![]() | Around the Horn is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?
Does anyone else think this show is rigged?
I can think of other instances of Around the Horn:
Neither of these has an article right now, but isn't a DA page warranted? Sympleko ( Συμπλεκω) 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is it possible for the all time wins list to be updated? If it's possible to be updated now, I will try my best to update it daily. AWBricker 16:34, 11 April 2006 (CT)
Does anyone know whether the panelist have preplanned which sides they will be on during the showdown?-- Skroha 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Umm... that page is deleted. TimHowardII ( talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I put the panelists into a table. If it's unliked then I'm completely fine with someone reverting it. I will go ahead and place the stats into boxes, too. Unless someone objects. Chickenmonkey 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In the "Wins by City" table, is the amount each panelist has won really neccessary? The same information can be found right above in the "All-time wins" table.
Chickenmonkey
22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article compares against the six good article criteria:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Actually, the ATH Yahoo group does have an episode list from the beginning. Although many don't have the day's panelists, and it hasn't been updated in a year. Mshake3 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know what makes TV.com verifible. Mshake3 17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's visit the entry on the Criticism of Beauroracy:
Sound familiar? JAF1970 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 today 155.33.109.198 ( talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Since Running Gags on PTI is back - did anyone preserve the Running Gags for ATH? JAF1970 ( talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.189.97 ( talk) 10:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
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. umrguy 42 22:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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% |
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)
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)
The chart has apparently been taken down, along with the former panelists, however, the updated Active Panelist Statistics will continue to be maintained in the talk section, and will only be edited by me, the original creator of the table, however with multiple counts by others this resulted in the number of appearances counted. Around the Horn does not show the number of appearances in the intros or the winning percentage, and I have kept a count for the last 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwade035 ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Effective 11/5/18, the program will adopt a new logo.
espnmediazone
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)
Tony, you reading this? Today "Back in four minutes. Honesty is important." NjtoTX ( talk) 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Around the Horn is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?
Does anyone else think this show is rigged?
I can think of other instances of Around the Horn:
Neither of these has an article right now, but isn't a DA page warranted? Sympleko ( Συμπλεκω) 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is it possible for the all time wins list to be updated? If it's possible to be updated now, I will try my best to update it daily. AWBricker 16:34, 11 April 2006 (CT)
Does anyone know whether the panelist have preplanned which sides they will be on during the showdown?-- Skroha 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Umm... that page is deleted. TimHowardII ( talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I put the panelists into a table. If it's unliked then I'm completely fine with someone reverting it. I will go ahead and place the stats into boxes, too. Unless someone objects. Chickenmonkey 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In the "Wins by City" table, is the amount each panelist has won really neccessary? The same information can be found right above in the "All-time wins" table.
Chickenmonkey
22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article compares against the six good article criteria:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Actually, the ATH Yahoo group does have an episode list from the beginning. Although many don't have the day's panelists, and it hasn't been updated in a year. Mshake3 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know what makes TV.com verifible. Mshake3 17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's visit the entry on the Criticism of Beauroracy:
Sound familiar? JAF1970 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 today 155.33.109.198 ( talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Since Running Gags on PTI is back - did anyone preserve the Running Gags for ATH? JAF1970 ( talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.189.97 ( talk) 10:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
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. umrguy 42 22:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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% |
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)
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)
The chart has apparently been taken down, along with the former panelists, however, the updated Active Panelist Statistics will continue to be maintained in the talk section, and will only be edited by me, the original creator of the table, however with multiple counts by others this resulted in the number of appearances counted. Around the Horn does not show the number of appearances in the intros or the winning percentage, and I have kept a count for the last 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwade035 ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Effective 11/5/18, the program will adopt a new logo.
espnmediazone
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)
Tony, you reading this? Today "Back in four minutes. Honesty is important." NjtoTX ( talk) 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)