Talk:Boston Red Sox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boston Red Sox 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.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Boston Red Sox: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Need to clean up citations
  • Cleanup: Nice information in the the seperate seasons but these may need their own page - page is getting too long
  • NPOV: Make sure that POV is modified
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Balance issues

Roughly the same amount of space is devoted to pre-2002 as to post-2002 in this article. Granted, the last few years have been significant, but some effort should be made to achieve a more equal coverage of the earlier period, or to trim down the newer portion. Biruitorul 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to "talk" to comment on something that strikes me as fitting here. Along with what you mention, or at least "how" you mention it, the 2004 to present "season wrapups" are what, half the article? My suggestion was going to be to create articles for those seasons alone (and leave much shorter summaries in this article). Not because WP is going to become a play-by-play sportsapedia, but because 04, 07, and the transition from one to the other are very immportant in Sox history. Perhaps other notable seasons could also be researched and detailed in their own articles too? One reason I think this makes sense is that far more people are now likely to make recent "season articles" complex and in-depth than will for the "pre-WP" era. Huw Powell 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Retired numbers

If the encyclopedic content is strong, then it ought to be integrated into the already existing section, not just tacked onto the end. The section already discusses at least Jim Rice and Roger Clemens, so why not combine it together nicely instead of having it on the end? Sorry I reverted it, it just seemed to have been added without thought to how well the entire section read. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I stopped following baseball after the first strike, so that's my excuse for not knowing that 42 was retired by all of MLB. Hence, my surprise when I clicked on 42 to get taken to Jackie Robinson's page, as I was pretty sure he never played for the Red Sox. I thought that this was an error or even possible vandalism. I'm wondering, if should there be a special indicator next to each retired 42 on each MLB team page to indicate that Robinson's number was retired across the board, not just on the team he played on. Clemwang 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is actually not the case, as number 42 is currently in use by Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees. Robinson's number (42) was not retired universally, only be teams that chose to retire it, therefore it needs no special indicator as only certain teams chose to retire it.--72.10.101.109 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is not true. The number was retired universally by MLB. However, players who were already wearing the number 42 could continue to wear it. There were several players at the time who had #42, but Mariano Rivera is the last of them. - Zomic13 16:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lack of a Section Regarding the Royal Rooters

I have to ask why there is no section regarding the Royal Rooters, the fan organization that formed in the late 19th century. The history of this organization ties in closely with early Red Sox Nation, and with baseball's history in general. I suggest that that article be merged with this one, or that this article have at least a small section regarding both the Rooters from the late 19th and early 20th century, as well as the modern Royal Rooters of Red Sox Nation.--72.10.101.109 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? There's an article for both of them (see Royal Rooters, Red Sox Nation), there's no need to paste that information here Doc Strange (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge

Since I don't see any discussion on the proposed merge (of merging Red Sox Nation into Boston Red Sox) by X3210, I will start it off.

  • Strongly Oppose - Red Sox Nation should not be merged. The term for the group of fans is notable (it is mentioned in all types of media, ranging from national (ESPN) to local). There is no reason as to why they should be merged. Red Sox Nation is a term used to describe the fans, whereas the Boston Red Sox article is about the team. -Zomic13 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Zomic13 and frankly I ready don't think the merger template should had even been added before a discussion had even begun with the reasons.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 08:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per both above. I removed the template; if and when someone takes the time to make a case for merging, they should feel free to add the merge template back in. -Pete 10:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reasons given for merge. While I'm sure I could come up with a few, the onus is on the nominee to actually come up with something before meaningful discussion can begin. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. The fans, and type of fans, are arguably the most important part of the team. No fans = no team. For a similar discussion see Talk:New York Yankees#Merge Yankees Universe. --Brewcrewer 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. Both articles are well written, sourced, and the Red Sox article is already way too lengthy. Leave them both alone. Keeper | 76 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • and on another note..., I would like to see the sections titled "2004 Season" and "2007 season" drastically reduced to avoid the perception of recentivism. They both have "main article" redirects, but then go on to tell the WHOLE STORY without pause. Silly repetition of information, and a waste of server space. The sox won 5 world series prior to 2004 and the attention given to them in contrast to the latest two championships proves my accusation of recentivism. I'm not saying that the 04/07 teams aren't important. They are, whether I like it or not. However, in an article about a baseball team that is over 100 years old, these two seasons only account for about 2% of their existence. They deserve mention, some BASICS, then a redirect. Keeper | 76 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed the template seeing no reasons were given. Its also worth noting that BrewCrewer initiated the "discussion" on the Yankees talk page. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar Fix

