# Talk:Danny Valencia

This discussion should at least be linked here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Danny Valencia --Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents that I believe the removal of relevant content supported by reliable sources was completely unjustified. It was clear edit warring with disruptive edit summaries. The only content remotely possible of being removed was his T-Ball career, but that is it. The disruptive editor has been blocked for three months, and I completely oppose any attempt to have his block shortened or removed in any shape or form.
I have also currently assessed this article as easily a B-Class. If the disruptive deletion stuck, this would only be a Start-Class article today. Vodello (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Muboshgu for linking the discussion, and I agree with Vodello completely.  Mu--Do you think it might make sense to link to (or move here) our discussion on your talk page as well?  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche, did we reach consensus while I wasn't looking? Why are you re-inserting a bunch of irrelevant fluff? -Dewelar (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've not re-inserted irrelevant fluff.  The editor who deleted 4/5 of the article on a wholly unsupported assertion that it was irrelevant fluff has now been blocked as a result.  I've now  taken into consideration editors' comments, and discussed deletions that seemed unwarranted to me.  Where one editor and I had different views, after discussing them I trimmed what had been deleted after having discussed the deletion with the deleting editor, and inserted the trimmed and relevant material.  What I've inserted is in accord with what we look for, actually, in sports FA and GA articles on wp; I've moved many sports articles to that level, including a fair percentage of our baseball articles, and have a sense for what the reviewers look for in that regard.  We don't limit the article to non-quote, dry, statistical information--though of course that has its place.   Baseball Reference does a good job of providing statistical information, as does Fangraphs; our niche allows us to do something more, in addition to reflecting the more significant and summary statistical information, and thereby to provide some insight and human color that those sites cannot.  For example -- when the current 3B indicates that V is the 3B of the future, that is highly relevant; I can't imagine why one would consider it either irrelevant or fluff ... its clearly the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"I can't imagine why one would consider it either irrelevant or fluff"...what exactly are you attempting to imply here? -Dewelar (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no dog in this fight, but I'm going to post my unbiased opinion. There does seem to be some irrelevant fluff unassociated with his baseball career. That his mother is a retired accountant or that he has a little sister named Judy immediately caught my attention as irrelevant to his baseball career. I understand the need to flesh out a subject, but having a little sister named Judy does very little fleshing out.Orsoni (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
@Dewelar.  1. I don't see a need for the template.  The reason is that you can discuss your points on this page, which has already attracted editors.  You can also point editors here (or I can if you prefer) from the baseball project page, where discussion was had on this subject.  We do not suffer from a paucity of notice to interested editors.  On the other hand, the template in this circumstance, as follow-up to the edits of the now-blocked editor, might be a bit POINTy.  Especially as we have this page being featured today on Wikipedia's front page.  Template-bombing it can be expected to gain little benefit under the unique circumstances of this particular, well-discussed, page.  2.  To answer your question, I am responding to your deletion of the fact that the person who currently has the job of MT 3B said that Valencia is in his opinion the MT 3B of the future.  That is highly relevant, and I would think the reason why would be self-evident.  When I say "I can't imagine why one would consider it either irrelevant or fluff ... its clearly the opposite", I mean precisely that.  I'm not implying or attempting to imply anything.  I'm saying flat out what the words mean.  If a ballplayer says that X is the person who he believes will have his position in the future, especially a rookie, that is clearly relevant.  And not "fluff".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
@Epeefleche: Thanks for reminding me why I took a nearly yearlong break from Wikipedia. It was to stop worrying about editors like yourself who believe the only point of view that matters is his or her own. You win. I'm done. -Dewelar (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note the information referred to in the Do you know... note was not removed; it was still present in the text. Do you have a specific issue with the copy edit to that section? 
(Note it would demonstrate good faith if you would not revert the entire change and all of the copy edits made, particularly when the information was not removed.) Isaac Lin (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
(copying comments made to user talk page to this page)

I thought you made some quite helpful revisions for conciseness and clarity.
You deleted a number of RS-supported sentences and paragraphs without any explanation whatsoever.
