Talk:Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (T–V)

Addition of "American" or "U.S."

If this information has to be added (I believe it's extraneous), then it needs to be added throughout the entire series of these lists, and it needs to be added properly. "U.S." is an unexplained abbreviation and didn't belong where it was inserted. "American" is ambiguous. It would have to be "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States", which is grammatically incorrect but seems to be accepted Wikipedia-wide. Please discuss here instead of using edit summaries to determine consensus. — KV5 • Talk • 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see.

• Extraneous. How is it extraneous? Isn't the country where an entity is located kind of important? Or do you mean "obvious"? It's not obvious to everyone. It's not obvious to a kid in Mysore. It's obvious to most people likely to read this particular article, granted. However, I think the readers to whom it's not obvious are a small but not minisculely insignificant minority. There's no way to prove this for sure, either way.
• OK, it needs to be added added throughout the entire series of these lists, granted. A journey begins with a single step, have to start somewhere. You're not saying it has to be added simultaneously to all the articles at once to be valid, I hope.
• In what way is "American" ambiguous? Everyone understands that it means "of or related to the United States of America".
• I haven't seen any evidence that appending "United States" to an entity's city/state location (if it has one) rather than just describing it as "American" is accepted Wikipedia-wide. If this is true, it would likely be stated in some guideline, or should be. I don't see anything saying this in WP:MOS (I didn't look that hard). However, while I didn't find any prescription or proscription re "American" vs. some other construct in articles, I do note that the in the MOS itself "American" is used generally. Both WP:MOS and WP:MOSTITLE refer to "American English" throughout, for instance (not "English of the United States" or anything like that). This would be kind of inconsistent with a prescription against using "American" in this way in articles, although it's possible. And of course, this is idiomatic, this is how people (worldwide) speak when describing an entity or quality related to the United States of America.

I understand that it feels a little bit "PC". I write mostly about American subjects (and have never been outside the U.S. in any significant way) and I had to kind of train myself to write "...is an American cartoonist..." and "...are an American soul band..." and so forth. But it's the right thing to do. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• First point: I hold that it is extraneous because it is very easy to find out from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or Major League Baseball, all of which definitively establish location, that this team is located in the United States. Second point: Yes, I am saying that it has to be added to all of this series together to be valid, because this is one article away from a featured topic and 19 of its 21 lists have already gone through the FL process (with nary of concern from several British editors, I might add). Third point: "American" is ambiguous because "America" does not mean the United States of America; it means the American supercontinent. Editors accusing en-Wiki of a U.S. bias should strongly consider that point before piddly little things like "every article needs a country". Fourth point: That's not a MOS guideline, but it seems to be the accepted applied standard when a country is used; however, it is still grammatically incorrect to say "city, state, country" in a sentence as shown. Fifth point: I have no problem with political correctness but in this case I think it's overkill. Sure, in the main article about the team, perhaps a clarifier that it is in the United States due to the fact that MLB has one team in Canada... OK, I get that. But every article? Every list? Complete and utter link overkill. — KV5 • Talk • 12:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Beyond the above points, I might add that Talk:Jimbo Wales is never (and should never be) the place to determine a site-wide policy or consensus. If this was subjected to wider community input than just that (very limited) page, such as an RfC or some kind of application into a relevant guideline or MOS page, then I would give it more weight. Then, and not before. — KV5 • Talk • 12:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you make some cogent points, and I'm willing to back off (although I still think I'm right). That similar articles are Featured and don't define the country is a cogent point. That the country is probably obvious to most anyone reading the article (or can easily be found out) is a reasonably cogent point.

I agree that "City, State, Country" is awkward, which is why I use "American". I don't think it's a cogent point that "America" can mean "the Americas". I mean, many or even most English words have multiple meanings, but, c'mon, everyone understands that "American" in these kinds of context means "of or related to the United States of America". (Some people find this mildly annoying (understandably) and will occasionally pretend they don't know ("I'm an American." "Oh really, from what country, Brazil?") but they do know.) This is an effect of the United States not having a (very specific) geographic or ethnic designation in its name (this is rare, but the Soviet Union also was this way).

I mean, you could make the case the entire first sentence is unnecessary padding: why would anyone be looking at Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (T–V) if they don't already know what the Phillies are? I prefer generally not to make assumptions like this because it's kind of subjective and the margins are debatable, and just think it's good hygiene to mention the country of entities when it's easy to slip it in. But OK, it's not fair to pick on this article in particular just because it was mentioned on Jimbo's talk page, so I'll defer to the editors who tend the article (and thank you for your efforts in this area; it's a fine article). Herostratus (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Ugueth Urbina.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ugueth Urbina.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ugueth Urbina.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• YKh8tUct.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)