Could someone who bothers to register change arised->arose 70.5.95.218 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)GMM

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oldredsoxlogo.gif

Image:Oldredsoxlogo.gif 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 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia inconsistent history of Red Sox, Red Stockings, and red socks

The article currently says that the Red Sox get their name from their red socks, but the Atlanta Braves article says that when that NL team, previously called the Boston Red Stockings, changed its name to the Beaneaters, the Americans quickly changed their name to Red Sox. So... these items should be made to agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Both statements are essentially correct. I added some further explanation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
"both statements correct"... hmm, I smell a coverup. Why is this Red Sox page so reluctant to come out and say what actually happened? This American League team saw an opportunity when the local NL team abandonned the name Red Stockings, to "steal" some of the residual trademark good will? They then changed their name to Red Sox, the same season that they started wearing the "iconic" red socks. The name does not come from the socks, the socks come from the name. This page BTW http://www.redsoxconnection.com/stories/pilgrims.html details that the Red Sox started wearing red socks for 1907 same year as the new name, and same year that Red Stockings changed their name. I searched the Red Sox page, and it does not even mention the word "stockings". I just find it weird that Red Sox page maintainers would be sooooo embarrassed that they would not mention that the Red Stockings existed before. I mean, it would remove a little confusion, ya know?
Your citation says "It was not until the following year, 1908, that players donned red hosiery and played under the name 'Red Sox'." That's consistent with the Okkonen book, and with the writeup. The not-yet-Braves broke their tradition and wore white instead of red in 1907. The not-yet-Red-Sox continued to wear blue in 1907. For 1908, both teams donned red. In fact the uniforms were quite similar, except the not-yet-Braves wore a red "B" on their shirts, while the now-Red-Sox wore that big red stocking on their shirts. Both the name and the socks came from the Americans' decision to wear red. "Coverup"? The one team "stole" from the other, for sure, but you have to keep in mind that the two leagues were actually in competition with each other in those days, and that nicknames and uniforms and logos were not trademarked, so the Red Sox were within their rights. As far as "trademark good will" concerning the National Leaguers, the Americans had outdrawn them from the beginning, anywhere from double to quadruple the number of people each year starting in 1901. In 1907, the Red Sox outdrew the Nationals 436,000 to 203,000. In 1908, it was 473,000 to 253,000. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I had an old or broken version in my cache or something. when I wrote what I wrote, I had searched the page and the word "stockings" wasn't even there, so I had no idea what you were talking about :) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
10-4. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Integration

This article needs to cite that the Boston Red Sox was the _last_ major league team to integrate racially. Source: http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/oct/redsox/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzuun (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though it is an embarrassing and sad part of Red Sox baseball history it nevertheless must be included.--72.10.101.109 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Neutrality

Clutch hitting in largely a myth, and should be removed - e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.111.135 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

this article needs to be HEAVILY edited, esp. on parts dealing with other teams. The article is written as a soap opera drama rather than actual news and facts. example: "Despite high hopes that the Red Sox would finally vanquish their nemesis from the Bronx, the series started disastrously for them."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. using words like 'vanquish' sounds like writing from a fan site, not a place to receive valuable information (a team can not vanquish another team, only if they were to buy out that team and disband it, which is close to impossible). I would like remind all editors to write NOT from emotions, but from facts.

if you need to learn more about POV neutrality, please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Adreamtonight 12:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


I agree, and I edited that line with some neutral words, but someone with an English degree would probably best to reword that section; mine is just a temporary fix.

