scope of the topic, but I suppose it's not noted in the sublists of the Silver Slugger featured topic if a player won at another position, so I guess I'll leave it to the lead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Haven't gotten to any yet, but that would be the way I would do it, yes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Since we're citing to league pages (and not ML pages or the player pages which show MLB league leads) should we even include a notation for ML-leading stats? It would require reciting for each such entry. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with leaving it out. Either way, it would either be noted in the NL or the AL table in every single year. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not if you are using the same page I am; they are just individual league leaders. There are MLB leader pages too, but I really have no desire to double-cite every single row... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Right, that was my point. Tough to include ML leaders without loads of cites. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Major League Baseball managers

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  On February 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Major League Baseball managers, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Woot, congrats! Also, if you have any ideas for how to pipe the draft-pick topic idea, please speak up at the Wikiproject talk page. I dunno what to do with that one. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FPC

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Durova is really the best person to approach about stuff like this, she's always always happy to help out new image editors. The main imperfections that would need fixing on that image are the dust and scratches (easy fixes with the Clone and Healing brushes) and then more complex things like the apparent chemical stains or something on the bottom part. Those can be fixed as well, but Durova's the better person to ask on dealing with them. Given the rarity and age of the image I'd say it's great, although in general things like his blurry fingers on the bat are signs to perhaps steer clear of an image (but in this case it's not really re-shoot-able). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will see what I can do on my own, and then I will talk to Durova. Perhaps the blurry fingers can be taken care of simply by cropping. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would take only the most basic crop until the very end. You don't want to work on area you're going to crop, but you also don't want to crop necessary stuff. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wasn't going to bother until I had uploaded a new version over that old one with a lot of the scratches, etc., dealt with. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a pretty solid start. Still plenty of dust and scratches, but the stains look pretty good. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in you User Space

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hey there Killervogel5, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Killervogel5/NUPD. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Testament uncials/archive1

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, can you revisit this? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of American League pennant winners/archive1 also needs a second look. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been following the progress on both FLCs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What do you think we should do with the whole tied for 2nd place amongst the pre-CSers? I note that's the one comment you left uncapped. Like I said, I'm not aware of any tiebreaking mechanism for 2nd place teams (why would they bother to develop such a mechanism back when finishing 2nd meant nothing), so any choice to list one second place team above another seems arbitrary. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I truly have no idea. If it were up to me, I would just blindly follow the source, because it doesn't indicate a tie. But that's just me. There are so many different aspects of it to consider... but I may have found the answer. Viewing the 1967 AL standings at Retrosheet, the Tigers are also listed ahead of the Twins... because they have less ties. B-Ref doesn't acknowledge ties, and they don't alter the standings because they are counted as .5 wins and .5 losses, but that's the only differentiator that I've found that makes any sense. And just for the record, I didn't leave that uncapped to be a pain; I just wanted other reviewers to see it and comment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Would you mind posting that source at the FLC? I'll respond and remove the 2nd place tie, I just want that source on the record because I think you've figured it out! (didn't realize there were ties at play) Staxringold talkcontribs 19:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Consider it done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi killervogel5 how did you come up with that user name?Germanshepherds100 15:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been a username of mine for quite some time, but I arrived at it in a rather roundabout way. The German word for "bird" is Vogel. Eagles are birds of prey, or "killer birds" (Killervogel). 5 is the number of the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles (Donovan McNabb) - although I am now a Minnesota Vikings fan - and also of my favorite former Philadelphia Phillie, Pat Burrell. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Thats cool and a cool name im a fan of the Dallas cowboys>Germanshepherds100 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting question

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion

Another question for you, see in my sandbox, we agreed on the formatting for ties for runners up already (that's easy, just name and #). However for ties for the leader, do you like this format? My issue is there is no clear line as to what data (in terms of position and team) pertains to which of the shared leaders. I tried a fix example to the 1912 AL data field, but this method seriously messes with sorting. What should we do? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting dilemma. With the main Gold Glove and Silver Slugger lists, I didn't have teams or anything to deal with, and the individual position lists didn't have this conundrum due to their format. I'd say the earlier format is the simplest; there's not gonna be any way to do separate cells, unless you do multiple rows for every year with any kind of tie... really not worth it. I think it's best to stick with the original. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That's what I'm thinking. Second question then, what order should I put them in? Alphabetical or by the order B-Ref lists them (what I have now)? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Umm... when all else fails, I usually say source wins, but I'll let that be your call, and I'll follow whatever you do. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, this just hit me, gonna remove positions from the list. The leaders pages don't source it. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hm... wonder if there's a better source. I think that's valuable info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Nah, I think the table looks good as is. Plus it's confusing, because tons of players have odd yearly positional shifts. Take Harmon Killebrew, sometimes a 1B, sometimes a 3B, sometimes an OF. Plus OFers in general, annoying to switch from simply OFer to LF/CF/RF as data is more readily available. Looks fine IMO. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hall of Famers are another thing. Not cited at the source, would make formatting complex (what if a HoFer tied with a non-HoFer?), and again isn't all that related. Sorry to change so much, but in running through I'm realizing what's missing from the sources (and that it is missing for a reason, it's not a huge thing). Staxringold talkcontribs 23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hall of Famers are cited by a general ref here. I think they have those for all stats. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I know that only cites winners; the second-place guys are covered by the inline ref. It's kind of a catch-all for the leaders only. For HOF, that's been covered in the Silver Slugger list: remove color and use symbol only. See Dave Winfield's Silver Slugger in the year he tied for the award. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll follow that style guide. I meant that list only covers HOF status for winners, I'd need to use the link I provided to cite HoF status for 2nd place guys. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh OK, I got it. If we drop in both as general references or one as a gen ref and the other as an EL, that would be great. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, your link is already there (just not formatted) and I'll include mine. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh-huh, I know, I've been watching. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, just sad to have FLC move so slowly. I wanna get at least two more of these stretched out FLCs closed soon, as that would vault me back up amongst the heavy hitters in the Wikicup. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

