Talk:Philadelphia Phillies/Archive 2

Lead dispute

For the discussion regarding the lead of this article and its neutrality, please visit here. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The lede of San Francisco Giants is a fair comparison, since the Giants have the most wins of any franchise. The lede of that article reads, "The San Francisco Giants are a Major League Baseball team based in San Francisco, California that currently play in the National League West Division. One of the oldest of the MLB teams, the Giants hold the distinction of having won the most games of any team in the history of organized sports." Though I believe the inclusion of the 10,000 milestone in the article is important, it doesn't seem to rise to the level appropriate for the lede, and I suggest its initial inclusion there was more an artifact of WP:RECENT than anything else. The purpose of the lede is to give a very general overview of the subject, while the article body introduces detail and supporting facts. This is why the lede should rarely include citations (which should be in the body). How about something like this?

The Philadelphia Phillies are a Major League Baseball team based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the United States. The Phillies are a member of the Eastern Division of Major League Baseball's National League. From 2004 to the present, the Phillies have played their home games at Citizens Bank Park in the South Philadelphia section of the city. The organization is tied with the San Francisco Giants as the fifth-oldest team in Major League Baseball.

The Phillies have won one World Series Championship and five National League pennants in their history, but the franchise has also experienced long periods of struggle. The age of the team has combined with this history of adversity to earn them the distinction of having lost the most games of any team in the history of organized sports.

On a related note, the request for mediation and neutrality noticeboard request seems very premature. Why escalate a discussion that hasn't started yet? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you will please refer to my earlier messages, this issue has already been raised at the WP:BASEBALL talk page; therefore, the discussion has been started. On the other hand, I very much like your new version of the lead. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's try it and see how it fares. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Ya know, it's ironic that it echoes the Giants' lead - the winningest team in MLB - and which began the same year as the Phils. Some got it, and some ain't. :\ Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the year (this one is a different story!) KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

w00t! To clarify my earlier comment, no discussion had been started here, so interested editors didn't really have a chance to see it or contribute. I did see the discussion at WP:BASEBALL after you made your edit, but no one here would have really had a chance to contribute to it.

On a completely unrelated note, I'm thinking we should drop the last sentence of the lede entirely. The loyal fan base thing is WP:PEACOCK and the environmental thing, while kinda cool as article content, is probably not important enough in an article about a baseball team to deserve space in the lede. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 04:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This sentence was added in response to a request in the peer review, saying that the lead should summarize the article. They are important sections of the article; that's why it's included. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The part about the loyal fan base, while probably intended to temper the "losers" angle, is nothing special about the Phils. Every team has a loyal fan base, or they wouldn't exist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the lead needs to be changed it is definitely biased. 71.126.74.65 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the bit about losing the most games in MLB down to the history section and added the better lead-off hanger line about being National Champions. Problem solved now.Thprfssnl (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem had been previously solved per this discussion in July. The changes were already made. I've reverted. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at it the line about having the most losses in the MLB does seem like an important/interesting fact to note in the header of the article and should be kept in there. However I thought it might be worded better if we placed the line "The Phillies are the current National League Champions for 2008" after the "adversity" line. Also, I felt that the wording seemed just a bit forced in that particular line and changed it to "The Phillies are the defending National League Champions." Making the word "defending" the link to the current season 2008.Thprfssnl (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the following sentence is included in this article at all: "...are widely considered the luckiest sports franchise of all time. They narrowly beat out the Denver Broncos." According to whom? The Phold of '64, 10,000 losses, and only having won one World Series in 125 years would support a contrary point of view. The sentence should be taken out completely. 68.163.63.10 (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This was vandalism. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