You wrote "remove info re: nth player in a given category (not notable)".  I believe it is certainly notable.  That, for example, is why it was reported in an RS.  They are in the business of reporting notable things.  And we, of course, measure notability by appearance in RSs.  Rather than a POV view that any one of us may have.  It is also consistent with what we have in FA and GA rated articles about athletes.
You wrote "remove anecdote about playing time (undue weight)".  Playing time, especially for a rookie just brought up, is of interest.  It is not an "anecdote".  This is not a tale.  It is a relevant comment.  Nor is it "undue weight".  Playing time is important, and the mention is short.
You deleted the fact that in NCAA Division I baseball, players can change schools without losing a year of eligibility as long as they are granted a release.  This is key, and as you may know differentiates baseball from some other NCAA D I sports, and was obviously a key point in his transferring.  The right comes from NCAA rules, not from the releasing school -- all the releasing school does is grant the release, not the right to play.
You without explanation changed quotes so that they began with ellipses.  They shouldn't.  Ellipses are proper, but not at the beginning of the quote.
You without explanation changed quotes to prose, without a change in conciseness or other noticeable improvement.  In fact, the result was more akward.
You took material that was properly presented in chronological order, and inverted the order so that it was not chronological.
You took a quote and changed the meaning.  The mother spoke of borrowing money for his first year.  And what his per-year tuition was.  But she didn't clarify what happened his second year, expense-wise.  Leaving the quote is better than assuming and ourselves filling in the blanks.  The same goes for other interpretations of the quote, that are less precise than the quote.
The Braun connection is notable; no need to delete RS-supported mention of it.
--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for news; not everything reported in a reliable source meets the standard of notability for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. In the big picture, being the nth player in the various categories stated does not play a defining role in Valencia's career, nor does it particularly attest to his skill set. Regarding a side comment by a manager regarding playing time, there are many such instances in a player's career, and noting one above others gives it undue weight. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, given that you do not disagree with some of the edits, it is unfortunate that you chose to call the changes disruptive, particularly given that they did not in fact remove the particular information noted in the Did you know... item. Also, it is more difficult to collaboratively edit the article if you revert other editors' changes in their entirety, rather than focusing on specific areas to discuss. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
(Please place your comments on this article on this talk page so that others may join in the discussion.) Please feel free to discuss each change that you think removed significant information. The copy edits for conciseness removed some detail which I did not necessarily feel was essential to the article. We can discuss with others on this talk page to reach a consensus on any areas that you would like to clarify. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding formatting changes, it is not required that explanations be given for every single one. If there is a usage conflict with Wikipedia's manual of style, then naturally it can be corrected (without reverting the entire change). It is a stylistic choice to use blockquotes versus inline quotes; where the quoted text is short, an inline quote is generally sufficient. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you clarify what information you believe was placed out of chronological order? Regarding the $30,000 per year, this is what the current version of the text says, and I did not alter this meaning. Regarding the quote on another player, it was not about Valencia, and did not provide any revealing information about Valencia. Isaac Lin (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I welcome any comments to attempt to reach a consensus. I continue to propose streamlining the text along the lines of my previous edits in order to improve the conciseness of the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe consensus can be reached with Epeefleche. Indeed, I believe that the editor either does not understand consensus (while thinking he/she does) or simply doesn't care. Previous attempts to reach consensus on this article have been met with the editor's reinsertion of comments that, otherwise, multiple editors had agreed were unnecessary. The editor has a major problem with both ownership issues and the drive to win arguments by sheer tenacity. This leads to editing that often borders on being tendentious, but the editor has gotten very skilled at skirting being labeled as disruptive through his/her ability to manipulate discussion.
