Talk:Around the Horn

message: Changed the fact that winners dont get 40 seconds. That might have happened a few times but Adande got 20 seconds today.
Recommendation to add to guest panelist list: Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe has been on their AT LEAST once, though I can not find a link to prove this, I know I have seen him on there.
Recommendations to change Michael A. Smith's link to since it now links to the guy who spat in Jane Fonda's face?
*Done and done. I used Michael Smith (sports reporter) to correspond to the link on the disambiguation page. ESkog 17:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The showdown is often rigged in the interests of time.  I've heard Tony say "Good point, but I need a sweep because we're out of time..."  Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 16:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old comments

message: I can think of other instances of Around the Horn:
* The baseball term: going from third to second to first as in a 5-4-3 double play (on which the name of th show is no doubt based)
* The navigational term: going from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean around Cape Horn (on which the baseball term is no doubt based)
Neither of these has an article right now, but isn't a DA page warranted? Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambguation 

message: Does anyone remember when this show first started that it had a much different format.  Every panelist stayed on until the very end and then they all got face time.  I don't quite remember exactly how it worked because quite frankly the show was awful with that format and I almost never watched it.
Yes I remember it.
The old format went something like this:  Mutes were worth -3 (or was it -5?), and Max gave many more points for a topic (5-8'ish), but muted people more often which often resulted in massively negative scroes, usually for Woody.  The rounds were also called different names, although I don't recall what they were.  People weren't kicked off, but at the end of the game the top 3 people got face time, one second for each point they had amassed (as well as a medal).  The fourth place person would be introduced as getting face time and would be promptly muted when they started to speak.  
Overall I was a big fan of the old format and never have truly liked the new one.
I also remember people asking the voice over the loud speaker??? to be added points for various reasons. Also I think they sometimes changed the amount of face time for time reasons.--Skroha 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Format 

message: Isn't "Around the Horn" a baseball reference of some sort?  Specifically, after a strikeout or groundout, the ball is passed around the infielders until it gets back to the pitcher, and this was called passing it "around the horn."  Or am I shockingly mistaken? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why it was called this, and is it a reference to Cape Horn ("round the horn" being a common expression in sailing)? — Johan the Ghost seance 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not a sailing reference. The term around the horn does come from baseball. Often, after a strikeout, each of the four infielders will throw the ball amongst themselves. Similarly, each of the four commentators on the show throw topics around amongst themselves. Notecardforfree 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball reference 

message: Does anyone know whether the panelist have preplanned which sides they will be on during the showdown?--Skroha 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this happens a lot, but I doubt it's an every-topic-during-every-Showdown type of thing. For example, there was one topic a couple of days ago (it was Monday, but I can't remember who was in the Showdown) where both panelists agreed. I absolutely do think the preplanning does occur rather frequently, since there are few times when the panelists actually do agree, and because there are some topics in which I simply can't imagine either panelist taking a particular side. -- Kicking222 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Showdown 

message: I thought this was the best place to ask this question. What happened to the Jay Mariotti article. I know he isn't exactly the most liked person around, but did something happen that warranted the deletion of his article? ErikNY 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jay Mariotti article

message: I remember one incident (it couldn't have been too long ago if i remember it) where Reali muted somebody during their face time and gave the other panelist the win instead for talking about NASCAR.  Does anybody else recall this, and it should be added if I'm not insane. --TopGear 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was definitely Tim Cowlishaw talking about NASCAR, and I believe Reali gave the win to Bill Plaschke. You could probably find more information about it in the ATH Yahoo group that is listed on the article page; just search for some key words. Bmitchelf 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cancelled win. 

message: Like PTI, the Running Gags was getting massive, so it deserves its own page -- it can be found here: Running gags on Around the Horn. JAF1970 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding; that's what the red link means. -- bmitchelf•T•F 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Running gags its own page now

message: What is the source for this? Is someone updating the page after every show? As it stands, all of this info (unless it's included in one of the external links, in which case, that should be noted in the article) is completely unverified. -- Kicking222 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not being updated after every show, but no less than every few shows. I believe some of the information can be found at the Around The Horn Yahoo group. It's almost like saying the episode count is unverified since shows like this one do not keep track of their episodes, except internally at ESPN. bmitchelf•T•F 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, appearance counts are off by a few and win counts are off by three right now, so this must be fixed. It was correct last time I check a few months ago. bmitchelf•T•F 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Win counts/percentages

message: it seems that it's been cleaned up a bit and isn't just a bunch of lists any more. how does one go about nominating this for featured status? Skhatri2005 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we start a little smaller and see if it can pass GA first, I just nominated it, but I am betting its not ready yet, but with the comments back from it can be made GA.  EnsRedShirt 12:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article status 