refering to the adversity and that the Phillies as the loosingest franchise in sports in the lead is too subjective and is content more appropriate later in the article. A reference to the age of the team is much more appropriate in the header. Monkey189 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this issue already reached a consensus, and this is based on the statement in the lead of the team with the most wins; it's extremely similar. In addition, the source you are providing is not team-independent, and this assertion has been challenged by other sources. That is why it is not in the lead. Please cease adding it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is dynamic, so once it is established doesn't mean it has to stay that way. What I am trying to say is that further discussion should always be welcome. That said, having never weighed in on the topic, I agree it should remain in the lead. But I'll take what Monkey189 is saying and interpret it to mean that he believes that including it in the lead violates WP:Undue weight. Expanding the lead to include # of HOF'ers, the Whiz kids, & the '64 collapse may alleviate this perception. But the removal of it (& the reference) while not inserting the reference elsewhere belies your (M189) position that it is "more appropriate later in the article." I have re-added M189's "The Phillies are the oldest, continuous, one-name, one-city franchise in all of professional sports." KV5 - are there claims contrary to this? If not, I think keeping it in the lead makes sense. Comments? Mitico (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen it claimed several places that the Reds have longer continuity though in multiple leagues. I don't have time to find sources at the moment, but that was removed from the lead originally because of that reason. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed "and North American sports in general" from the lead because "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and such a general comment seems far-fetched, how many sports are there in North America, how many games are played at different levels of so many different sports in a season around the country, and the fact that so many the statement doesn't address what level the specific sport is being played at (there could be a team with even more wins that is so insignificant we've never heard of it). In all, the statement is way too loose a term for Wikipedia and therefore misguides the reader. Also, one source is not enough for such a significant statement (see: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources). Thprfssnl (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The source provided itself states that the statistic of 10,000 losses is insignificant. Thprfssnl (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this should have been a new section. This discussion didn't need a bump. Regardless of that fact, see [1] [2] [3] [http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/306582/philadelphia_phillies_reach_10000_losses.html] (this was spamlisted but still qualifies). By removing this information, you discount all of these reliable sources. Please don't direct me to WP:V and WP:N; I've read them, I'm not a noob. I know that the sources are there; does this statement needs all of them? It's the truth and should be included. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of the season, it's hard to imagine any other notable team in some other sport that would approach 10,000 losses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

KV5, calm down. No one was calling you a noob, I provided those links for anyone who is interested in this article. Thprfssnl (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I was never not calm... I just think that WP:V and WP:N are both covered by the sources provided above. This is no fringe theory or extremist viewpoint. It's flat-out, cold hard fact. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fifth oldest?

I am really surprised to see this new information on the site, as I was always under the impression that the Phillies were THE oldest, not fifth. This change seems to not have been addressed in the talk page. The reference link to the claim about the being the fifth oldest is dead, but have we forgotten that the link from mlb.com itself is still up. Wait a minute (searches... and procures). Why the change? JesseRafe (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually they're tied with the Giants for SIXTH oldest. Check the chronology in National League. The Phillies and Giants both date from 1883; the Cardinals, Pirates and Reds from 1882; the Cubs and Braves from 1876. The Dodgers date from 1884. That rounds out the "original eight" from 1900. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image galleries

Apologies for removing the image galleries. The page that I had remembered seeing is no longer valid policy. However, I still think that the gallery is extraneous. My opinion, I suppose, is just one man's thoughts. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I had wondered if you were going off old information, as WP:GALLERY simply states how to set one up, not when to use. Grouping it with uniforms is a good move, as it provides better context. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to make them smaller? Seems bulky as is. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be a size parameter that can override the default. I might even have used it somewhere on my user page. I'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You can add the parameter perrow="5" or whatever after the word "gallery". The default is 4. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried that, but it didn't make the images any smaller... I'd like to try to get them all into one row if I could. I think it would look better. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I don't really know the answer. I think there's something called "Village Pump" here, where someone might be able to help with that techie question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Gallery's link to further info shows some ways to adjust sizes. If nothing else works, you could try asking in an appropriate subject area at WP:Village pump. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Logo gallery

I know that this had originally been resolved, but I found some new information that prompted me to remove it again. Per WP:IUP#Photo galleries, "galleries are discouraged in main article namespace." In addition, "Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article." As all logos are copyrighted and therefore inherently fair use in their application on Wikipedia, they unfortunately cannot be used in this article for this context. Please discuss. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's actual discussion of the images, and they're not just decorations, I don't see a problem with it. Others might, of course. It's a slippery subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I removed them again... there was no discussion, it was just decoration. I don't know if a discussion of the progression of a sports team's logo is encyclopedic or notable. Maybe this is a discussion to bring before the WP. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Defending champions

