Talk:Toledo Mud Hens

Battle of Ohio
Everything I find on Battle of Ohio as mentioned in this does not coincide with Toledo. It goes with Reds/Guardians and is repeatedly cited as that or Ohio Cup should drop since no sources. Most recent Battle of Ohio listed https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5554913/2024/06/11/guardians-reds-top-2-mlb-draft-picks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gek Cat (talk • contribs) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. I searched on newspapers.com and did not come up with examples of "Battle of Ohio" referring to Mud Hens / Clippers. Removed. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Archiving
I set up archiving on this talk page.  jj137  (talk)  22:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why bother, there was only one comment section.

Uncited material
This article has been tagged as needing citations to reliable sources for nearly four years. Since no one has added them, I'm assuming such sources do not exist and pulling the information down.

Obviously, all the old material is still preserved in the edit history, so I hope that anyone who knows of reliable sources will add them. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This revert-warring needs to stop. Bdb484, you say that this material is "controversial." I see nothing in your last reversion obviously so, although my knowledge of Toledo baseball is shallow. It would be better to restore the section and apply markup tags to the affected portions. It is difficult for editors to work on revising the text if it's hidden from in the this way. Only an article regular would even know it's there. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that if you review the WP policies on citations, you'll find that our differing standards for establishing whether material is controversial don't really affect the debate over how to treat this material. The relevant provision says that you need sources for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged," as this material has.
 * As I noted above, the article was tagged for four years, and neither you nor anyone else chose to address the situation. If it's any comfort, you're probably wrong about who will know this material exists, as you aren't really an aricle regular but were able to find it and add some citations anyway. Keep up the good work on sourcing. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's an evasion. You specifically said that you found some material controversial ("I find this material controversial and am contesting its veracity"), and that was the basis of your revert. I've had this article watchlisted for years but was never much interested in improving it one way or the other. It's no more incumbent on me than anyone else in the world to improve the article, whatever you might think. Uncontroversial material which falls into the category of "probably true, verifiable, yet uncited" simply isn't very high of my list of priorities (or anyone else's for that matter). There isn't a "situation" unless someone is specifically disputing the content of the article. I will ask you again; are you challenging any of the text you reverted? If so, on what grounds? Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am challenging the text that I struck. I apologize if I sounded evasive. From my perspective, what you just said seems like an evasion. Because the relevant question isn't "on what grounds" I'm challenging the text, the question is whether there are inline citations to reliable sources for the challenged text. If there are, then the material should stay. If there are not, then the material needs to stay down.
 * I don't think, though, that it's going to be helpful for us to accuse each other of evasions just because we come from different perspectives on this question. I truly was not trying to be evasive; I just assumed that you had already seen the page's edit history, which provides some answers to your question, for instance:
 * "I find this material controversial and am contesting its veracity";
 * "WP:UNDUE";
 * "Source does not say team was Klinger's favorite"; and
 * "uncited, original research, no objective criteria for inclusion," which I used twice.
 * So just to be clear, I'm challenging the veracity of every uncited sentence that I struck. Because they were tagged for so long and no one dealt with it, WP:AGF requires me to assume that there are no reliable sources with which to verify that information. If you're assuming otherwise -- that editors were just lazily ignoring the problem, for instance --that's up to you. I suppose we'll never really know.
 * If I suggested that it was your duty to deal with the problem, I'm sorry. Neither you nor any other editor has any responsibility to provide citations for this material. The only exception, of course, would be if you wanted to restore the deleted material. In that case, of course, the WP:BURDEN would be on you. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed clarification. I wouldn't have proceeded this way myself but I understand your position (in fact, I do generally assume editors are lazy and ignore problems unless there's something obviously tendentious about the material. I'll see what I can do with the remainder of the material. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Split apart
This article appears to contain three different teams conflated together. Toledo Mud Hens (1902-1913), Toledo Mud Hens (1916-1955) , Toledo Mud Hens (1965-present); the 1965 team was in 1964 called the Richmond Virginians, so obviously, this article is problematically conflated. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the team has changed names and moved for a few years, the franchise (as far as I can tell) is still the same over all those years. See the media guide for the history of the franchise. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)