message: This article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: The article has a good intro, but other sections need expansion or cleanup. The Rounds section should be elaborated on with more detail for the various rounds. For example the "The First Word" could be fixed up with some examples. I would recommend working on improving statements such as "Reali is now much stingier in awarding points."
:2. Factually accurate?: There are no references, so nothing can be verified to accurate. I know there are fans of the show that contribute details about the scores and various inside jokes, but these can be cited by the appropriate episode and outside sources.
:3. Broad in coverage?: The article is not very broad, it would be better for the article if there could be information about how the show's production, ratings, any possible DVD releases, any awards for the show, etc.
:4. Neutral point of view?: The article looks mainly neutral, but it may be more focused to people who already know the show, so using less jargon and more wikilinks could help improve it.
:5. Article stability? The article appears stable and I don't forsee there being any problems with that in the future.
:6. Images?: The current images are okay, but they both need fair use rationales. Look to similar TV shows for fair use rationales or look to already promoted GA articles. If you can, attempt to add screenshots of some of the rounds in play or some of the regular panelists (again with fair use rationales and sources).
This was my first GA review, so I'm apologize if I was a little harsh. I see above a few sections in the talk page that this was nominated to get a review, so hopefully I brought you some suggestions. Even though I pointed out a lot of things to improve, it will be more likely to pass GA with these suggestions being met. I've seen the show a couple of times, but the editors' expertise here will be able to provide details to improve the article. Keep up the good work and just begin adding references and further expanding the article before trying again. If you have any questions let me know, and I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not too harsh. Good job on the review. Chickenmonkey 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are all good points and reasons I don't think this will ever be a GA. It's just basically facts about the show we've learned from watching it and a bunch of lists and tables. It's hard to provide citations for a sports talk show such as this. But we'll see… bmitchelf•T•F 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA nomination

message: : How often do you think the winner is determined before the show?  Is this talked about on the Yahoo site? Some shows it is obviously fixed, perhaps to give the face time to someone who has an important topic to discuss.  Thoughts? EagleFan 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're asking this about a show that the points are just an afterthought to begin with? Darkpower 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm asking if the "winner" is always predetermined.EagleFan (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the show always fixed?

message: I like the look of the statistics tables at the bottom of the article, but is there any way to group some of them together so readers can look at two or three tables in a row rather than all of them on top of each other? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nested some of the tables, to show 2 in a row.  I could do the first 3 all in a row, but I was worried about making it too wide, for users with a lower resolution. Bjewiki 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good, what you've done should be sufficient. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics tables 

message: These statistics seem to be in violation of WP:OR and maintenance of them is adding far too much to the edit history.  I am going to remove them from the article and request that they not be re-added without consensus.  If someone does feel that this content merits inclusion, I would suggest that it be split out to another article, but I still doubt that it can pass the WP:OR standard. --After Midnight 0001 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on this basis, especially since they do not match up correctly with the number of episodes in the infobox or in the table. However, it is something maintained by the show itself, as they show one statistic per panelist at the beginning of each show. That may be what merits inclusion, which I would only want if they're absolutely correct. bmitchelf•T•F 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the show maintaining statistics about the panelists is enough of a justification for their inclusion here, but if they're incorrect then they definitely need to be cleaned up. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Soxrock  claims that this is not WP:OR and says that they have been updating it since March.  I'm not sure that the fact that they have been editing it for 2 months is relevant to this discussion.  I would ask that some rationale as to why this is not OR be provided.  All of these statistics are not displayed on the screen during the show are they?  Is there a WP:RS like ESPN that supplies these on some web site?  Plus, as Bmitchelf notes, the numbers don't match up, so they are either placed here in error or they must be OR. I see that Soxrock has reverted my blanking of the section and I will not revert war this, but I will ask for a consensus to be formed here and ask that the OR issue be settled.  --After Midnight 0001 02:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think the "encyclopedic" nature of these stats is definitely in question.  I'm 100% sure that the "Wins by City" and "Winning Percentage by City" are incorrect.  For one thing, several of the panelists (notably Paige) have represented different cities during their time on the show, yet this is not represented. Occasionally, they will show a panelists winning percentage or all-time wins during the shows intro, but not often enough to verify these stats.  Bjewiki 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Around the Horn unofficial statistics 