The Phillies are the 2008 defending National League champions. 71.126.74.118 (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're not defending the championship until the 2009 season begins. So right now they're the reigning champions.Mustang6172 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Both terms are marketing hype. "Current champions" would be best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Future image, post-world series

I live in front of probably one of the best views of downtown Philly. The Cira Center displays the Phillies "P" logo when they win games. I have multiple photos of downtown Philly with the P insignia on the Cira Center. I think WHEN the Phillies win the World Series, this image would be perfect for the Phillies article. It would still stand as a good image, even if they lose. Would that go over well with you Wikipidians? - tbone (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be very appropriate to put in this article (History of the Philadelphia Phillies) in the section about the 2008 season. Inclusion elsewhere is certainly also a possibility. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a cool addition to somewhere in the beginning of the main Phillies article because its so current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thprfssnl (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate for the beginning of the article because that's the history section. I suppose it could replace the Veterans' Stadium marker, but not mentioning the Vet in this article is a tragedy because the team played there for so long. I still think that it belong in the history article, where there is more room for it. It's not really feasible to place it here because of limited space. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I put it in the Recent history section. - tbone (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rated-B Class

I'm a bit confused why this is rated-b class (I read the guidelines) and was wondering how we go about getting this to A-Class.Thprfssnl (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had a peer review toward B-class but I pretty much had to make all the edits by myself. I didn't want to push it much further until I had some committed help. A would be great, but I'd love to get this through GA instead. Let me know if you are interested in helping. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Thanks for a Wonder-Phil finish. The Parade is Friday.

:)

the oldest continuous, one-name, one-city franchise?

In the intro it says "the Phillies are also the oldest continuous, one-name, one-city franchise in all of American professional sports." On the other hand, there were the WWII years when they were called the Blue Jays. Isn't that contradictory? DandyDan2007 (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Even then, their uniforms continued to say "Phillies", while they had a little blue jay patch on their sleeves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Phillies" is short for "Philadelphias", so it's kind of a redundant nickname. It's like if the Chicago Cubs were called the "Chickies" or some such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the name never officially changed; it was part of a fan contest but never caught on. The Phillies' source is slightly disingenuous, because they were technically the Quakers in 1883 (the first season), but adopted Phillies from the media in 1884 and it became the only name in 1890. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Quakers" was also a media invention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As were all team names. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all. Teams like Athletic of Philadelphia identified themselves that way from the beginning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Former uniforms/Controversial uniform changes

The Phillies' primary team color from 1970 through 1991 was crimson, not burgundy or maroon. This fact was stated in all the National League Green Books and The Sporting News Baseball Dope Books throughout that era. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then provide references for that particular fact. In addition, being repetitive doesn't help us at all; the words burgundy and maroon can be acceptable substitutes for the word "crimson," so there's no real problem. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, The Dope Book stopped carrying uniform color information in 1964. Meanwhile, Marc Okkonen's 1991 book on baseball uniforms, recognized as official by MLB, confirms what I recall, which is that it went from red to burgundy in 1970, as part of the new team look connected with moving into the new stadium (which didn't actually happen until 1971). p.64: "The new uniforms ... a deeper burgundy shade of red for the trim color and pinstriping." He also mentions a brief "all burgundy" edition in 1979. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Environmental Record"

I do not see the relevance of this section to the Phillies wikipedia page. Sure, it's great that the team is trying to be environmentally conscious in their new ballpark, but that's not something that defines the team, nor is it one of the top-50 things that anyone needs to know about the Phillies. Furthermore, the peacock-y language of this section virtually screamed, "I was written by a PR agent of major league baseball!" I wouldn't have been surprised to see a picture of the team owner with angel wings and a halo photoshopped alongside.