FL categorization

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just promoted List of National League pennant winners to FL status. I put this list and the WS winners list under the "Other" sub-subcategory in the "Baseball" subcategory [1] [2]. If you think they belong in a better place (e.g. "Awards" in the "Baseball" subcategory), feel free to move them. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've created a "postseason" section for the AL and NL pennant winners and the WS champs lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

FL before DYK

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not bad. I could've tied as AL pennant winners isn't due up til 1 PM EST tommorrow, but that review still needs some more reviewers. Congrats on ze promotion! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your help. You may not have seen my last comment, as some time had passed since I made it, so I'll point to it here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of National League pennant winners

  On February 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of National League pennant winners, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

North American blizzard of 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Killervogel5, just wanted to pop by to say great work taking and uploading pictures for the North American blizzard of 2010, it's greatly appreciated. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Team colors

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I reverted a couple of yours on the grounds that that's the convention. Then I took a closer look and discovered that one red-link has been changing all of them, so it's only his convention. Feel free to revert my reversions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus you restored a big chunk of vandalism to the Phillies page... Think that was a "D'oh!"-ment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yikes! I hadn't realized that. So sorry. Meanwhile, you've got that one guy making his change to every sports team article without talking to anyone. Reminds me of a section from Hanlon's razor, the part about "whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Union

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry... I'm my own source. I've signed a contract ready for the new season. I move in Summer (English Summer...)

If I have to wait to be confirmed then I will. I just thought I'd like to add my name to the roster. No worries, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooty22 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

José Méndez

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sorry, but as the author of statistical tables in the Méndez article, I find myself taking mild offense at your comment in the edit summary [3]. Compiling the data for the tables from multiple sources required several hours of work, and of course I thought seriously about the value of producing the tables before undertaking the effort. For people with a serious interest in the Negro leagues—that is, people who want to go beyond reading anecdotes and really understand the type of baseball players these men were and how they compared to each other and to contemporary major league players—statistical information is essential.

Unfortunately, in contrast to major league data, the statistical data for Negro leaguers are scattered across many sources, mostly paper, and vary in quality and comprehensiveness of coverage. This is especially true for a player like Méndez, whose career spanned Cuba and the United States, as well as the pre-league and league eras. Nevertheless, if one examines all of the available sources, there turns out to be a lot more information than one might find by picking up any single source (such as Holway's Complete Book of Baseball's Negro Leagues). I wanted to provide a sample of the statistics that are available while also following the instructions of WP:NOT#STATS, to provide "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." If the statistics seem messy, in part it's because the Negro leagues themselves were messy. Unlike the majors, players' careers did not follow a linear progression of 154- or 162-game seasons; there were summer and winter leagues and long periods without any organized leagues at all, when competition consisted of occasional special series against other major teams. That's part of the story I was trying to communicate in the statistical tables, along with the idea that the statistical sources vary in completeness and coverage. Now perhaps I overdid it, and the tables could be trimmed in spots, but I still think a fair statistical record ought to include multiple tables covering pre-league, Negro league, and Cuban statistics, as well as series between Cuban and major league teams. At least that's the kind of coverage that I think people with a serious interest in Negro league baseball would appreciate.

I'll also note that at least one editor here expressed appreciation for the tables. User:Couillaud, who mostly edits Negro league articles, awarded me with a barnstar for the effort (see User talk:BRMo/Archive 3#Excellent work on José Méndez). I'll conclude by saying that I don't really have a problem with whatever rating you gave to the article. But if you want to make substantive, helpful comments about an article you're evaluating, I suggest that you open a discussion on the talk page; edit summaries can seem overly brusque. BRMo (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

