Jump to content

Talk:Ian Kinsler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIan Kinsler 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
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
September 16, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ian Kinsler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ian Kinsler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu deletion

[edit]

This Muboshgu deletion has the edit summary 'totally unnecessary.' Well, nothing is necessary at Wikipedia. This guy need not have an article at all - that is not necessary. We should ask ourselves, is it appropriate. I think it is. Because what he deleted follows the format within this article. We generally think it a good thing to keep to the existing acceptable format. MOS:VAR And descriptive sub-headings in good articles are seen as positives. Maybe Muboshgu can give this a think and maybe revert his deletion of an appropriate addition. Thank you Mr. M. --2604:2000:E010:1100:1D3F:B157:5F3:ECF8 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've had sub-section headers that I've added removed before, by Muboshgu or other editors. When an existing section is short to being with, adding sub-sections to it breaks up the flow more than helping. I looked at the page history here, and in my view the sections for Kinsler about both of his 2018 teams are small enough that sub-section headers aren't needed. While having a contribution removed or revised can sometimes be frustrating, it's an integral part of the Wikipedia process that we all experience from time to time. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for that. I get that it is a collaborative process. I'm just suggesting that we be sensitive to the rules and common sense maybe at the same time. The benefit of the descriptive headings and reason they call for them in Good articles is they let the reader skim the table of contents and see more information in that skim than the years here. So ... Year X; Gold Glove. That's helpful. And it fits what the MOS and GA call for. And it fits the format of the article. And the rules say - don't go ahead edit warring an existing format that is acceptable. So, yeah, collaboration is frustrating sometimes, but we work it out by saying you and I have different approaches, but lets figure this out by taking a look at the rules, and not just saying "I, one editor, like it this way, even though the rules say I should leave it as is, so I'm going to delete it." Make sense? 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D3F:B157:5F3:ECF8 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I should have included a link to MOS:LAYOUT in my edit summary. A small section doesn't need to be split into smaller subsections. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point on one hand about the size. On the other hand, I think there is a benefit to the table of contents reflecting "Gold Glove" as it does his prior time winning it. And I think there is a benefit in trying for harmony in presentation. That fits what Mr Mu just pointed us to -- it says "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar." That's exactly one of my points. Here, it is even closer, but the same principle ... following the precedent that already exists in the article we are editing.
Is there another way to address all the issues? Maybe, reflect the year and gold glove after the team name, for example? What do you think? Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D3F:B157:5F3:ECF8 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

An editor reverted here, saying "He's not Israeli, and "playing" in Olympics that'll probably not happen isn't more noteworthy than his MLB career." As to his first point, he is incorrect. As the RS source indicates, he became an Israeli citizen. That makes him an Israeli. Perhaps the editor is confused - one does not have to be born in Israel to be Israeli. As to his second point, nobody said that being on an Olympic team is more noteworthy than his MLB career. I am not certain what led to that comment. It is, however, noteworthy, both in the text and in the lede. Because .. Olympics. The crystal ball fact that the Olympics will likely (in both our estimations) be postponed to some later date than originally scheduled does not change that. That's why for example we don't heavy handedly delete the article for example on Baseball at the 2020 Olympics. That would not be appropriate. --2604:2000:E010:1100:A5AE:3654:8F39:9794 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was a mistake, as I didn't see that there was a source. I'm still going to move out the Olympics thing because he has played in MLB, has not played in the Olympics, and with an IOC board member saying the Olympics will be off and countries starting to pull out of it, we have to wait to see if it'll happen at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mu - you can't crystal ball as a reason for your edits, first of all. Second of all, he is on the Olympic team as of now - that is notable, and it is not necessary for him to have played in order for us to reflect that. Third, the talk is not of the Olympics as you say being "off." The talk is of the Olympics being postponed. Big difference. To a date TBD. Your saying that "we have to wait to see if it'll happen at all" has no basis. We have RSs reporting what is in the article - which you deleted. Your and my "job" is to faithfully report what the RSs report - not to crystal ball what changes may take place, which - even if they do take place (a postponement!) do not change the reason to reflect the information at all. 2604:2000:E010:1100:A5AE:3654:8F39:9794 (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Kinsler&oldid=1233709560"