message: Well, I made a WP:BOLD edit, and cleaned up the stats section.  The section was way too long, and stretched out the article.  In addition, it made maintenance difficult, because the status had to be updated in multiple locations (by Panelist, by Cities, etc).  I think the sortable stats table presents pretty much the same information (no more win% by city, but who cares).  What does everyone think? Bjewiki 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice Soxrox has put back the "By City" stats.  Personally, I don't think these are very useful, and should be eliminated.  What value do they add?  For one thing, they're not even accurate, as Paige split time between Denver, and New York (?), which isn't even reflected there.  What does everyone else think? Bjewiki 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I still am pretty sure the stats are wrong, too. bmitchelf•T•F 00:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the stats because there is no source and it is all original research. Please find a reliable source before re-adding.++aviper2k7++ 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as i liked the new sortable stats table, I agree, those stats were not veriable...Bjewiki 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BRING BACK THE STATS...they were the best part of the article...they are often shown in the opening segment of the show itself and I'm sure they could be sourced as such. 137.99.139.105 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not easily verifiable. Bjewiki 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the stats 

message: I started a discussion on the Talk:Running gags on Around the Horn subpage.  Basically, this all looks like original research to me, and should probably just be deleted...looking to see what everyone else thinks. I'm open to other suggestions.  Bjewiki 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. Now what do you suppose should be put in the spot where it says "Running Gags" on the website? Furthermore, what did you want? References to each exact episode? Why not make articles more uninformative and useless to people doing research? I hate to see your dictionaries at home. For an entry cat, you see a picture of a tabby, and the entire entry states: "Quadroped, furry. Felis. (rolling eyes) I take it you own stock in Wiki's bandwidth, right? JAF1970 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on this, who in the hell decided to remove the line I wrote about the chalkboard. This is one of THE most recognizable gags on the show, as it has appeared EVERY SINGLE TIME PAIGE HAS BEEN ON THE FRIGGIN' SHOW!! Why anyone would not think something being said about something that someone can prove by just WATCHING the damn show isn't appropriate to bring up is beyond me. Then again, this is Wiki for you, people who think they are always right and have to go one over by reverting every edit anyone else does because they don't like one thing about it. The chalkboard deserve a mention. Darkpower 09:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running Gags... 

message: This is copied from Bmitchelf's talk page in order to receive another opinion.
I think to add the numbers every day is original research. There is no source for the numbers outside of 1,000, so adding numbers every day would be un-verifiable and inaccurate. Also, it is tedious to keep updating the numbers every day because a simple "1000+" note can remain there. I apologize of the wording once again, don't know what I was thinking, but I still feel strongly that updating the numbers every day has a chance to be inaccurate. What if they get off a day? Please respond here, thank you for your time.++aviper2k7++ 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After they say it's 1,000, you just add the shows every day that it is on; I'm sure somebody will be watching. Plus, there is the Yahoo group, so if you miss a show, it verifies there that it was on that day. Other weekdaily shows like talk shows and soap operas are updated every day, as well, and in those cases it is harder because they show reruns, while Around the Horn does not. It's like saying The Simpsons shouldn't have an episode count updated because the only way to know what episode they are on is to look online, especially since FOX doesn't tell the truth about their episode count. Anyway, if you really go by the letter of the rule, practically everything on Wikipedia could be orginal research, if it doesn't have a reference.bmitchelf•T•F 17:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you have a good argument. Here on Wikipedia, we want everything to be verifiable. There is no reason we need to edit this number every day into something that isn't even known. And just because other pages do it, doesn't mean this one should. Two wrongs don't make a right. Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states that there should be no original research.++aviper2k7++ 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the first number recorded in this article is verifiable, and the edit history matches up, then I don't see the problem. Mshake3 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This number is NOT currently veriable.  Even updating it every day doesn't make it correct.  A week or two ago, the number was ahead of the actual episodes.  I know this because I thought it was strange when ATH hit it's 1000th episode, because I was like, "that's weird, the page already says there have been over 1,000 episodes".  The test for wikipedia is not being true, it's being verifiable.  Bjewiki 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simpson's promoted 300th episode was actually episode 302. In fact, it ended up being a joke in the episode. So I wouldn't put much stock into TV shows and their own person celebrated anniversaries. As for the actual number, the first time it was listed, it had to have come from somewhere that was vertifiable. That's what edit histories are for.Mshake3 00:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The first time is was listed, it had t ocome from somehwere that was verifiable?" what? that doesn't make any sense.  Even if that WERE true, the current edit still needs to be Easily Verifiable Bjewiki 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was created in 2004. The number of episodes weren't immedietly listed. As some point, a number was listed, and it was correct (or only a couple off). That number wasn't pulled out of some guy's ass. It had to come from a source. This stuff can be looked into. As far as counting episodes go, isn't that what's done for other shows, especially those with a low episode count? Eh, the actual number will be hard to come up with 100% accuracly. But at the same time, things shouldn't be considered unverifable if one person loses track of it all. Mshake3 01:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For pretty much every regular TV series you can go look up on a website like epguides.com, and see a full listing of every episode, thus making it easy to get an accurate episode count, and verify it.  This is not true for ATH. Bjewiki 01:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to be just the same information you'd see in TV Guide. Anything else is "extraneous". JAF1970 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So, a page that hasn't been updated in a year helps how?  I'm also not sure that fan site with no fact-checking and no editorial oversight would qualify as a reliable source.  Bjewiki 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I swore I said "although" in there somewhere. ...... pretty sure I did. And wouldn't the group dedicated to the show be one of the sources you actually trust, as they're the most familiar with the show outside of the show itself? Mshake3 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Blatantly ignoring Wikipedia Verifiable is not right, even if the number is correct. The number could have been off, it could be off right now. Adding a "1,000+" note is the best way to go so someone doesn't update an unverified (possibly false) number every day.++aviper2k7++ 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, i'm assuming you meant mostly what makes this a reliable source, so that it passes WP:VERIFY. I'd say that TV.com qualifies considering that the standard template for the TV show infobox contains a link to a show's TV.com page.  I would think that shows we (the community) already consider it a good source. Bjewiki 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider that the people who run it are just internet volunteers, and they get their information from who knows what. Heck, I bet if I looked at the individual episodes, I bet it'll look exactly like the incomplete episode list from the ATH Yahoo Group. Mshake3 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably got their information from Wikipedia XD ++aviper2k7++ 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode numbers 