BRMo, I have nothing against your work. I simply feel that statistical tables beyond a simple summary at the end of an article are violations of NOT#STATS and they make the end of the article look cluttered. I apologize if you took offense at my comment; to cause such was certainly not my intent. Be that as it may, you have your opinion, I have mine, and they may certainly differ. I skimmed the prose and the sourcing of the article, noted the presence of what I consider to be an awful lot of stat tables (which exist in many player articles though there is consensus against them), and rated the article accordingly. The only goal I had today was to assess the "High"-importance articles that didn't have an article class for baseball. If you disagree with my assessment, you're free to ask another editor to review it and provide their opinion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I find your comment that tables should be limited to a simple summary at the end of the article to be a bit ironic when some of the articles I see listed on your promoted content page (for example, 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season), contain very extensive tables. Furthermore, my reading of NOT#STATS is not that relevant statistics are forbidden (indeed, it cites Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 as an example of appropriate presentation of statistics), but rather that care should be taken to provide statistical information in a clear manner and to avoid unnecessary or confusing information. For articles on MLB players, I agree that most statistical tables are unnecessary because there are several better sources available (mlb.com, bb-ref, and fangraphs) as external links. Unfortunately, no such websites are available for Negro league data, and the alternative of not providing statistical information to article readers strikes me as worse. Furthermore, as I tried to communicate above, Negro league data often don't lend themselves to simple summaries. And while I would have been sympathetic to a simple statement that the tables appear "cluttered," referring to them as "a huge ball of clutter" strikes me as disrespectful toward the editors who compiled them and perhaps even toward the player whose career is described by the statistics. BRMo (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Consider my comments as you will. I am not saying, and did not say, that NOT#STATS forbids lists of statistics. Obviously our opinions differ here, and that's why two people don't write the encyclopedia alone. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
There was some good news reported today. Baseball-reference.com announced that beginning in April it will start adding Negro league statistics compiled by Gary Ashwill and Scott Simkus. [4] After the data become available there, I will be glad to replace the tables with external links. BRMo (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Independent of this discussion, that's fantastic news. Just so you're aware, I wasn't suggesting that you replace/remove all of the tables; a summary table or two is still more than fine. For this article in particular, condensing the tables to single row summaries would be more than sufficient. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, it's clear that you've edited the Philadelphia Phillies articles for people who really care about recent Phillies seasons. I intend to continue editing Negro league articles for people who really care about the Negro leagues. And until Negro league data become fully available online (a process that, according to the article, will take four years), I'm convinced that people who are genuinely interested in the Negro leagues will appreciate having access to more data than single row summaries. BRMo (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And that's fine as your opinion, but WP:NOTSTATS flies in the face of that. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I give up. If the consensus here is that the career statistics of a Hall of Fame pitcher, which aren't yet available elsewhere on the Web, represent "an indiscrimate collection of information," please go ahead and remove them. And please make whatever other improvements to the José Méndez article you deem appropriate. BRMo (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your warning

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The information that I am adding to Jayson Werth's bio is referenced and supported by hundreds of members of a facebook group. This is not controversial.

Please read WP:RS regarding what is reliable as a source for Wikipedia. Facebook is not. See also WP:MADEUP. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ERA/HR titles

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Bah! You finished like a couple hours ahead of me!! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Win. Proposed a focused navbox for the topic instead of {{Baseball records}}, which is too cluttered for the topic. Let me know. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Cool. I'll implement it soon on all six lists. I'm reviewing your DYK hook now, if you wanna do mine. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Putsy Caballero

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  Hello! Your submission of Putsy Caballero at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick correction; I thought it was likely a mistake, but since I don't know baseball, wanted you to look at things. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK review

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If there is a time in the future when you review a hook that I nominated and there is a quesion, I would like to be notified with {{subst:DYKproblem|Article}}. I don't often watch the hook but this time I was in luck after stumbling upon it while looking over other hooks. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a simple oversight. I don't review hooks that often. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge 500 Level to Rogers Centre

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your prod of the page 500 Level has been contested by User:BlueJaysFan32. I have proposed merging the page to Rogers Centre; discussion is at Talk:Rogers Centre#Merge 500 Level to Rogers Centre. Cnilep (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Players who played for both teams.

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Many rivalry pages such as Dodgers-Yankees and Dodgers-Giants already have a list of players who played for both franchises. I thought it would have been helpful make one for Mets-Phillies page in order to create some consistency between the different rivalry articles. It makes no sense having this list for some rivalries and not for others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgerdave (talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Dodgerdave (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One interesting thing about the Bunning perfect game in 1964 is that by the ninth inning the Shea fans were roaring in support of Bunning's effort. A bit unusual perhaps to get such support for the out-of-town team, but aside from the new stadium itself, there probably wasn't much for Mets fans to cheer for that summer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the list itself: I addressed in my edit summary why the list wasn't necessary. Also please note that Mets-Phillies rivalry is the only GA out of all the rivalry articles, so perhaps the others should be improved to be in line with this one rather than information about players who may or may not have had any significance to the rivalry being added here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  On February 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Grote

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I brought up a debate converning Jerry Grote and the Colt 45s at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. I'd like your input on the topic.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gunsmoke television episodes/archive2

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi KV5, when you get the time, can you comment at this FLC (you reviewed and supported the first one, which failed because of lack of reviews)? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Killervogel5/Archive_10&oldid=352747048"