GregX102 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Error regarding 1915 World Series

The artlice states that the Red Sox beat the Philadelphia Atletics in the 1915 World Series. They beat the Philiadelphia Phillies.

Cvermette (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split page

Since this article is current more than 85 kilobytes long, under WP:LENGTH, I suggest we should split the page up, especially branching the history section into History of the Boston Red Sox (a page that is currently a redirect back to the main article). This page isn't even close to something like New England Patriots, currently a Wikipedia featured article. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The page seems just fine - to split it up would just add pages to wikipedia that aren't needed. I'd imagine most people who look up the Red Sox are also at least mildly interested in their history as well. Long page or 2 short pages, they'll both get a similar amount of traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysonjacques (talk • contribs)

I don't know if it's too long. I do know that some teams with lengthy and colorful histories have a separate history page. But inevitably there is the risk of duplication as well as divergence, i.e. contradictions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the treatment of the Patriots article and its related pages, that really seems like a nice, well-organized method of presenting everything. I'd be in favor of the split. The History of the Red Sox franchise could potentially a great read. As for chronicling individual seasons, it would be quite an undertaking to outline every one of the 100+ seasons in Red Sox history, but there are some seasons already written (1967 and 2004-present) and plenty of other seasons worth an in-depth look (for example: 1946, 1975, 1978, 1986). Doc502 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As a RedSox fan and a history buff, I do not have a problem with reading the history of the team and scrolling down to read more current facts about the team.I dont think we have to be that lazy that we require 20 different references and links to click on to get to where we want to go.Quick reference facts are listed on the side of the page.Long conversationg short, I think its fine the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvergoat83 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with splitting this page. We need the History of the Boston Red Sox page to hold the bulk of this information, not the mainpage. Three-quarters of the main page is dedicated to the history. A brief Cliffs Notes version should be left. But it should be a few paragraphs, detailed just the highlights. This needs to happen. PGPirate 14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I wicked agree with splitting. This is a pretty easy thing to agree with. Red Sox, and History of Red Sox. Two articles. This (Red Sox) article should include a summary of and link to History of Red Sox. Make it happen, or I guess I'll start in on it. Beam (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Hmmm... this is a tough decision, but I think that there should definitely be a Histor of the Red Sox page. It is very important and would make it easier to find the information you want. However if this is not to be then there should definitely be a major overhaul of the Boston Red Sox page and history should be the first section -- Cpharding618 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with splitting this page. WP:LENGTH recommends splitting if an article is significantly longer that 30-50K, and this article is more than 90K. I agree with Doc502 in taking a look at the New England Patriots article as a model for how to have a separate history article and with PGPirate to just have brief highlights of the team history on the main article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point Captain-tucker. If that's the case then definitely it should be split -- Cpharding618 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the table from WP:LENGTH giving recommendations, the current Boston Red Sox article is 95K:

[edit] A rule of thumb

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size What to do
> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB .

--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the page should be left as is. It makes no sense to split the page into multiple articles. That just makes it more confusing to find info. It is much eaier if everything is on one pg. That's just my opinion though.

