Talk:Houston Astros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Houston Astros article.
Article policies
Houston Astros 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:

Contents

[edit] Colt .45's

Perhaps a section could be added on why the name was changed from the Colt .45's to the Astros?

Workin' on it. Wahkeenah 05:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective

IMO, the breathless synopsis of the 2005 season, obviously written only a couple days ago, is awash in needless detail and sorely lacking in perspective. It painfully clear that it was written by a fan -- thank God every article on Wikipedia doesn't look like this. It's very amateurish.

I suggest, in about a year, someone go back and whittle this entry down by about 75%.

If the Cardinals make a comeback, you won't have to wait that long. Wahkeenah 01:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Perspective

If the astros do make it to the world series (provided they dont choke), then there does need to be a section for this year in the astros entry. The astros have never won a penant; it is a big deal. (unsigned comment from User:128.194.131.128)

Maybe you should take a look at the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim article. Two very similar franchises, both entered the league about the same time, both had heartbreaking playoff losses, both waited about the same time for their first trip to the World Series, heck they both even have six letter names starting with "A". See the section about the 2002 World Series. Quite a bit more condensed then the current 2005 section of the Astros page. --Holderca1 18:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon, cut them some slack. It will be over in a few days, one way or another, and you can make the article more succinct once the giddiness factor has diminished. d:) Wahkeenah 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The trend around here has been appeasement for one year, then the emotional attachment is gone, and the article can be converted to conform with the rest of the teams. I imagine if the Dodgers would have left Brooklyn in 2003 instead of '57, then I bet there would be separate pages for Brk and LA. If you look at teams that won the Series since Wiki started, those teams had an overdose of current events, then it was phased down to a reasonable article after a year or so. Maybe it is a fight not worth fighting until next year. Ah, that is just me talking, not like I have a gun to anyone's head.--CrazyTalk 23:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That style of persuasion would be the Big Bang Theory. Wahkeenah 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It's rather silly to have a World Series section under the Astros entry when there's already a 2005 World Series entry. Retropunk 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, these details could simply be condesned into a description of the teams' '05 playoff run. --Madchester 06:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
You might soon be able to make a clean sweep of it. Wahkeenah 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You guys played a good World Series. Even though, as a Chicago native, I'm happy with the outcome, you all were honestly one pitch away from winning most of those games. We just got luckier (Some would call it cosmic payback for the 2003 Cubs flameout, especially with that Game 4 Uribe catch. Anyways, you all can hold your heads high, and we'll see you again next year. :) Palm_Dogg 15:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I removed a lot of details for the 2005 NLCS / WS. There was just an asinine amount of information. If anyone really thinks it's necessary to have all the junk in there, go ahead and revert. Retropunk 22:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The ESPN guys talked about how physically and emotionally drained the Astros were, after a season-long comeback effort, an 18-inning game with the Braves and a tough LCS with the Cardinals. The Sox were well-rested. The total margin of victory in this Series, only 6 runs, has to make this one of the most evenly-matched sweeps that has ever occurred. Wahkeenah 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Game 4 was a microcosm of their entire season. How many games did they lose this year 1-0? Also, I knew the series was over before Game 3 when they made such a big deal about the roof being open. It seemed they were more concerned about about the roof than the White Sox. --Holderca1 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yah, and the closed roof and the deafening noise didn't seem to bother Albert Pujols that much. Actually, the Series was effectively over when the Rocket went down in inning 2 of the first game. The 'Stros probably went as far as they could be expected to. Wahkeenah 17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Season by Season records

There is already one in the Kansas City Royals article. Can anyone put one here in the Astros article, this is coming straight from an Astros fan.

I also can't believe after all the good revampming and edits no one has even dared to even put a season by season record list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.114.193 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Current results

I removed this section. It probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, since it's more like daily updated news. 161.40.22.50 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manager of the year

The Sporting News began presenting the first Manager of the Year award in 1936. Originally, the award was given to just one manager a year, but since 1986 a winner has been chosen from each league.

The Associated Press went the other way. From 1959 through 1983, the AP chose a manager of the year for each league, but now gives just a single award.

The Baseball Writers Association of America has named a manager of the year for each league since 1983.

So, pre-1983 this page (and most teams) use The Sporting News award as it was the first. Please don't continue to change it to the AP version. Cjosefy 13:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top 3 in K's?

This got added to the intro of the article today. It's not intro material, but it might be an interesting note somewhere in the article, if it can be vetted:

The Astros are the only team that's had Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson (the top three on the all-time strikeouts list) on their roster at one point or another.

Anybody got time to verify it, or do you think it's not even worth the effort? —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Its easy to verify, just go to all three of their's page and it'll prove it-DarkestSideX 04:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

The record-by-year and the succession boxes have cluttered the page - to the point where I can scroll and they are the only visible items on my 1280x800 screen. -- Win777 16:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The only clutter "offender" I see is the table of contents, which is huge and to the top of the article, but I don't advocate deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed some sections and shorten a title that made the TOC way too wide. I would advocate moving the No-hitters section in the Trivia area and condensing it. Retropunk 06:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the no-hitters section and added the two noteworthy no-hitters (Mike Scott's division clincher and the 6 pitcher no-hitter) to the trivia section.Cjosefy 07:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garner

Under "2004" it says that Phil Garner had been a member of the 1980 division winning Astros team. He was not. He was, however, a member of the 1986 Astros club. I changed it.

[edit] Minor League Affiliations

This article is missing the Minor League Affiliations section. I've added the header, can someone add the content? --CPAScott 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Removed a section that was POV against the GM. I'll admit hes bad, but the section it was in was wrong (shouldn't be in 2006 section), and it was too slanted POV. 24.167.68.211 00:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] uniforms

has anybody noticed that the uniforms are wrong? what about the red ones? 128.42.155.172 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NLDS, WS, NLCS boxes

There's no reason to have this data in here for the pure purpose for showing predecessors and successors. This can be easily found on the NLDS, WS, and NLCS wikis. They have no encyclopedic value to the Houston Astros wiki other than to show they won the NLDS, WS, and NLCS, which is available in the infobox. Retropunk 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You can weigh your opinion at the Baseball WikiProject. Retropunk 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Texas Agreement"

I've removed this section, which is a complete hoax and runs afoul of WP:LIVING. There's a discussion at Talk:Texas_Rangers_(baseball)#.22Texas_Agreement.22_removed, where one editor bought the book that was the source for this material and found no mention of any "Texas Agreement." If someone tries to restore this section, it should be removed on sight. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivals

where does it end? There are now five rivals listed. It seems pretty subjective to me, and I'm not clear on how they are determined. If the Astros come in second to the Reds next year, should we add them to the list? I just think there are too many.Loganck 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

how are the CUBS RIVALS?!?! someone should fix that. Lindell005 06:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would like to add new category.

I would like to ad "Category:Wikipedian_Houston_Astros_fans" at the bottom, but figure I'd bring it up for discussion first, if no one has any objections, I'll do it at the end of this month. --Hourick 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:World Series Logo 2005.png

Image:World Series Logo 2005.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 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)