I am pretty certain of the reason for the editor's particular attachment to this article (along with those of Ike Davis, Ryan Braun, et al., which you will find loaded with similar fluffing -- if not outright fancruft -- inserted by the editor), which leads the editor to have a tendency to fight tooth-and-claw for any shred that the editor adds, no matter how small. It is a pattern of behavior which can, under certain circumstances, be quite useful in the development of articles within Epeefleche's particular field of interest, but when it goes overboard -- as I feel it has in the case of this article -- it becomes problematic. The problem is that there seems to me to be no way to approach it that doesn't result in either an edit war or simple steamrolling on the editor's part. I commend you for your efforts, but I predict they will ultimately prove fruitless, which is why I prefer to remain withdrawn from the conversation. Quite frankly, it's not worth the agita. -Dewelar (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I see a lot of sniping and fragmented discussion.  Can someone get down to it and propose what should be removed?  A list perhaps?  Separate sections for each line?  Whatever.  I am looking for something to weigh-in on and I don't see anything.  Wknight94 talk 02:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for any comments that may sound like sniping, as this was not my intent. I also apologize for the fragmented responses; unfortunately a number of responses were inserted piecemeal into my talk page and I manually copied them as they were being inserted, along with responses. The proposed changes are visible in my edits, but I can summarize them:
Copy edit sentence about Valencia's height and weight in high school for conciseness: Valencia reached his current height of 6-foot-2 in high school, with a weight of 160 pounds.
In the section "University of Miami", for conciseness, change the beginning sentences up to sentence starting "His sophmore year..." to the following: Valencia transferred to the University of Miami to play for the Miami Hurricanes, after receiving a scholarship that covered slightly more than his books. His parents covered the remainder of his expenses, approximately $30,000 a year, in hopes that his team would go to the College World Series. During his sophomore year, Valencia played first base alongside then-third-baseman Ryan Braun, hitting .300 and driving in 63 runs while batting fifth in the lineup, and was named to the All-Regional Team.
In the section "University of Miami", for conciseness, change the section starting with the sentence "When Braun left to join the Milwaukee Brewers' farm system..." and ending with the sentence "In his junior year..." to the following: When Braun left to join the Milwaukee Brewers' farm system in 2005, Valencia replaced him at third base for his junior year, batting .324 with a .475 slugging percentage.
In the section "University of Miami", change the sentence starting with "Drafted in the 19th round..." by eliminating the word "just" after the first comma.
In the section "University of Miami", for conciseness, change the last sentence and blockquote to be the following, with an inline quote: Valencia was disappointed in his draft position, but said "... realistically it does not change things for me. My goal has always been to get to the big leagues... It does not matter where you start, but where you finish."
In the section "Major league career (2010–present)", remove the first two sentences. Since rookie hazing is routine, this is not particularly notable.
In the section "Major league career (2010–present)", remove the sentence starting with "He became the 13th Jewish major leaguer..." and the sentence starting with "He was the second player..." Being the n-th player in a particular category to play in MLB in 2010 isn't particularly notable.
In the section "Major league career (2010–present)", remove the last paragraph. Many statements are made over a player's career by a manager regarding playing time; citing this one in particular gives it undue weight.
Additionally, I believe the sentence on the NCAA Division I rules for eligibility is a bit out of place and interrupts the article, but I do not have a suggestion at the moment for trying to streamline this information. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for summarizing.  My opinions:
Isaac Lin's version above looks preferable to what is there currently.  I might even remove the high school height altogether - aren't most people their adult height around age 17?
Isaac Lin's version above looks preferable to what is there currently.  I would further refine one sentence to: "With only a modest scholarship, his parents covered his expenses in hopes that he would reach the College World Series."
Isaac Lin's version above looks preferable to what is there currently.
Agree with Isaac Lin.  "Just" is well replaced by the next point.
Agree with Isaac Lin but remove the quote entirely.  Valencia was disappointed in his draft position but stated his goal was to play in the major leagues.
Agree with Isaac Lin.  If the hazing was some interesting unusual story, okay - but to simply say there was hazing is of no use.
Agree with Isaac Lin.  What is the point of the Jewish sentence?  Is 13 some sort of record?  If he were the 13th ever, that might be something, but not the 13th this year.
Agree with Isaac Lin.  If he gets more playing time, that would be interesting, but just the manager talking about more playing time?  Not so much.
As for the eligibility sentence, I agree it's a bit awkward.  How about something like, "Valencia sought to transfer from UNC-Greensboro after his freshman year and the school initially agreed.  When they later refused, Valencia was in jeopardy of losing a year of college eligibility under NCAA Division I rules.  He appealed to a university committee which ruled in his favor, allowing him to leave, and thereby preserving his eligibility."