First of all, Captain-tucker, I thought you were in favor of splitting the page and now you're not? What happened? Second of all if you feel that it will become confusing to find information then if we do split the page then why don't we put The History of the Red Sox in a "See Also" section on the main Red Sox page? -- Cpharding618 (talk)

Yes, I am still in favor of the split, that comment is from User:RSocks. The table that copied from WP:LENGTH was not closed correctly so the formatting after my comment was a little offset until I fixed it. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Red Sox seasons article

I will leave this up to you Red Sox fans, members of the Boston Red Sox WikiProject, and interested Wikipedians to decide. I was working on adding links to orphaned Wikipedia pages when I ran across the article page Boston Red Sox seasons. That page is orphaned as of the time of this writing. I suggest that you might want to consider linking to it from this page or merging the content there into this page. Either way, I think it is within your jurisdiction here to decide, certainly more than it is in mine. Jonneroo (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be linked ASAP, does anyone have any idea of the best place to link to it from? I will look if I don't get a response within the next couple of days. Beam 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Needed?

I noticed something that I don't think belongs in the article. It says Henry comes to Boston next to one of the season year. I don't think words like this belong. You should stay one topic. Example:You should only put something that has to do with the World Series. Putting when they won, lost, ect. Thats my sugesstion.--RyRy5 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ALE-BOS-Name-Print.PNG

Image:ALE-BOS-Name-Print.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 ensure 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) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the issue --- Jeremy (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on team nickname - "Americans" never official?

Can anybody substantiate that "Boston Americans" was ever an official nickname of the club? bostonredsox.com doesn't list it in the club chronology[1] the way that other clubs do with their former nicknames (such as the Dodgers[2], Yankees[3], and Braves[4]). More to the point, we have this article "The Boston Pilgrims Never Existed"[5] written by Bill Nowlin, researcher and author of several books on the Red Sox, in which he says:

The team was also not named the Boston Americans. That was perhaps the most common nickname - to distinguish it from the older N.L. club in town

and

Stout and Johnson, earlier in RED SOX CENTURY, noted what I found in my own reading of the several Boston daily newspapers of this era, regarding both the AL and NL teams in Boston: "Neither team had a nickname, nor would they for several more seasons. Both were simply called 'the Bostons,' although to differentiate between the two clubs, fans, sportswriters, and players commonly began referring to the NL entry as 'the Nationals,' and their American League counterparts as 'the Americans.' Other nicknames, such as the Pilgrims, Puritans, Plymouth Rocks, Somersets (so named after owner Charles Somers), or Collinsmen (after manager Collins) for the AL team and the Beaneaters, Triumvirs, or Seleemen (after manager Frank Selee) for the Nationals, were convenient inventions of the press. Their subsequent use by many historians is misleading. None of these nicknames was ever widely used by either fans or players."

The use of "Americans" as a casual nickname referring to the league, not an official nickname, jives with other contemporary use of the name, such as these Fatima cards[6] in which all the teams are identified as "NEW YORK NATIONALS", "PHILADELPHIA AMERICANS", "BROOKLYN NATIONALS" and the like.

So can anybody provide evidence to the contrary? Perhaps "Americans" should be included with "Pilgrims," "Somersets" and "Puritans" as one of the many unofficial nicknames by which clubs were referred to in the early 20th century. SixFourThree (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

They had no official nickname at all until 1908, when "Red Sox" was adopted. "Americans" is the closest they came, with shirts sporting "B A" at one time. That one SABR researcher, the one you referenced, named Nowlin, and he's referenced in the article, studied this matter at length. "Pilgrims" is largely a fiction. The names you list were dubbed by the press. "Americans" is the one most commonly used by the press. Nicknames had a different stature then than they do now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right - they did. But the article doesn't make that clear, and certainly implies that "Americans" was an official nickname. It favors "Americans" and doesn't list the other unofficial nicknames used. I think this might be the relevant passage from his article:

In general, the feeling I was left with was that the team really did not have any name, nor did it have a common nickname. Even though the team was often described as the "Boston Americans," that was more often in the headlines than in the story. Even then, one did not get the impression that this was meant to be taken as the name of the time; it seemed more simply a way to distinguish the column presenting the AL team's coverage from that of the NL team's.

