Talk:2009 Philadelphia Phillies season

2009 Philadelphia Phillies season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 14, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Baseball: Phillies Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies (assessed as High-importance).

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2008/09 Post Season

Where would information such as this belong? In the post season section of this article, or after the World Series in the 2008 article? Mjf3719 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The series is the official end of the season. Stuff that pertains to next season (i.e., the offseason happenings) belong in this article. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Is today 10 November or 10 November? I think the unlinked version is more appropriate, as linking to a date doesn't really add anything to the article. I'm sure there's a WP Policy about it, but I don't know the term. I also don't want to start an edit-war just adding and removing links to dates. Mjf3719 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSNUM, full dates should not be linked, but per WP:BASEBALL and WP:CONTEXT#Dates, we can link years to the corresponding MLB season (using Template:MLBY). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. KV5, I figured you would know the answer. Also, props for answering in just 1 minute. :^) Mjf3719 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got it... I had to answer fast so I didn't get in trouble at work! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, we're not allowed to edit Wikipedia at work? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... I don't know... I guess I can't? I am now...? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tense?

"Gillick remains with the Phillies as an advisor." Currently, this is correct. But, in a few years, or many years, it's more appropriate to say "Gillick remained with the Phillies as an advisor." Since this is an article representing future/occuring events, should we be writing in the past tense to avoid short-term notability? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's more appropriate to keep it as is, considering that the article is tagged with a current events template. It can be changed after the season. "Remains" is true, because it's still happening. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibanez, Park, et al.

Contracts that aren't official shouldn't be added to the article until a reference can be provided that says they are official. This is per WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ibanez signing is official as of today, 11:47 AM EST. [1] KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, right after I removed it for you. :) -Dewelar (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're still the man, I appreciate the help immensely. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utley injury info

Information regarding Utley's injury should be restricted to facts released by the team or by his doctors. His own personal speculation is not verifiable and is therefore WP:OR. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Day

"the opening night belongs before the rest of the season's games, though that section will later be merged into April 2009"
— KV5 in an edit summary

While I agree it should be before the regular season games, I think a brief description of the game is warranted (such as is done for post-season games). Opening Day is, afterall, a big day for any baseball team. I'm not sure if there's a reason not to, other than to avoid clutter by mentioning every game. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a brief description of the game, certainly; it will just be part of the April 2009 section of the regular season, rather than its own level-2 subhead. It's an honor to open the entire season but it doesn't need to be its own four-sentence section. It's part of the regular season and should be written as such once the season starts. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of automatic game-day update

Hello! This is a friendly notice from OgreBot of upcoming automatic update of this page. Information is located WT:BASEBALL#Bot ready; please feel free to comment! OgreBot (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Philadelphia Phillies season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reso lute 19:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A rather thorough and well sourced article. I've got a few nitpicks below, but nothing that is preventing me from passing this article as a GA.

Comments:

Some really impressive overuse of words in certain sections, and of "The Phillies" throughout. Most notably: "Phillies" (10x) and "Williams" (5x in three sentences) in the Departures section.

"The Phillies' offense benefited from the postponement of the final game of the Padres' series, as they defeated the Milwaukee Brewers in the opener of their mid-week series, 11–4." (April) - How exactly did the offence benefit from the postponement?

"However, the Phillies were able to exact a modicum of revenge for both their 1993 World Series defeat and the first series sweep by the Jays by winning the last two games." Man, are you guys really still choked about 1993? ;) Honestly though, I doubt very much that "revenge" for a World Series played 16 years previous was a factor.

Broadcasting section is needs sources

Why no mention of the Phillies at the 2009 Draft?

Cheers, Reso lute 19:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RaulIbanez.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:RaulIbanez.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=MLB Advanced Media for references to Baseball-Reference.com, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher). Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]