Thus, I removed the section. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the only one who gets to have the Angel wings is Gene Autry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All that this section contains is statements of fact. Rather than trying to "explain" unilateral deletion of "non-neutral" material, please discuss first. I've restored the section. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there's LOTS wrong with the "environmental record" section. I stated several reasons above. I'll keep going: why not include a discussion of the wonderfully tasteful Miller Lite sold at Phillies games? Why not include a section about the owner's wife and how lovely and kind she is? These things might also be completely true and accurate... and still have no business in an encyclopedic discussion of the Phillies. I think for such an unusual digression from information directly related to the topic at hand, the burden is to show why this section SHOULD be included, not on me to explain why to delete it. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold the phone. I whitewashed no discussion. You wrongly placed a talk topic, which I placed in proper chronological order. I deleted nothing from your comments, and nothing from anyone else's. The environmental record is a unique fact because the team is the first in the league to undertake these green efforts. All of this information is referenced. "The burden is to prove inclusion" is a deletionist argument, and so we've reached a fundamental argument of Wikipedia: inclusionist vs. deletionist. Furthermore, I do not work for Major League Baseball, and neither do the other writers who've worked on this section. I have never claimed to be perfect; neither do I claim to be always right. However, in this case, I believe that I am. Speaking about beer and players' wives and owners' personal grooming, etc., does not belong in THIS article, because those things are not directly related to the TEAM. The team's environmental record is directly related to the TEAM. According to the Wikipedia policy on notability, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The sources provided prove that there is burden of proof for inclusion, especially considering that this is not a stand-alone article and that the threshhold for inclusion within an article is much lower than the threshhold for an entirely separate article. It is also an important part of the Phillies' contribution to the community, which is what this subsection is about. To exclude it would to be omit an important element of the team's contributions. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a Phillies fan, though, so you have to be careful about over-promoting the team. Nearly all of that stuff seems to pertain to the ballpark rather than to the team as such, and it kind of reads like promotion in any case. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the new Nats ballpark is LEED certified, so I don't think the Phils are unique in this regard. Maybe that material would be better suited to the ballpark article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to promote, I'm just trying to provide information. I do take offense at being told I'm flouting policy, however. The ballpark article would probably be a better place for this information, so I'm going to move it there. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Nationals Park article states that is the first LEED-certified MLB park. Is Citizens Bank LEED certified, or is the environmental focus a subset of what it would take to get LEED-certified? I can imagine it might be tough to retrofit it to come up to enough LEED points to qualify. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. Haven't read anything about it though, so I doubt it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what it would take to get the Metrodome LEED-certified. Maybe catching the runoff from the roof into plastic barrels, that could be used to dilute the beer. Or planting shrubbery along the edge of the roof, to provide oxygen for the interior. Or replacing the cloth dome with a gigantic sheet of shrinkwrap, to allow solar radiation to heat the place in the spring and fall months. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be quicker to knock the thing down. Let's do it... now... The Twins fan in me is tired of the baggie. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, moving the section to the ballpark page makes perfect sense. My apologies, KV5, if you merely moved my comments. It looked to me like you had deleted them... but I'm more than willing to engage in discussion about the subject. My fault. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Retired Numbers

Hello, ladies and gentlemen of the Phillies page. I'm currently working on making sure that every page has good quality, accurate retired number images. I came to the Phillies page, and updated the numbers as the ones here were based on the numbers in Veterans Stadium rather than the Citizens Bank Park ones. However, I was unable to find where the retired P's were in the stadium. Are they displayed somewhere in the park? Does anyone know about this? If not, I'll just refine the Veterans Stadium ones. The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually have no idea where they are; if someone in Philly can provide insight, I would appreciate it. Until then, though, SWD, I would suggest just making versions of what you already have (letters on the brick wall) with the appropriate name, for consistency's sake. Also, just a note: I'm going to change the table color back to gray per WP:ACCESS; the blue on brick makes the links hard to read even for me, and I'm not color-blind at all. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

