Jump to content

Talk:Hazel Mae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

"The face" of MLB Network

Why does this entry — twice — call Mae "the face" of the MLB Network? By my count, there are at least 18 on-air talents, including five studio hosts (whereas Mae is one of two reporters).

Also, why is this entry locked from changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.151.154 (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Mae either "is the former" or "was". She "was" not "the former." That's redundant and she is not dead yet so it doesn't make any sense. Correct that grammatical nightmare. 134.88.167.182 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

[edit]

It has just been announced that Hazel Mae is returning to Rogers Sportsnet in Toronto as their Prime Time anchor at 6:00 on Sportsnet Connected.

Hazel Mae returns to Sportsnet

HyperDriver (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has been added to the article. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 6 April 2013

[edit]

There is a Toronto, Ontario, CA High School yearbook photo of current Toronto Blue Jays reporter Hazel Mae, on http://www.hazelmae.net/hazel_mae_pictures/Hazel_Mae_In_Toronto/image37.htm. It states her name to be "Hazel Cagulada". One quick look at it, and you can clearly see it is, in fact, Ms. Mae. Also, the bio page for Hazel on http://www.fanpix.net/gallery/hazel-mae-pictures.htm, lists her full name as "Hazel Mae Cagulada". All the other details for her bio here exactly match those currently shown on Wikipedia. I am simply trying to bring her "actual, birth last name" to the attention of someone more Wiki experienced, to see if they believe my two sources here (granted, not exactly "Encyclopedia Brittanica") have enough credibility, in your opinion, to warrant an update to her page. Many thanks! 69.37.235.107 (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The first link you provided is dead and the second is a fansite with what appears to be user-generated content and therefore not a reliable source. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]