Talk:David Wright

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)dont forget the peanut butter[reply]

Video Games

MLB 07: The Show is NOT the only officially licensed MLB game. I removed the line that indicated otherwise. See http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/24/news_6116946.html for details on the MLB's video game contract. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firebrand24 (talk • contribs).

Sounds good. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish on Daily Show

Wiki should close down David's page for a while - Denis Leary just told the audience to spread the rumor that David is Jewish, and I've already deleted several "trivia facts" about David claiming he is Jewish.

Should someone determine whether or not he is Jewish, or whether Denis Leary was just being funny on the Daily Show the other week. Jon Stewart didn't press him on the issue. Londo06 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best offense?

Removed the line about him being "widely considered one of the best offensive third basemen in baseball" as it has no reference point, and frankly I've never heard such a claim made by anyone other than a Mets fan. (Which I am, btw) --andrew leahey 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many analysts have claimed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.127.162 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have definitely heard this said before by Steve Phillips, Joe Morgan, John Miller and other baseball announcers on the impartial ESPN broadcasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGessner92 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citi Field

On April 13th, 2009, David Wright recorded the first hit by a New York Met at Citi Field


Redirection

I believe that when searched, David Wright should be directed here. Not to a list of David Wright's, because the lsit is of obviously less famous David Wrights.--Mets4117 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I brought it up at Talk:David Wright. If others agree, an admin would have to perform the move for GFDL purposes. Enigmamsg 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats this year

I think we should update some of this page to include some notable facts of the 2009 season. For example, he is leading the league in batting average for about a month now. Also maybe a note about how his power is down this year due to what Howard Johnson the hitting coach called "trying to hit more linedrives and swing from gap to gap instead of shooting for the fences". If and when he is elected to the ALL-Star game that should also be noted please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGessner92 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009