I noticed two of the Phillie Hall of Famers were inducted "without a Philly cap" but are listed as primarily Phillies on the Hall of Fame website: Delahanty and Alexander. Is there a way to separate the fact that they ARE acknowledged primarily as Phillies, to separate them from players who had better success on other teams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.177.186 (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Titling and Denomination needed

We have to put the years in front of each history part, and we also have to divide the parts into smaller parts. As an example of this, there is the New York Mets article. P.R.O.C.K.Y. (Mydoctor93) 10:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The breakdown and more available information is in the History of the Philadelphia Phillies article. For more information, see Wikipedia:Summary style. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I noticed that "World Fucking Champions" automatically redirects to the Phillies page. Is there a way to get that off? 71.190.145.30 (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You could nominate for speedy deletion, or else just wait until the Yankees win it this year, and then you can change the redirect, as it would then be appropriate, yes? >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It redirects because that's something that Chase Utley said when they won... It is specific to the Phillies. So, no, it isn't appropriate to redirect it to Yankees, or whoever wins. -Zeus-^u|c 01:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

1943 & 1944 seasons

I just noticed the following at the top of the "Category:Philadelphia Phillies players" page:

"This category includes players for the franchise that became the present Philadelphia Phillies (1890 - 1942, 1945 to present). It does not include players for other Philadelphia Phillie teams:

"Philadelphia Quakers (1883 - 1889)

"Philadelphia Blue Jays (1943-44)

"See also

"Philadelphia Blue Jays players

"Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster".

I'm wondering why the players in the "Category:Philadelphia Blue Jays players (1943-44)" are not included in the "Category:Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster".

Should the 1943-44 Blue Jays players be added into the "Category:Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster"? Eagle4000 (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster is a list page,not a category and all those players should be included in it.Spanneraol (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I think I now understand the situation better. It looks like the 1943-44 Blue Jays players are in fact listed on the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster page. Their respective pages, however, are not listed under the following Category: Philadelphia Phillies players, per a note at the top of that category's page: "This category includes players for the franchise that became the present Philadelphia Phillies (1890 - 1942, 1945 to present). It does not include players for other Philadelphia Phillie teams: ... Philadelphia Blue Jays (1943-44)." Should I add "Category: Philadelphia Phillies players" to each page for the 32 players of the 43-44 Blue Jays? Eagle4000 (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The only source that is unequivocally claiming that the Phillies officially changed their name in 43-44 is Baseball Reference. The vast majority of other sources concur that the team's name never officially changed, and the team season articles and history articles reflect that. So those players should be included. References to the 43-44 Blue Jays should be removed since we don't reference them that way anymore. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just went to the page for Joe Antolick, the first player listed under "Category:Philadelphia Blue Jays", so I could add "Category:Philadelphia Phillies players" to his page. His page says he played for the Blue Jays and does not mention the Phillies. On each Blue Jay's page, should I change the text from "Blue Jays" to "Phillies"? Also, should I delete the "Category:Philadelphia Blue Jays" (or leave it be), when I add "Category:Philadelphia Phillies players"? Eagle4000 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would make it Phillies all around. We mention the Blue Jays alternate name in the History article and such; that should be enough. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This could be a little different from when the Boston Braves renamed themselves the Bees for awhile, and Baseball Reference is getting a bit carried away here. The Phillies wore a blue jay patch on their shirtsleeves, it's true - on shirts that still said "Phillies" across the front! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've actually e-mailed Baseball-Reference in the past asking for clarification. Even provided them with sources that contradict their pages, but they said "Oh, you're wrong, and we're right". No verification, just that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