Wknight94 talk 03:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
First, I extend my apologies for my expressions of frustration with the editor in question. I have been down this road with Epeefleche before, and have identified what I believe is a pattern of behavior, which I described above. If that is what was taken as "sniping", then I expressed it poorly, for which I also apologize.
Regarding the article, many of the items I was seeking to remove were addressed above. I am in general agreement with Isaac Lin and Wknight94 on all points. At the time of the apparent revert war, I had just begun my perusal of the article, and at this point would prefer to wait to proceed until this discussion progresses further. However, one other item I had removed that was placed back in was the quote from Nick Punto in the section "Major league career (2010–present)". A quote from a player that essentially parrots what's been said by other personnel in the organization is not notable. -Dewelar (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In general I am not a fan of quotes like that.  This isn't Wikiquote.  I would lean towards removing the Punto quote, but wouldn't be horrified if it stayed.  Wknight94 talk 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm also against the Punto quote.  It's too generic, and could've been said about any young player.  --Muboshgu (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I approve of all proposed changes numbered above. It gets rid of the actual "fluff," which represents only a small portion of the article instead of punching 80% of it out to downgrade it to a footnote start class article. Vodello (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/nearly all the above, which are as Vodello points out de minimus emendations (rather than deleting 80% of the article, which stirred this pot), and which IMHO are fine.
That said, two discrete points, about two sentences being discussed.  I do think that Valencia's quote (#5) does belong, however (which, btw, was the focus of his DYK; I agree that it is noteworthy for the same reason that others put that specific quote on the Main Page).  As to the hazing, there was quirky reflection in one or more RSs, such as this reference in the Star Tribune, Minnesota's largest newspaper, as to the specifics of it, but that was watered down by other editors to bare mention of hazing.  As to the Punto quote, I feel less strongly, but I think it is certainly not usual for a starting player at a position to say that a rookie is his successor -- it is not at all the same as a disinterested party saying it, and is certainly not said about every rookie who arrives in the majors.  But that's my view, and if others are horrified by it staying in the article, I defer to the consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You are right that such a quote is not typical, but the background of the matter mitigates that. Punto's long-standing status with the Twins is as a utility player, who gets plugged into positions as needed. His status as starting third baseman for the Twins was always meant to be transitory. Indeed, if Brendan Harris hadn't crashed and burned so utterly, he likely wouldn't be starting now. Such a quote by, say, Joe Crede last season would be more pertinent. -Dewelar (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I hear your view.  As I said, I feel less strongly about it, so if you feel strongly and consensus is that the statement of the starting 3B so far this year is non-notable that V is his successor, I defer to whatever the consensus may be.  The other issue  -- the suggested deletion of the DYK quote, which led 1,400 people to be inspired to read the article -- is a point I feel more strongly about.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I can relent on my POV on #5, but still agree with Isaac Lin that the quote should at least be inline instead of the more dramatic blockquote.  Wknight94 talk 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I've no problem with it not being a block quote.  Another option -- either is fine with me -- would be a quote box.  Quote box templates were created for a reason, and this might well be an appropriate usage.  Either way.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. To summarize the suggestions (with some additional copy edits):

Remove sentence about Valencia's height and weight in high school.
In the section "UNC-Greensboro", modify the last paragraph to the following: Valencia sought to transfer to another college after his freshman year. UNC-Greensboro initially agreed, but later refused to release Valencia from his scholarship, placing him in jeopardy of losing a year of college eligibility under NCAA Division I rules. He appealed to a university committee which ruled in his favor, allowing him to leave while preserving his eligibility.
In the section "University of Miami", change the beginning sentences up to sentence starting "His sophomore year..." to the following: Valencia transferred to the University of Miami to play for the Miami Hurricanes, with a modest scholarship. His parents covered the remainder of his expenses in hopes that his team would go to the College World Series. During his sophomore year, Valencia played first base alongside then-third-baseman Ryan Braun, hitting .300 and driving in 63 runs while batting fifth in the lineup, and was named to the All-Regional Team.
In the section "University of Miami", change the section starting with the sentence "When Braun left to join the Milwaukee Brewers' farm system..." and ending with the sentence "In his junior year..." to the following: When Braun left to join the Milwaukee Brewers' farm system in 2005, Valencia replaced him at third base for his junior year, batting .324 with a .475 slugging percentage.