In 2009 david wright got hit in the head.It was terrible for the mets.In the 2009 season the mets surverd alot of injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.185.180 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Opposed, page not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Wright (baseball) → David Wright — David Wright from baseball is the most well known out of all the David Wrights. JDDJS (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose several prominent uses are listed on the dab page. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's unclear whether he would even be the most prominent person of that name, but he's certainly not the primary usage of the name worldwide. Andrewa (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done a Google search and most of the results are for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDDJS (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He may have the longest biography of all the David Wrights, but it's not clear that he is the most important, this may be an example of systemic bias in favour of US popular culture. There are problems judging relative notability between different areas of human activity. It's not clear that this person is a particularly outstanding figure as baseball players go, and the other David Wrights include people who are not obviously less important, e.g. a current British MP, and a British professional football player. PatGallacher (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Simply "David Wright"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. This is clearly the primary topic by the current guidelines. Cúchullain t/c 16:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Wright (baseball) → David Wright – A previous outcome had editors oppose a rename on the basis of "importance" of other David Wright's. Instead, renaming should be determined on how changes would benefit (or hinder) the reader. Currently, David Wright (baseball) has received over 60k page views in the past 90 days. In the same time span, there are only three other "David Wrights" with greater than 1k page views. In second place overall is this one with 2k views; most of the others are under 500. The name of this article should be changed to simply "David Wright." Zepppep (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining "primary topic," if not by page views then? "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." All the other David Wrights combined don't even surpass 60k page views, let alone 10k. "I'm not sure" doesn't carry much weight when one looks at the page views for this article vs. all others combined. Zepppep (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Googling "David Wright" -wikipedia suggests that the ball player is primary topic. Is a soccer defenseman, an MP whose proudest boast is be a former assistant whip, or a swimming coach likely to hit 200 home runs anytime soon? Kauffner (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary topics cares little about what the individual may be notable for -- but the number of Google mentions is pertinent. Zepppep (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I will do a proper primary topic analysis. If you google "David Wright" -wikipedia, on first two pages of results you will find the ball player, a composer in Missouri, an Irish judge, a photographer in Maine, a painter in Tennessee, a photographer in Tennessee, a British MP, an architect, a potter, a Web designer, a professor at Exeter, a harpsicordist, and a professor at McGill. Of these, only the ball player and the MP have their own Wiki articles. I'll throw in the footballer, the runner, the swimming coach, the British diplomat, the Canadian diplomat, the British musician, the American writer, the poet, and the artist as well. That gives us 57,698/(57,698 + 909 + 2,319 + 235 + 458 + 1,175 + 314 + 896 + 521 + 1,115 + 759). So the ball player is responsible for 87 percent of reader interest in this term. That's well over the 50 percent threshold required to be primary "with respect to usage," per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kauffner (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I beg to differ. There is no clear primary topic. This bloke may be well-known in America, but I very much doubt whether many non-Americans will have heard of him. The name is far too common for him to be a primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where the individual may be notable is of no regard per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC-- how often an article is being viewed, however, carries much weight. Zepppep (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what links to the page is an important part of considering whether or not there is a primary topic, and I've added that data below. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Even if baseball is boring, I'm impressed by this person's record. However, even so, there are other people with greater intellectual or physical profession, like poetry or football/soccer. --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Greater intellectual or physical profession"? What policy is that you're using to oppose? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PRIMARYTOPIC also considers, on top of page views, what links to each article. Check out the impressive list of what links to the baseball player. Now look at what links to the British diplomat, the Canadian diplomat, the politician, the guy with the middle initial, the guy with the middle name... Need I go on? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Muboshgu's argument about what links to the articles. AutomaticStrikeout 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This request has already been turned down once. If you are a US (?) baseball fan, the may well be the promary subject for you today, but will be be when he has retired. We a dozen and more article on people with the name, so that having teh dab-page as primary is sensible. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The earlier move proposal, made two years ago, was clearly not sufficiently discussed. The nominator used PRIMARYTOPIC as the reason but didn't provide the evidence that Zepppep, Kauffner, and I have presented this time. Retired baseball players, especially of Wright's caliber, remain primary topics. I have not seen any valid reasons to oppose this move or attempts to challenge the evidence based on page views, incoming links, and external news sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither have I. Besides, if Wright was to lose prominence following his playing days (and remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), we can always rename this page again. AutomaticStrikeout 17:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The proposal wasn't last raised because of the subjects's profession, or where he has his citizenship. Using the outcome of a previous discussion which was solely based upon preference has little to no merit on this proposal. An overwhelming number of readers that are looking for information regarding a Mr. David Wright are looking for the subject of this article (as pointed out by several others and myself). Objections based upon personal preference have no merit, just as support on personal preference would have no merit -- because PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant and so are the searches that have been done by a number of editors as supporting evidence. As others have pointed out, if you can point to a policy or guideline as something which would supersede or overrule it, please do so. Zepppep (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Muboshgu's evidence. Clearly, this David Wright is the most well-known and most searched one. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus Article title policy and statistics to support the motion have been provided by several editors. As outlined here, it appears consensus has been reached. Zepppep (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree that the data is dispositive. I still see no primary. --Bejnar (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Measuring access over a very short period of time can be quite misleading, such as measuring hits on a baseball article during baseball season. Come back with this proposal after he is no longer an active player, and let us see how he fairs. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's a shoddy argument based on the crystal ball view that something about his lasting notability will change when he's retired. He's an All-Star and potential Hall of Famer (depending on how he does in his 30s), so he won't be forgotten. Also, the incoming links (most of them) will still be there when he's retired. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all crystal ball. I'm saying that short run data streams are inherently suspect. Read a statistics book. --Bejnar (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Personal

David and Molly also have a house in Manhattan Beach Ca which is currently under construction. As well as they were married dec 2013 in La Jolla Ca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmowery (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per our policy on the biographies of living people, please provide a citation for that claim. Conifer (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Wright/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== Biography assessment rating comment ==

WikiProject Biography Assessment

This would be a B with some references.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 21:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on David Wright. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:David_Wright"