Talk:2007 Philadelphia Phillies season

10,000 loses
I agree that a mention is worthy, but to say that "Fans are counting it down" reeks of original research and a flare for the dramatic. I also made the point that its speculation about a future event. Evrik has provided some links and it has gotten SOME press. Anyways, --Tom 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention in the article?
I agree that the Phillies becoming the first team in MLB history to lose 10,000 games is notable. However, while it is almost certain that they will lose their 10,000th game, it is not 100% certain to occur. Anything could still happen. For example, if the team plane for the Phillies and all their minor league affiliates crashed, and everybody on all the planes died, then the team couldn't play anymore. And if they can't play, they can't lose. I understand that this is virtually unlikely to happen, there still is a chance of any event happening and the 10,000th loss not occuring.

Using the example at WP:NOT, "By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." Also, "Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise."

While it is virtually certain that the Phillies will lose their 10,000th game, there isn't anything that can be said about it because it isn't 100% sure to happen. Also, if a team entered the season with 9,838 losses, they, too, have a chance to lose their 10,000th game. But they can still go no worse than 1-161 and not reach that mark yet, even though they statistically had a chance.

If a team entered the season with 9,999 losses, they, too, have a chance to lose their 10,000th game. But they can still go 162-0 on the season. Right now, the Phillies have 9,992 losses. They can go 78-7 and not get their 10,000th loss. Anything can happen, and speculating that it will happen violates WP:NOT. -- Ksy92003  (talk)  15:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh pulleze. That is specious reasoning. Edit the wording if you must, but the section is valid and it is sourced. evrik (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it is, in all likelihood, not going to happen, but you can't rule out the possibility. There is, although not a good chance, a slight chance that an event such as this could occur.  -- Ksy92003   (talk)  17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing as another user has added a non-sourced entry back in, I went ahead and added the sourced text back. Edit the text if you must, but the section should stay. --evrik (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because another user re-added the information doesn't mean it should be included. And you've yet to give me a reason for it other than it being sourced. Anything can be sourced, but that doesn't mean that the sourced information should be in the article.

I've given a reason behind why I removed it. But the only reason you've given me for re-adding it was because another user re-added it. That's not good enough. -- Ksy92003  (talk)  19:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should have never been removed in the first place. Your reasoning was specious. More than one editor has added it, its relevant and its sourced. evrik (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How is my reasoning not valid? You haven't even given a reason.  You only say "because another user added it, it's relevant."  Well, another user has removed it, other than myself, Threeafterthree.  So, since you use the reason "because another user added the section back in," I can use that same reason, saying I removed it because "another user removed the section" for much the same reason why I did.  Please don't re-add the section at least until a compromise has been reached here.


 * Again, I've given you a reason behind why I removed it. You haven't given a good reason behind why the information should be included in the article.  So please don't revert me without a reason; I have a reason, you don't.  -- Ksy92003   (talk)  18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be in because it is relevant and it is topical. If you continue to remove it it can be seen as a type of vandalism. --evrik (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh... no, it can't be seen as vandalism, because I'm giving a perfectly valid reason behind why I've been removing it. -- Ksy92003   (talk)  06:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, can we chill?
Wiki is not into crystal balling it as it were, HOWEVER, an editor has provided some sources about the FUTURE event so lets leave it in but use the correct wording. I am trying to compromise here. Anybody else want to do the same. Once/IF the event occurs, we can re-write the article accordingly with sources and all be happy. Now everybody sing kun ba ya :) --Tom 15:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think that it shouldn't be left in because you don't know when the event will occur, nor do you even know if the event will occur. It's still in doubt; they can still run the table, and if it isn't known if something will happen or not, then I don't think it should be mentioned.  -- Ksy92003   (talk)  16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this. Lets do the <-- --> to the section. It's hidden but it is still there when they do lose the 10,000th game. I mean, obviously unknown things could happen, but it's inevitable that they will lose the 10,000th game this year. Soxrock 17:10 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You know what? Since nobody listens to be or cares about what I have to say, I don't care what you do.  I have better things to do with my time than watch the Phillies.  Do what you wish; you don't care about what I have to say, so I'm not gonna care about this issue any longer.  -- Ksy92003   (talk)  17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, it's a waste of time. And all I tried to do was make a compromise for both of you. But if it's something that could escalate, then you might as well quit. It's not worth it. Peace, Soxrock 17:33 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I care less about the may versus will edits. I will note that more than one press source has indicated that this WILL happen, and that the closest team is more than 300 games behind them. Saying that it won't happen is WP:DENSE. The fact that one editor keeps deleting the whole section is a violation of WP:Point. --evrik (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/Phillies_say_loss-count_off_by_one_on_some_sources.html
 * In 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season on 2011-05-26 02:58:13, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season on 2011-05-27 15:15:52, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season on 2011-06-15 17:04:20, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131155325/http://www.baseball-reference.com:80/players/l/laforpe01.shtml to http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/laforpe01.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724082914/http://www.philadelphiasportscongress.org/events/wanamaker-athletic-award/past-winners/ to http://www.philadelphiasportscongress.org/events/wanamaker-athletic-award/past-winners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)