message: :Image:AroundTheHornlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AroundTheHornlogo.PNG

message: The show shows obvious large market bias and this is sometihing that should not be overlooked. No reporter from a city smaller than 1.5 million has appeared on the show with the exception of the ESPN.com writers.Yomamma22 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring back controversy section. 

message: Is he or is he not gone? I read wikipedia and said that he was gone in April but he was just on the show today155.33.109.198 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So he's obviously not gone then. Wikipedia isn't the gospel. -- bmitchelf•T•F 16:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackistone

message: Around the Horn have'nt had a guest host on any occiasonal episodes this many since 2006.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.148.189 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guest Hosts 

message: who cares if its 100% accurate....its an interesting tidbit of information, that would give at least a rough estimate of where people stand at
you could even put a warning on it saying "may not be 100% accurate  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.93.231 (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but if it's not completely accurate from a reputable source, then it's speculation and OR and thus not proper for Wikipedia. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring Back total wins 

message: I haven't seen Michael Smith on ATH in several months.  Has he quit being a panelist? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, excuse me for asking...sheesh. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Michael Smith off the show? 

message: Since Running Gags on PTI is back - did anyone preserve the Running Gags for ATH? JAF1970 (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running gags

message: Not quite ready to be put in the article yet, but I figured I'd record here that the lightning round was played 2 Nov. 2009 in place of Out of Bounds, if it becomes a more recurring round in the near future. umrguy42 22:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lightning Round 

message: The criticism section is unsourced and sounds like one person's bitter griping.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.113.143 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Updated January 30,2012
Name             	#wins	# appearances	win%
Woody Paige      	399  	1758         	22.7%
Tim Cowlishaw    	283  	1044         	27.1%
J.A  Adande      	210  	770          	27.3%
Bill Plaschke    	212  	864          	24.5%
Kevin Blackistone	151  	635          	23.8%
Michael Smith    	112  	376          	29.8%
Bob Ryan         	110  	337          	32.6%
Jackie McMullan  	107  	312          	34.3%
Bomani Jones     	32   	120          	26.7%
:Hi dwade, thanks for making this table. A couple comments/suggestions, if I might:
:* I think making this a sortable table would be good. I don't recall how just yet, but you might look into it.
:* More importantly, it might be worthwhile to update this table only weekly or so, instead of daily. (I've seen similar discussions on baseball player statboxes being updated daily.)
: Best, umrguy42 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Panelist Statistics 

message: I don't think Woody Paige uses the electronic ticker anymore.  I watch it almost every day and I have not seen it. --InformationContributor11 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chalkboard Electronic Ticker 

message: What happened to active panelist statistics?  Why were they removed and are we going to put it back on? --InformationContributor11 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happened to Active Panelist Statistics 

message: Effective 11/5/18, the program will adopt a new logo.  J4lambert (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo change

message: Reali says this before commercial breaks typically once an episode, but the breaks are always 4 to 6 minutes. As this is a taped show, is he saying this to the panelists or to the viewers? If it's to the viewers, it is blatantly false. I'd love to add this to the article, but it's anecdotal and not easily sourced. NjtoTX (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back in 2 minutes