Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (E–F)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [1].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (E–F)

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (E–F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (E–F)/archive1

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

My current open nomination has four supports and no open complaints, so I'm nominating the fifth list in the series for featured status. All comments to be expediently addressed. Many thanks for your interest. — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments "(plaque thereon pictured)" seems a little archaic (I think I mentioned this before?), just "plaque pictured" is fine. Whiz Kids is a little confusing to the non-expert. Sure, it's linked, but this suddenly comes out of the blue... 16 batters - are batters everyone but pitchers? Pitchers don't bat? I'm not an expert so I'm not sure how to identify the 16 batters you noted in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC) That plaque thing is something I'm gonna have to remember to fix; it's the same throughout the whole series. Done now. I'm not sure how you want me to clarify Whiz Kids other than the link; more prose would give more context (and lengthen this lead), but I don't know how "in-place" it would be. As to the batters: it's kind of a semantic thing. Technically, yes, pitchers do bat (in the National League, which this is), but they really aren't categorized by their batting stats (except in exceptional circumstances), so yes, by "batters" in this case, I do mean "non-pitchers". Originally, the plan was to be "position players", but pitcher is a position, so that's even more wrong. Look forward to your comment. — KV5 • Talk • 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC) As for the Whiz Kids, perhaps you could drop in something like "Nicknamed the Whiz Kids..." into the prose? Would completely clear up the issue for me. As for batters/pitchers, I'll leave that to your discretion. Sometimes I look at these lists as a complete novice (which, in this case, I virtually am) and see things as potentially confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Understandable. I did try to clarify in the lead by means of the final sentence of each list's first paragraph. I'll try to look at a possible re-word for the Whiz Kids tonight when I get home from work now. — KV5 • Talk • 12:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC) So that should be done. — KV5 • Talk • 12:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Don't see any problems here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was asked to return by the nominator after the merge, and spotted only one new issue: the note above the table needs to be updated by mentioning the letter F (only E is mentioned now). Other than that, the merge has been done effectively and I feel comfortable retaining my support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • There are two tables; each has its own caption. — KV5 • Talk • 01:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

*One niggle, in the seasons column, why is Ennis's 2007 sorting between Eaton and Eyre? Courcelles 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC) I honestly am not sure. I would think that, logically, "2007" would sort before "2007–". Is this not the case? — KV5 • Talk • 13:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC) The order ought to be, "2007; 2007-2008; 2008-2009". Instead it is sorting as "2007–2008; 2007; 2008-2009" Courcelles 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC) I understand that, and I see it; I don't understand why it's doing that. Logical order would probably state that the plain 2007 would come first. Also, I don't know how to fix it. — KV5 • Talk • 22:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC) I don't know; you can try {{dts}}, as it's for dates.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC) DTS doesn't work for date ranges. I've implemented an inelegant hard-coded sort solution that should at least be a stopgap measure until I can figure out something better. — KV5 • Talk • 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Hacks are sometimes required to make sorting function, good work. Courcelles 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I preferred these separate, as it allowed a more focused lede to each group, but, so be it. Courcelles 23:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I agreed. — KV5 • Talk • 23:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, I see no issues beyond what was already addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Reiterating support after reading through post-merge article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I think I am going to be labelled as the CFORKing guy, but why is this list separate from the "F" one? It has only 32 entries and with the F one would barely pass 100. There are a few well beyond 150 entries so I don't think it would be too much. Splitting under 1900 players in something like 20 FLs is too much. I think the aim should be closer to 10. Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• The goal was for lists with 10 or fewer players to be subsumed into others. 32 entries is more than enough to constitute a stand-alone list. — KV5 • Talk • 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with KV5, this passes 3b. Courcelles 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. When did 32 become too few elements to have a stand-alone list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not that it is too few, but that the 1.9k players are split over too many lists. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You're objecting on the grounds of forking. This doesn't cover "too many lists" as far as I've ever read. Can you clarify your position with respect to WP:WIAFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TRM. The scopes of these particular lists are very clear, and each fully meets the requirements for stand-alone lists as set out in WP:SAL. We have featured lists of all sizes, and there's no criterion in WP:FL? that states a list may only be split when it reaches a certain size. In addition, you must view the split itself as a whole. This is not the "E" sublist split from the "F" sublist; rather, it is the "E" list split from the original list, and viewed in that sense, it truly does not violate 3b, because it could not reasonably be included as part of the main article. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Take the following alternative scenario: if the original editor who split the main list into 10 distinct lists (instead of 20) and would have nominated the one named "E-F" I am sure nobody would have complained in that nomination about splitting E and F into separate articles because 111 is too much for a FL. FLs with more than 100 entires are passed on a regular basis these days, so I don't see how 111 would be a problem. The (original) intentn of CFORK (to my understanding) is to not split content more than it is necessary just to bump up the featured content count. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above objection; Policy clearly states that articles should be kept together. This translates into merging as many of the lists, as size and sorting permits. Precedence can be seen in the lists of gay/bi-sexual people. Sandman888 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDSPLIT is part of a guideline, not a policy, does clearly not say "articles should be kept together" but is all about ensuring articles meet notability criteria when split off, to whit: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." This article clearly meets the notability criteria, so no problem. And yes, other stuff exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" is an FL criteria, which parallels the logic in avoiding small splits. The reference to wp:otherstuff is quite hollow; it is common to refer to other FL list to determine application of policy, but you already knew that. Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Oppose As above. This is the case where we should ignore all rules and use some common sense. Why do we have one page with 200 items and another with 15 about the same subject? Does it make sense? If you were trying to have one page per letter, then it would make some sense, but you combined some of them(and rightfully so); thus, creating a precedence that any letter can be combined with the other as long as it makes sense(i.e. remains viewable). So, my first suggestion is to combine "E" with "F", "I-J" with "K", "N-O" with "P", "Q" with "R", "T" with "U-V", and "W" with "Y-Z".Cheetah (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I'd be tempted to suggest we IAR in the opposite direction. The list is long enough right now, adding score(s) more would detract from the usability of this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Not to mention this list is self-expanding.... Courcelles 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Quite so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Don't forget that all of these lists are cforks. The reason we're having this discussion is that it's not distributed evenly. Y-Z has 15(!) players listed while "M" has 200 players, does that make sense to you? It should be organized more evenly, meaning all lists should hover around certain number of players. If you're worried about self-expansion, why do you accept that "M" list or the "S" list or the "C" list and so on? All I am asking is to be fair!Cheetah (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I suppose this is where some people may call for WP:SAL. This is a viable standalone list. Everyone can have an opinion on how many entries/how to split etc etc, but this is subjective. Right now, the split is objective where each list meets SAL, meets AVOIDSPLIT, meets everything that's needed. Everything else here is editor preference (apart from Sandman888's assertion which is false). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC) All right, let's avoid splits and have Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster with ~1900 players. Cheetah (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC) No. Look at WP:SIZE, although I'm sure you're aware of it. If M's alone make a list which is nearly 100KB in size, then it's clearly nonsensical to suggest merging over nine times the number of players into one list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC) What I said was a sarcasm, "although I'm sure you're aware of it". What we have here is a huge list of 1881 players, which we can't avoid splitting. When we split, we should have as few forks as possible, so that they can be easy to use and get the most out of it. Right now it's split in 20 different lists, which may just be too many. When we have a chance to get rid of 5-6 lists and have 15 comprehensive lists, we should take advantage of it. If from that huge list, we take all the players with last names that start with "E" and "F" and put them in one list, we'll have a list of 111 players. That's less than 143 that's currently in the "C" list which was supported by Courcelles; I guess the Phillies took an oath or something that they're not going to sign any player with the last name that starts with a letter "C". Cheetah (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) As I said before, this is editor preference, merging some lists with others. Each list meets WP:SAL as they stand. You are obviously entitled to oppose but it should be made clear that the oppose is based on a personal preference, not that the lists have broken any criteria or wider guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC) This is not about preference, this is about what's beneficial to the readers. I understand you're talking just like any process director, but I ask you to be more open-minded. We have one list with 32 players another with 79, so the reader will need to click on one more link. If we have one list with 111 players, that would eliminate that one click. Hypothetically, we can also split this list to "Ea-Em" and "En-Ey" and have two separate lists that pass all the rules and guidelines. Would you support that, too?Cheetah (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I'm not talking like "any process director", I'm talking as a reviewer. This has nothing to do with me being an FL director, nothing at all. I won't be closing this so that's irrelevant. I think subdividing the per the alphabet and WP:SAL seems to be the most objective solution. Hypothetical lists are all very well. Anyway, there's no guideline supporting your position, that's all I wanted other reviewers to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose OpposesThis is ridiculous... imagine all letters would be merged together; letters like B, C or D are lagging on my laptop and even a little bit on my computer. What if someone has a crap computer? Who wants to wait minutes after it will load? Do you like lags? I don't and I think you too! Don't forget the server lags.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC) (→)TRM, splitting "per the alphabet" is your preference, isn't it? Show me a rule where I could see the "split lists per alphabet" line. There's none! I see no guideline supporting your position, either. Greatorangepumpkin, "E-F" will have less players than "C" and "B"(which are alread at WP:FL). If you're worried about lagging, you can submit "B" and "C" at WP:FLRC.Cheetah (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC) No, I see nothing other than WP:SAL. Which this list, and all the others, comply with. And I said splitting by the alphabet was "objective", nowhere did I say it was my preference. Nowhere did I claim a guideline for that either, other than SAL which I've said all along. Once again (and this seems circular now, so this is my last comment), the list complies with our guidelines. You may not "like" the way it's split, but it's just that, a personal preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC) It is objective to have "E" and "F" together just like "P-Q" and "U-V". "E-F" will comply with WP:SAL, as well. My personal preference would be to have one page with all players, but I understand that it's near impossible.Cheetah (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC) This discussion is not about a hypothetical list that doesn't exist; it's about this list. If it meets the FL criteria and WP:SAL, then the opposes are unfounded. That's TRM's, and my, point. — KV5 • Talk • 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) To me, this list does not meet the FL criteria because it's not forked as it should be. It does not exemplify our very best work. Our very best work would be to add the "F" players to this list. That's it.Cheetah (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Your oppose is still based on personal preference and not policy. Your interpretation of best work and mine are obviously divergent in this case. TRM, myself, and four others clearly disagree with you. I disagree that it would be best practice to merge the E and F lists because neither of them violates SAL or the FL criteria, despite your claim. — KV5 • Talk • 12:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Comment To get this out of the way at the start rather than the end of the post, I have grumbled about these lists, a lot. Possibly too much. Grumble though I may, it's beyond dispute there is consensus for the format. That said, the end of 3b ("could not reasonably be included as part of a related article") would seem to support Cheetah's specific suggestion of merging E and F. —WFC— 10:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Thank you KV5 for your patience. I just went over all Phillies lists and the only lists that can still be merged are T-Z. Right now it's split into 4 lists, I think it can be 2 at the most. That's a comment for the future.--Cheetah (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cheetah; to address your final concern, if you look at the very bottom of the nom section, I have proposed merging T-V and W-Z to complete the series. Those merges will be done when (if) this passes and before I nominate G. One project at a time. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Then I support your proposal.--Cheetah (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on 3b, per my rationale below; E and F could reasonably be merged. —WFC— 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutal Based on the discussion that has taken place here, and the merge, I have agreed not to oppose this on 3b. I trust the judgement of The Rambling Man, Giants2008, Courcelles and Wizardman as far as the quality of this list goes. —WFC— 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• If E and F were merged (or even if not), could we at least get consensus that all the other current and future ones are acceptable so we don't have to go through this again? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since all these articles are technically cforks, I think if they are split in a reasonable manner everybody will be happy. I am of the opinion that if the total is around 100 entries then that is an acceptable split. If Y+Z has 8+7=15 entries in total, that does not mean it is an acceptable split. U-Z has about 100 so I think that is an acceptable one, instead of slicing each possible letter that has 10 entries. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved discussion on 3(b). Capped by WFC