They probably have a form letter for it. But this is why old-school record books ignore team nicknames altogether. When the Cubs first started to be called the Cubs in 1902, they were also being called the Colts. The different nicknames appeared in rival newspapers. The Cubs finally adopted it officially in 1906 or so. They finally trademarked it in the late 1970s. Team nicknames are primarily marketing tools. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The baseball guides of that era generally seem to ignore the "Blue Jays" thing, except for the 1944 edition of "Who's Who in the Major Leagues", which calls them the Blue Jays and takes a little verbal shot at them as to whether that will make any difference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with KV5 and Bugs. Also note that the team-season articles are already called 1943 Philadelphia Phillies season and 1944 Philadelphia Phillies season. Any category mentioning the Blue Jays should be emptied and deleted. -Dewelar (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Per your replies and the above consensus, I just began going through the pages of the 32 players listed in "Category:Philadelphia Blue Jays players". I quickly discovered that the second one listed (Jennings Antolonich) is not listed on the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster page. Thus, I was incorrect when I assumed (in my Aug 13; 2:12 comment) that "the 1943-44 Blue Jays players are in fact listed on the [Phillies all-time roster page]". I will (1) add Antolonich and any other "non-listed" players to the all-time roster page, (2) change the "team played for" text to Phillies (instead of Blue Jays), and (3) change the "team member" category to "Philadelphia Phillies players" (instead of "Blue Jays players"). This may take a few days, but I look forward to completing this task. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. It seems to me the Blue Jays thing would have more credence if they had actually changed their uniforms. In 1942 they had temporarily put the word "Phils" on their shirtss and had "officially" changed their name to "Phils". The 1943 or 1944 Sporting News Baseball Guide noted that they had officially changed their name back to "Phillies" in 1943. Not one peep (so to speak) about "Blue Jays". I also wonder what criteria Baseball Reference used to determine that 1890 was the year "Phillies" became the dominant nickname, vs. "Quakers". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's likely from the baseball cards. 1890 is the first year that Phillies was used consistently on cards instead of Quakers, but Quakers was a media nickname; the official team history maintains that the name has been "Phillies" since the beginning. I'd like to see what other sources say as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not likely the cards of that era carried team nicknames. It was typically just the city and the league. Check out even the 1914 card for Branch Rickey: "St. Louis - Americans". The Browns, as opposed to "Nationals", i.e. the Cardinals. The cards from the 19th century probably would have said "Phil. - N.L." or something like that. For some far more interesting reading than whatever Baseball References' possibly flawed take is on it, go to your local library (if you're in Philly) and start reading newspaper microfilm for 1883, 1884, etc., especially around opening day (probably late April) when there's likely to be relatively extensive coverage. Also check out 1887, when the future laughingstock, Baker Bowl, was hailed as the finest ballpark in the land. It wasn't called Baker Bowl yet, of course. And no one knew the Phils were in a race to see who could hit the 10,000 mark first. Just like the 1908 Cubs fans had no idea that was as good as it would get for at least the next century. Youthful innocence! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right... I know I've seen one or two old-time cards (somewhere) with Quakers on them, but even Harry Wright's card from 1884 says "Manager, Philas.", which is short for Philadelphias, which is where the Phillies name came from. That's compelling enough evidence for me, combined with the team history, to want to switch all of the season articles to Phillies seasons. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Phila" is what some of the early Phillies shirts carried also. It seems like they settled on "Phillies" because they couldn't come up with anything better ("Athletics" was already taken). Just as well they got away from "Quakers", which would have lent itself to various jokes as the team got seriously bad. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's even a picture on the Phillies website of the 1942 uniforms. Nothing to do with Blue Jays is mentioned, and no Quakers in the early unis either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That nickname was an indulgence of the owner, and it went over like a lead bluejay. When you don't even bother altering your uniforms, chances are it's not going to catch on. By contrast, Tampa Bay was making uniform changes to downplay the "Devil" part of their name for a year or two before making their name change official. Better marketing available nowadays. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a picture of one of those "lead blue jays" you mentioned... I suppose I could just look up a picture of B. J. Ryan. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I always thought B.J. Ryan looked like the reincarnation of Rube Waddell. Face-wise, at least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I never realized my question about the 1943 and 1944 teams would lead to such a wonderful and educational discussion (for me). As a lifelong Phillies fan but a new Wikipedian (I hope I'm not misusing that word), I never realized the Phillies used to have alternate nicknames. As some would say, "a Phillie by any other name is still ...." Eagle4000 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you live in or near Philly, I would give you the same advice as I gave KV, which is to visit your library and read newspaper microfilm about your team. You'll be amazed at the wealth of info, and the immediacy of newspapers to the events is the closest you can come to taking a time machine. It would be interesting to settle the Quakers/Philadelphias/Phillies question, and also to see, in 1943-44, whether local papers bothered calling them the Blue Jays and/or made fun of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. I just revised the page of Bill Webb, the last of the 32 players who were listed in the "Category:Philadelphia Blue Jays players". There are no longer any entries in that catgeory. Would someone be able to delete that category? I also edited the "Category:Philadelphia Phillies players", so it now says it covers "1890 (I think) to present" (instead of 1890-1942 and 1945-present). I also deleted the link for "Category:Philadelphia Blue Jays players" under "See also". The only player who wasn't listed under the Phillies players category was Jennings Antolonich. I did find, however, a broken link (now fixed) for Leon Riley; he had been listed as "Lee Riley" (his page says Leon). Eagle4000 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Riley seems to have been called "Lee" during his playing days, but "Leon" during his later career as a coach and manager -- the career for which he is now better known. As for deleting the category, you should refer to the categories for discussion page for the correct procedure. -Dewelar (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to the CFD page. I just looked at it; what a wonderful procedure for achieving consensus. It lists several pages to be read before nominating a category. When I have time, I will read those pages and then proceed. Eagle4000 (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