Though it's convenient (and enjoyable) to have team nicknames, I believe that, in this case and the team's 1902 uniforms notwithstanding, it would be inaccurate to state definitively that the team nickname was the "Americans" - the designator "Bostons" was used as often. Probably we are better off concluding that the team really had no nickname until "Red Sox" became established prior to the 1908 season.

We should make this clear in the article, possibly listing including "Americans" along with some of the other names given to the team in the papers, and explanations where appropriate. Maybe even a notation that while "Boston Pilgrims" seems to have been applied retroactively to the team, and the misconception persists that it was an early nickname, there is no evidence that it was used contemporaneously. What do you think of that approach? SixFourThree (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
Yes, it should be made clear in the article (which I thought it was at one time, maybe somebody messed with it) that "Americans" was a convenient designation by the press, not an official nickname. Keep in mind that the use of "Americans" vs. "Nationals" was by no means exclusive to Boston. It was used by other cities, especially in New York. Read the notes on the Yankees in History of baseball team nicknames and you'll see how casual the press was with these names. If you want to call the pre-1908 Red Sox by their proper name, you should call them "Boston American League Baseball Club". Or would you rather just say "Boston Americans"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been considering adding a notation about that "Americans" and "Nationals" thing to the other relevant clubs[7] for a while now. For the purposes of this article, I think we should try to avoid "Boston Americans", as to our modern ears it implies an official nickname. Let me take a crack at it today and we'll see what we can come up with. SixFourThree (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
The issue of nicknames is a slippery slope. You might get that hint from the History of team nicknames article. If not, I need to write it better. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Bostonians" is not proper, as that means a citizen of Boston. "Boston" (short for "Boston Baseball Club") would be proper, as would "the Bostons". "Boston Americans" (short for "American Leaguers") is also proper, if it's understood as distinguishing from "Boston Nationals" (i.e. National Leaguers). The problem is that fans are so nickname-conscious that "Boston Americans" is liable to be thought of as a nickname rather than as simply designating the American League. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that's why I was trying to weed them out - I left it a reference to "Americans" in the section on the first World Series, when they are being contrasted with their National League opponents. Can't believe that I missed the infobox before, though. SixFourThree (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

[edit] Factual error regarding Tony C

He was the youngest American League player to hit 100 hrs. Mel Ott was actually the youngest player in MLB history to reach the 100 hr threshhold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.167.222 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Crimson Hose

I saw that one of the nicknames listed for them is the Crimson Hose. I've never heard it, and the citation is from a blog where it looks like it is used as a joke. I'm going to remove if no one is against it. Tithonfury (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Go into Google and put "boston red sox" "crimson hose" and you will find a few hundred entries. I don't know how commonly it's used, but it's not a joke. It's in contrast to the Chicago White Sox, who are often called the "Pale Hose", at least by writers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I heard from a Red Sox fan who is unfamiliar with that term and concludes it is not widely used. You could either put a "cn" on it, or delete it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, I see that now, but I don't think it's commonly used. Although it's such a minor part of the article I'd just say leave it as is. Tithonfury (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be more challengeable if it were listed in the infobox. Teams have all kinds of nicknames (some of them unprintable), but only the ones commonly used belong in the infobox, and near as I can tell, this isn't one of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Roster

Somebody has vandalized the current roster and it needs to be rectified (whoever fixed it, thank you kindly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.170.64 (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I have failed this per criteria 3 of the quick-fail criteria. Good articles should not have templates for clean-up needs. This article has two related to shorting the article. When the concerns of the templates are addressed, considering renominating for good article status. Metros (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Billbuckner.jpg

The image Image:Billbuckner.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Sox-Devil Rays rivarly

Hi, recently there's been a lot of tension between the Red Sox and the Rays vying for first place which has even elevated to physical violence. Meanwhile the Red Sox-Yankees relations have well... been alright, at least amongst the players. Such a rivalry has even been suggested by SoxSpace founder and second runner up for the president of Red Sox Nation, Jared Carrabis[1].--Cpharding618 (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)