Talk:MVP Baseball (video game series)

It's not fair, is it? It's sad to see that this year's MVP Baseball is the last. I love MVP 2005.

Anyway, anyone else think it's kind of not fair for 2K to get exclusive rights to Major League Baseball? Or for EA to have the NFL monopolized? Let me know.

(All SMiles, May 14, 2005)

Merge MVP Baseball 2005

There is quite a lot of overlap between these two articles. They should be merged. Thoughts?

-Franklin Bynum 03:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I say do it, They are one in the same really. --Bopher1 09:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, the two articles are ver similar ---000

• don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it. don't do it.

• NO Krawhitham 08:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No and here are my reasons: 1) While the existing MVP '05 page references criticism of focus on the red sox, that team did break the curse of the bambino (and only after 86 years, a serendipitious reference to the '86 team, but i digress) and did so in spectacular stadium, sealing the deal in yankee stadium, no less. they deserve their props, and because the game designers were smart enough to weave that in they created something unique.

2) with MLB electing to grant exclusive rights to one company, they have altered the MVP line, and the '06 college game is something else, and if anything the MVP thread should be split into pro + college versions.

3) i think that MLB's decision also could be used to call into question their anti-trust status, that it was an abuse of monopoly power and it hurts the US economy by eliminating competion in the market, uniquely impacting US jobs/companies because these are high-tech, high-skilled jobs that cannot be easily outsourced--can you really outsource the nuances of a baseball game to to programmers in Inida or the Ukraine? ≈Marcus pmi 01:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• • None of those reasons are relevant to this discussion at all. Franklin Bynum 01:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose- It deserves its own page. We are trying to spread knowledge not reduce it. Julz the wizkid
  • We are not reducing any of the information, just putting it all in the proper place. Franklin Bynum 01:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose- It would be like putting all the Harry Potter books into one page instead of a separate page for each. Most books and movies have their own page; they're not lumped into the director/author's page. Why should a video game be any different? --Redthing The Great 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As a note, I've removed the merge tag. Most people seem to be against it (plus it's very old, and probably should've been removed a while ago). RobJ1981 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mvp06ncaabaseball.jpg

Image:Mvp06ncaabaseball.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Players" section

As an inexperienced wiki'er, I'll leave this as a suggestion and leave it for someone else to implement if they see fit.

There is an internal link to Jon Dowd, that is redirected to the section in which the link appears, making it redundant. Furthermore, John Dowd is a genuine historical figure in baseball which may be the root of this naming, I'm not sure if it's worth a menion though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Dowd

I no reference to any other missing players, I'll add a bit but I don't know where to find citations.

--Andyk 94 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jon Dowd (Jon with no H) was apparently the assistant producer of the MVP series.[1] I'm not sure how reliable that link is, though. I don't think there's any connection with the Pete Rose investigator. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MVP Baseball series. 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/20130713030638/http://mvpbo.gametree.co.kr/ to http://mvpbo.gametree.co.kr/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)