Talk:No pitch
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Examples
[edit]It would be neat if we could muster some sources for the examples of no-pitch calls. I couldn't find anything with some quick Google searches, nor can I find relevant mentions of the call in the official MLB rule's book at [1] 208.181.63.202 (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Praise
[edit]After the pitch hit the bird, the ball was ruled dead. The bird was also ruled dead.
This is amazing writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.158.7 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. JumperZ69666420 (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
On the ruling of the Bird.
[edit]I believe that the Line "The bird was also ruled dead" should remain in the article. The statement isn't factually incorrect, Is still a neutral statement of fact and is well sourced from reliable sources. It's such a subtle pun that its not detrimental to the rest of the artical. There can still be humor present in encyclopedic writing. 66.202.206.9 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- AllTheMegahertz, you reverted Josprien's edit that returned the content about the bird; in your edit summary, you stated
consensus has been reached that it is not appropriate for the article
. Could you link to where that consensus was reached? It didn't take place on this article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Forgive me, "consensus" carries special meaning on Wikipedia and that word should not have been used. However, by looking at the edit history of the article, it should be clear that the majority of users do not support the line. You can see that administrator Eagles247 made this comment on Frank_Anchor's talk page after he repeatedly added the joke:
This does not mean you can add your own jokes into articles, especially ones that can be seen as obvious vandalism. The source following your joke does not support the claim that the bird was "ruled" dead, only that it was killed. A "ruling" implies an umpire declared the bird deceased, and readers may be confused since that is not the case
. AllTheMegahertz (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC) - If we're having a proper discussion about that content here, I still consider it vandalism and believe it should not be included in a mainspace article. I had been meaning to find a larger discussion forum to bring this to other users' attention for a full discussion, but I could not find one given how bizarre this situation is. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I put this article on my watchlist when I came across people on twitter discussing that line (they all loved it). I get why they (and some editors) like it. I don't consider it vandalism, but I do agree that "ruled" isn't supported by the source and Wikipedia articles aren't the place for humor. I was curious when I saw an edit summary refer to a consensus since I'd never seen the question properly discussed, just in battling edits. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Should we bring this to a forum for discussion and a decision? I don't think it's harming anyone, (or confusing anyone), but I also don't want to cause an edit war. Josprien (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is very clear that there is no consensus as to whether this content is acceptable. Over the past two years, several editors have removed this content while several others, including myself, have restored it. On my talk page, User:Eagles247 falsely claims that this content is obvious vandalism, despite it failing to meet parameters set forth by WP:VAND (specifically, an attempt to deliberately obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia). Adding and removing factual content which just happens to include both meanings of the term "dead" is not vandalism, but rather a content dispute. Frank AnchorTalk 13:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Should we bring this to a forum for discussion and a decision? I don't think it's harming anyone, (or confusing anyone), but I also don't want to cause an edit war. Josprien (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I put this article on my watchlist when I came across people on twitter discussing that line (they all loved it). I get why they (and some editors) like it. I don't consider it vandalism, but I do agree that "ruled" isn't supported by the source and Wikipedia articles aren't the place for humor. I was curious when I saw an edit summary refer to a consensus since I'd never seen the question properly discussed, just in battling edits. Schazjmd (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Forgive me, "consensus" carries special meaning on Wikipedia and that word should not have been used. However, by looking at the edit history of the article, it should be clear that the majority of users do not support the line. You can see that administrator Eagles247 made this comment on Frank_Anchor's talk page after he repeatedly added the joke:
Google Search Factoid
[edit]Is there any reason for the line 'This no pitch call is so well known that there are more Google search results for "Randy Johnson bird" than there are for "Randy Johnson baseball."' in this article? Why would someone be searching for "Randy Johnson baseball" specifically when there aren't any other famous Randy Johnsons? 2.100.84.82 (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm aware I'm responding to a 2.5-year-old message here, but when reading the article I thought the same thing. I've removed it now since the "so well known" claim was OR/SYNTH and it's an unnotable fact otherwise. WPscatter t/c 01:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)