View Source

I tried to add info to the Phillies page, but I can't edit, only view the source. It says that it's restricted to registered users, but I am one. What's going on? John, Paul, George, Ringo 22:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to be an "autoconfirmed" user to edit this page right now, as it's recently been the subject of serious and rampant vandalism. If you'd like, I can insert the info for you if you post it here, or you can edit around and come back to it once you've reached the autoconfirmed threshold (though I'm not sure what that is). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fan Support

The last paragraph of this section needs to be moved and edited. It talks about gimmicks (not promotions, which are things like stadium give-aways or theme nights) presented by the club to attract fans; these gimmicks have nothing to do with the actual support from the fans. If these gimmicks need to be mentioned (and I'm not sure they are really important enough to be mention in the article) I suggest a seperate section titled "Memorable Gimmicks and Promotions" which could include the Hot Pants Patrol (which only existed for a few years at the Vet), teh Great Wallenda's tightrope walk, and Kiteman.

The Phanatic also should be placed in a seperate section, if ony to redirect to the main Wikipedia article, as it has become closely associated with the team.Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for the Phanatic to be an independent section, especially not its own level-2 header. A link to the Phanatic article is more than sufficient, since it has its own article. As to the "promotions and gimmicks", this was already reduced out of this article because it was creating a lot of unreferenced cruft. All of the information that's currently in the section is the major elements, and they are referenced. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole section sounds clumsy and cobbled together to me. Once again I ask- how is team promotions in anyway an indication of fan support?

Upon re-reading this section, I wonder if it needs to be completely rewritten or even dropped from the article. The pschye of the Philadelphia fan is deep and complex and can't be summarized in a few paragraphs. A real accounting of the Phillies fan should start with Pete Adelis "The Iron Lung of Shibe Park" and the tradition of booing both Phillies and visiting players, mention the Burt Hooten razing, and talk about dislike of the New York Mets and their fans. Examples of bad fan behavior, such as the JD Drew "homecoming" could be cited, but put into perspective- in the nations's eyes, tossing two "D" batteries (which never even got near Drew)- has been morphed into a Medwick-like shower of batteries. It should be noted that these incidents are not limited to Philadelphia but precieved by its fans as media exagerations.

With regard to the "promotions", I think its really fluff and of not really of importance. The Hot Pants Patrol were a marketing gimmick just like Philadelphia Phil and Phyllis and the center-field light-up Liberty Bell (and each with a varying shelf-life: I think the Hot Pants Patrol were gone by the end of the 1970's and Phil and Phyllis even earlier). Every team has these marketing gimmicks (re: "The Little Pihranas" of the Minnesora Twins). These things are really minor and not really relavent to the whole of the article. Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thought- wasn't the 700 Level applied to the Eagle fans? I never heard this reference to Phillies fans.Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)