In the section "University of Miami", change the sentence starting with "Drafted in the 19th round..." by eliminating the word "just" after the first comma.
In the section "University of Miami", change the last sentence and blockquote to be the following, with an inline quote: Valencia was disappointed in his draft position, but said "... realistically it does not change things for me. My goal has always been to get to the big leagues... It does not matter where you start, but where you finish."
In the section "Major league career (2010–present)", remove the first two sentences.
In the section "Major league career (2010–present)", remove the sentence starting with "He became the 13th Jewish major leaguer..." and the sentence starting with "He was the second player..."
In the section "Major league career (2010–present)", remove the sentence with the quote from Nick Punto.
In the section "Major league career (2010–present)", remove the last paragraph.
I believe the minor league section could use some trimming; perhaps someone else could undertake the task? Isaac Lin (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say go ahead and do these for now since everyone seems to agree.  (I did the first one but figured you could do the rest if you want since you have a better handle on the article in general).  Then we can regroup and discuss any other changes or revisit the changes above.  Wknight94 talk 02:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made the changes to the article. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the mention that his mother is a retired certified public accountant, and that he has a sister named Judy seems like something out of a People Magazine article. For instance, the Wikipedia article on Ty Cobb reads, "Ty Cobb was born in Narrows, Georgia, in 1886, the first of three children to Amanda Chitwood Cobb and William Herschel Cobb." and leaves it at that.Orsoni (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Isaac Lin made some more good changes.  I would like to see more of the quotes removed.  Like I said above, I am not opposed to quotes in general, but these all seem like overused clichés said by every coach about every prospect ever.  I can barely get through the article without getting groggy.  Wknight94 talk 02:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This article sucks. How about scrapping the whole Damn thing and starting over?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.155.209.52 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 
I never heard of Danny Valencia until 5 minutes ago, and now I see that his Wiki page contains FIVE (5) references/footnotes confirming he has a sister named Laura! Talk  about overkill!Mwprods (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to belabour a point (since it is only a couple of words), but to explain regarding the first sentence of the "Early life" section: rhetorically speaking, and incidentally in the Jewish writing tradition of repetition for stylistic effect, it is stronger to have the subordinate clause simply repeat the subject matter of the sentence. It avoids a second verb tense in the sentence, and makes the info feel more strongly emphasized, rather than being an aside. Isaac Lin (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is basic English.  I agree w/the editor your reverted on this.  Common parlance -- and common Wikipedia practice -- is to say "x is Jewish", not "X -- a Jew".  Though in the 1700s common parlance was to say "Isaac the Jew".  That's now outmoded and AWK.  And I thought we culled through a bevy of comments to this article -- isn't this getting somewhat POINTy, to edit war over such an issue?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Following the bold, revert, discuss cycle, I reverted a change that someone else made. I have made no further reverts, so I am not engaging in an edit war. There was no mention of this outmoded phraseology that you raise. Note the options you present are not the actual options that were presented for the first sentence; please do not mischaracterize the discussion.
