Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Miller (baseball)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traded to O's for Eduardo Rodriguez

[edit]

Deadline deal, just coming through. Waiting on a source for what was offered. MMetro (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source comes first, then editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm putting it on the talk page. MMetro (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you are, as opposed to those people who don't understand that "according to multiple reports" means it's still an unconfirmed rumor. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image

[edit]

The image of Miller in the Tigers is to say the least horrendous. Please somebody take it down or replace it with something decent.

ICE77 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Championship

[edit]

IP editor removing sourced statement that Miller is a 2013 Championship winner is unsourced and disrupting article. In order to change the article you must provide WP:RS sources that he is not, here is a reliable source he is. That has not been done and the rule is the article reverts to it's original state until it is. This is not MLB, it's an encyclopedia. We state what reliable third party sources state, not MLB rules state. Cotton2 (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are oblivious to the consensus that has been in place for years doesn't mean you are right. See Barry Zito and Brian Wilson and you will see the hidden notes. If a player didn't make the postseason roster, they should not be included as champions in the infobox. Having a ring has nothing to do with it. See WT:Baseball. 2604:2000:614A:2B00:D0E8:3FBE:1F4:7DBC (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it...and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_40#Inclusion_of_players_as_World_Series_Champions. No real consensus and ending thought is Wikipedia policy, what reliable sources say. Cotton2 (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It's been discussed a long time ago, if you want to see for yourself take it up with them. 2604:2000:614A:2B00:D0E8:3FBE:1F4:7DBC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]