**I'm near enough with Nergaal. There is unquestionably consensus for an alphabetical split of sorts. The question now is just ensuring that the individual splits are reasonable. —WFC— 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC) I've been wondering what was going to happen with this nomination regardless of my patience level, but it's become painfully obvious that personal preference is going to override policy here, so I've discontinued worrying. — KV5 • Talk • 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 3.b says "and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". This article can be VERY reasonably be merged into the F one. It is not a personal preference, but CRITERIA. Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Shouting is unproductive. As TRM said, preference, not policy. But, you do what you want. — KV5 • Talk • 23:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC) It's disingenuous to dismiss this as personal preference. All but one of the contributors to this page have conceeded that, regardless of their personal preference, there is consensus for an alphabetical split of sorts. Even me, and heaven knows I've ranted about it. But the accusation of personal preference doesn't hold with Cheetah's statement. If B and P–Q are reasonable, I don't understand how it can be said that Cheetah's suggestion to merge E and F is unreasonable. —WFC— 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Because Q on its own doesn't meet the requirements for stand-alone lists. E does. — KV5 • Talk • 00:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Point taken, Q was a bad example. Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (N–O) then? —WFC— 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I honestly don't know why I combined those, but they would each meet SAL if split. — KV5 • Talk • 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I conceed that. But unless there's some massive problem with that list that I'm not seeing, that one is proof that two lists that technically meet SAL can nonetheless be reasonably merged. Which is Cheetah's point. Just because one policy or guideline suggests that there is technically nothing wrong with 21 lists (22 if N and O were split) does not make it the best way of dividing the content. For all its faults, that is precisely why we have 3b. —WFC— 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC) But who is to say that one way is indeed "best", or better than another? The supporters of this list seem to take no issue with it. — KV5 • Talk • 00:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC) And the opposers seem to, for whatever either statement is worth. It's your prerogative as the list's author to decide what method of splitting is best (you have decided that an alphabetical split is best). It is then down to reviewers to decide if the way it has been done is reasonable. Consensus has been established that an alphabetical split was fine, but while acknowledging that, several reviewers have determined that E could reasonably be included with F. After all, Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster is one list that for size reasons has been sub-divided. It stands to reason that the fewer splits we need to make (while taking into account factors such as usability and the scale of the potential for growth), the better. Or at least, that's my view. Unless someone can explain why merging E and F would be unreasonable, it's a view that is supported by our criteria for featured lists. —WFC— 01:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Well, I can see that no one is going to give on this issue unless it's me, so I'm going to do re-merging/splitting all at once and then not again. So my new plan, if it's absolutely necessary (which I don't believe it is, but anyway), would be to combine E and F; combine T, U, and V; combine W, the non-existent X, Y, and Z. I-J, at 67, is longer than N-O, at 57, so those three combinations should eliminate forking concerns. This ensures that all lists have a minimum of 50 players, which is more than eminently reasonable considering that the old arbitrary cutoff for number of items in a list was 10. Thoughts from all? — KV5 • Talk • 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 10 remains the unofficial minimum for a stand-alone list. I'm sure nobody disputes that. But that's different to arbitrarily dividing a bigger list on size grounds. In this case, I would have thought the defining criteria would be... size. In the interests of moving forward, I'm prepared to stop opposing the Phillies lists (and the Phillies lists only) if this compromise is implemented. But I'm still uneasy about this, and reserve the right to start an RfC on the matter if this convention spreads beyond the Phillies. —WFC— 21:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Well, you're not the only one uneasy (I am too), but compromise requires both sides to give. You can "reserve the right' to RfC if you feel the need, but this is all a moot point to begin with considering that "10 remains the unofficial minimum for a stand-alone list" anyway. — KV5 • Talk • 19:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I have compromised so as not to further upset a great contributor, and on the basis that I will not start an RfC unless I see this convention happening more widely. Furthermore, I've gone out of my way below to ask that the 3b discussion does not stand in the way of longer Phillies lists, accepting the consensus for an alphabetical split of sorts. In light of the above response I'm not entirely sure why I'm taking such a restrained course of action. Nonetheless, I suggest we leave this here, as for the purposes of this FLC the matter is resolved. —WFC— 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Separate suggestion I intend to continue the above discussion, whether that takes place here or elsewhere (for instance an RfC). But I do feel that we should do what we can to ensure that the Phillies lists are promoted as quickly as is possible. And that, as far as we can in the circumstances, minimise the drama. I would therefore propose that another Phillies list be granted an exception to the usual convention of only one list at a time. There is no issue with the overall quality of these lists, save for whether some individual ones meet 3b. To assist with the reduced drama aspect, I would suggest that the list nominated should be the longest remaining list, as that can reasonably be assumed to be the one least likely to be affected by a merge proposal. It takes an average of three to four weeks to promote an FL: even if were to take us a couple of months to work this out, there should be 3-4 relatively uncontroversial ones which can be promoted in the meantime. —WFC— 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How short of a nomination period are we talking about? I don't feel comfortable with making the period too short for any list, even if it's in a series that is typically trustworthy quality-wise. For example, TRM continues to find issues to report in the MLB first-round draft picks series of lists, which are all of high quality. It's also possible that a reviewer who hasn't read lists in the series will spot problems that us regulars are missing. Then again, I also feel that this list should be promoted, and that the opposers are taking 3b beyond what it was intended to do (ensure that forky lists that shouldn't exist at all don't become featured, not determine how large a particular list should be), so what do I know? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't mean a quick pass procedure. I just meant an exemption from the usual rule of not being allowed to nominate a second list where the first has opposition, as the nature of the opposition here would have no effect on the longer lists (safer bets include H, M and S). —WFC— 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that as long as we don't go overboard. We don't need six of these lists up at once, but if a list other than this one was nommed now I wouldn't object. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Some level of merging, as has occurred, was probably a good thing. The list was always of high quality, this seemed like a pretty odd thing to hang up the nomination over (as it could be easily remedied if a different standard was decided on. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the respective positions of those in favour of and opposed to a merge, thrashing out a merge at this FLC was undoubtedly the least-worst option. If it didn't come here, it would only have happened in future at FLRC, or through an RFC which ultimately would have been focussed on these lists anyway. As a result of this discussion, the lists from G-S can now go through FLC uncontroversially, an RFC will only happen if others mimic the approach taken here. and I'm sure that KV and Cheetah will find a solution by the time T-Z become an issue. just realised that T-Z have already been dealt with. The compromises that came as a direct result of the deadlock here have produced a stable situation. —WFC— 19:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I stroked out my oppose vote since my major concern was solved. I think though the two tables should be fully merged - you could leave a separator in the middle by selecting that row to be unsortable. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • On that, I heartily disagree, because these are two separate lists contained in the same article, similar to the split lists of the Rawlings Gold Glove Award series (example: List of Gold Glove Award winners at catcher). — KV5 • Talk • 01:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment glad that we're slowly reaching a consensus. I'm not saying it's right, but if we can move on from this, so much the better. My primary concern, perhaps my only concern is the subjective merging of lists. This is now setting the precedent that editors can hand-pick the "best" merges. I guess, as we have consensus, that's the way forward. However, I don't want to see people, in the future, arguing over whether L and M should be merged with N etc... Remember WP:SAL etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this, but as my disagreement has nothing to do with this FLC, I've responded on The Rambling Man's talk page. —WFC— 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree, in part, with WFC's disagreement, but this disagreement over a disagreement has nothing to do with this FLC. I've replied at my talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I bought a new computer yesterday and I have no lags now. I red this list weeks ago and I saw no issues. I make a second run and still no issues. A great list even if I haven't seen any baseball games :P.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.