Talk:Justin Verlander

message: Anybody else get the impression that at least half of this was written by his mother?76.102.50.71 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of the page

message: I really didn't think I had to explain this. When a person is involved with a "current event", they get a current event tag. When it's a current event in the sporting world, such as a no-hitter, they get a "current sport" tag. After a week or so (not really sure about that part) it is no longer a current event and the tag goes away. When Buerhle hit a no-hitter earlier in the year, his page got a tag (although it also should have been a "current sport" tag instead of "current event").  When somebody dies they get a tag even though they are not going to die again. When somebody makes racial comments in a nightclub they get a tag. I could name countless other examples but I'm tired and still can't believe this would be controversial. Thanks RobDe68 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current sport tag

message: While the current picture is a great moment, you can barely see Verlander in there.. I think a change should be made
Obviously, that's the best available.Chris Nelson 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: When did he go to the Richmond Baseball Academy?  Looks like before high school?  "After he recovered"... from what?  Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur section has been overedited and needs a rewrite 

message: per WP:BLP we must be conservative in the personal information we place in articles. per WP:UNDUE we do not have an entire section about a "relationship" that was only rumored and has been denied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: For a while, we have had :File:Justin Verlander on May 20, 2008.jpg as the lead image in the article. User:Connormah recently updated it to this one: :File:Justin Verlander 2013.jpg. As I said on Connor's talk, it's not a hill on which I am willing to die, put personal preference-wise, I think the first image is of better encyclopedic value ... it shows him pitching, it shows he's a righty, you can see a little bit of his delivery, it's of decent quality, and I am aware of no licensing issues. The updated image that Connormah posted is of little encyclopedic value, in my opinion ... all you see is a close up of his face with an awkward pose ... he is not even wearing a jersey, presumably a team sweatshirt. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks. Go Phightins! 03:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The image came from one of these Flickr sets: . The main reason I switched it was because there is a higher quality image available that is current and gives a better depiction of the appearance of the subject - something that is hard to come across these days. If there are any alternative shots in the sets then that'd be great (I can't really tell any that aren't labelled) but I think a more current, higher quality image is desirable here. – Connormah (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I vote for the headshot. I couldn't find any Wikipedia guidelines about what type of image is best for an Infobox, but in my opinion, the image that shows the person the best is better than an image showing what the person is notable for. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I have a slight preference for the headshot. If we had a great action shot then we should use that, but I don't think that the original is— it is too loosely cropped and it is very grainy. And the headshot isn't any more goofy than Tim Lincecum's infobox photo :-) Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Actually, there are a number of Verlander photos (Commons category) that aren't being used. Some might be a good compromise. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What about :File:Verlander warms up.jpg? Go Phightins! 00:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Anything here? – Connormah (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Justin Verlander. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140514052003/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140514/SPORTS0104/305140021 to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140514/SPORTS0104/305140021
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Justin Verlander. 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/20160105202916/http://eye-on-baseball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/33440802 to http://eye-on-baseball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/33440802
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Houston Astros (2017–2020, 2022–present)
This should be 
Houston Astros (2017–present)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.117.81.91 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard practice is to only include seasons in which the player actually appeared in a game. You are welcome to challenge that consensus at WT:MLB, but let's not pretend that the present approach is devoid of logical sense. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

text: How does it "make no sense"?  It shows that he missed a year because of injury.. He was not on the active roster that season. This is all explained in the prose. Spanneraol (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I disagree that it is necessary to have consistency between the infobox and the headings within the article. It does not make an iota of difference that he was under contract and paid; he did not play in a single game during the 2021 season, and the infobox reflects this fact. At any rate, I would favor removing the parenthetical years from the team headings anyway since it is clear from the subheadings which years he was a member of the separate organizations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houston Astros (2017–2020, 2022–present) 

message: Considering his ERA is above 6 (itself a record for a pitcher who has made this many appearances in the World Series) and he has been winless in all of his outings, would saying he's the worst pitcher in the Fall Classic violate the neutral point of view of the website, or is there enough evidence to make an argument. 2600:1700:370:41C0:B863:664:5ECD:AA34 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not neutral to say he's the "worst pitcher" in World Series history. It's not true, he's an incredible pitcher with a poor record, and I can think of many "worse pitchers" who appeared in the WS in recent years off the top of my head. What would be neutral would be to note that he has a 6.07 ERA, the highest in World Series history among pitchers with 30 WS innings pitched. Considering he is likely to get another start in the WS, it may not be prudent to add that yet, considering the stat will change. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Series reputation