I welcome opinions of others on this matter. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
What you changed was also the original construct of the phrase.  So you changed: a) the original construct, b) what the prior editor had reverted to, c) and what I reverted to.  From "Valencia, who is Jewish", to the awkward "Valencia, a Jew".  That's obviously AWK.  It's true, in the 1700s or so it wasn't.  Now, it is.  Who in this day and age introduces someone, saying, "Let me introduce you to my friend Isaac, who is a Jew"?  Rather than, "Let me introduce you to my friend Isaac, who is Jewish"?  Apart from others having already opined by their edits on this, I would think its awkwardness would be rather self-evident.  Discussion is great, but this particular discussion over this phrase strikes me as a bit POINTy--and surely, there are issues of greater moment that we could kick around to better the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, quite frankly, "in this day and age", barring very special circumstances, who uses the religion of their friend as part of an introduction at all? That, in and of itself, is pretty darn...er..."AWK" (isn't that some kind of bird or something? -Dewelar (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you think is being made; my only objective is to improve the article's writing and conciseness. I chose to explain the reasons why I felt a different phrasing is better rhetorically; I understand that others prefer to act in other ways. Isaac Lin (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Here you go.  Baseball Almanac:
"There is talk that I am Jewish - just because my father was Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I speak Yiddish and once studied to be a rabbi and a cantor. Well, that's how rumors get started." - Baseball Clown Prince Al Schacht in My Own Particular Screwball (Al Schacht, 1955)
See also references in the following, which reflect that we're not breaking new ground here:

The Big Book of Jewish Baseball: An Illustrated Encyclopedia & Anecdotal History,
Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, 1871-1948,
The Big Book of Jewish Sports Heros: An Illustrated Compendium of Sports History and The 150 Greatest Jewish Sports Stars, In the Best Interests of Baseball?: The Revolutionary Reign of Bud Selig,
Johnny Kling: a baseball biography,
Game Time: A Baseball Companion, by Roger Angell
Five Seasons: A Baseball Companion,
Carrying Jackie's torch: the players who integrated baseball--and America,
Baseball Digest Aug 2007
Are we done with this silly way to spend a Sunday?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danny Valencia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Staxringold talkcontribs 21:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

Citations should be moved out of the lead. 2, 3, and 4 aren't even replicated in the body, which suggests that the lead isn't following WP:LEAD and summarizing the body. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Baseball terminology needs linking. Things like third base, Milwaukee Brewers' farm system, slugging percentage, At bats per home run, RBI, etc at their first instance. RBI, for example, is abbreviated and unlinked in high school and then spelled out fully and linked later under minor league. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"In two years (and 122 games) with the Hurricanes, Valencia hit .312 with 124 RBIs, and played in the College World Series" I would reword it to 'Valencia hit .312 with 124 RBIs in 122 games over two years with the Hurricanes and played in the College World Series." Staxringold talkcontribs 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I would replace the instances (lead and body) and "576th player chosen" with "576th player overall" Staxringoldtalkcontribs 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"Twins director of minor leagues", "Twins management", "Twins general manager", "Twins scout", "Twins manager", "Twins franchise history", and "first Twins rookie" needs a ' to be possessive. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to change it if you insist, but I'm not sure it is correct to do so.  Here, "Twins" seems to operate the same as a singular team name -- see, eg., all the ref titles that don't use the possessive, though by your interpretation they would have to.  Just as we call Obama the United States President, not the United States' President. Let me know your thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry, I replied to this a day ago but I guess my edit wasn't saved. Anyways, you need consistency either way (as the article currently sometimes uses Twins' and sometimes uses Twins). I would say Twins is pretty clearly plural, however. Individuals are sometimes called a Yankee, Twin, Dodger, Giant, Rockie (Rocky?), etc, but the franchise names are pretty self-evidently plural. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Tx.  I imagine that the thinking is as follows -- sometimes a word that on its face appears to be plural stands, in fact, for a singular entity, and is therefore a singular noun.  For example, "the United States President".  That stands for "the President of the country named x".  Same, I think, with the Twins.  I'll go through the article for consistency.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through, and editing in accord with what the refs seem to do.  Treating "Minnesota Twins" as a singular noun, standing for "the name named ..."  Sometimes, that does call for an apostrophe--where a singular noun calls for an apostrophe.  Basically, it requires reading "Twins President" as though it were "Yankee President"--where no apostrophe is required.  The "s" in that case is really irrelevant, as both stand for "the president of team x".  Hence, MLB.com has a headline that says: " Twins third baseman showed promise", another that says "Twins infield prospect goes 2-for-4", another that says "Lots of stars waiting in the Twins' wings", and another that says "Mauer leads Twins' Diamond Award winners", as reflected in the refs to the article.  Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, passing. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Danny Valencia. 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/20110925143911/http://www.momentmag.com/moment/issues/2011/10/baseball.html to http://www.momentmag.com/moment/issues/2011/10/baseball.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620105229/http://sports.yahoo.com/news/trevor-plouffe-stepped-time-minnesota-twins-fans-164400161--mlb.html to https://sports.yahoo.com/news/trevor-plouffe-stepped-time-minnesota-twins-fans-164400161--mlb.html
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) 16:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am restoring his Hebrew name, as he is American-Israeli. --2604:2000:E010:1100:5894:12BD:5CE8:5557 (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)