Talk:Milwaukee Brewers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Portal

Baseball Portal

Milwaukee Brewers is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

1 Going National
2 Seattle Pilots
3 Tommy Phelps
4 I-94 Series
5 post-Braves, pre-Pilots
6 Uniform Changes 1978-1993
7 All time record
8 Topic headers
9 National League move
10 Current Season Results?
11 Throwback
12 Fair use rationale for Image:Brewers 2007 Uniforms.jpg
13 Fair use rationale for Image:NL Brewers Retro Uniform.jpg
14 Fair use rationale for Image:Al 1997 milwaukee.gif

[edit] Going National

In the section "Going National", the writer suggests that the only necessity for having an even-number of teams in each league (and thus necessitating the move of Milwaukee to the National League) is that Major League Baseball was interested in interleague play. This doesn't make sense... interleague play would actually work just fine if each league had 15 teams... all 15 teams would play each other, and no one would be left out of the schedule. Each league needs an even number of teams regardless of the presence or absence of interleague play, because when a league is playing a section of the schedule with in-league games only and there were an odd number of teams then one team would always have an off day, or, actually, an off-series. The odd team out would have to have 3 days off in a row while the other teams played their 3-game series!

I read that and found it odd too. I think the original writer meant intraleague play. MLB would need an interleague series all season long if each division had 15 teams and they still wanted off days primarily only Monday and Thursday. I'm going to change it. If anyone feels it is more correct the old way, by all means fix it.Failureofafriend 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "both leagues would need to carry an even number of teams" is confusing, it sounds like the AL and NL would need the to have the SAME number of teams as the other, which they already had at 15 apiece. Does anyone agree? And if so, is changing it to "each league would need to carry an even number of teams" any clearer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.189.69 (talk) 18:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Pilots

There should be some more info here on the Seattle Pilots. All that there is now is a brief history of the move to Milwaukee. Also, the link to the Seattle Pilots article is simply a redirect to this page. Perhaps the creation of a new article is called for. --Theaterfreak64 03:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

ALso, it doesn't talk about if this team had any notable season... did it?

Yes, just about every year from 1978-1982, but 1982 is the most notable. 1992 was, too. --WikiFan04^{ß 1:16, 18 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

[edit] Tommy Phelps

Tommy Phelps was born in Seoul, South Korea, but is he Korean? I can't find any information in my available sources - including the Brewers' 2005 Media Guide - which provide a certain answer. I do know this much: he has a Western/Anglo name, he doesn't look Korean in his photographs, he lives in the US and does not appear to have ever played baseball in Korea. My hunch is that his father and/or mother were in the US military stationed in Korea and he was born on an American base. If this is the case, I don't believe it would be appropriate for his name to be accompanied by a Korean flag in the rosters. --Veronique 07:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I-94 Series

I made a redirect page for the I-94 Series, linking to the Brewers-Cubs series (also changing the reference on the List of Major League Rivalries). There's a mention on the Interleague play page calling the I-94 series the Twins-Brewers rivalry, but a Google search generates not one instance of this, while at the same time several examples of the name referring to the Brewers-Cubs series. Thoughts on this? Is there another name for the Twins-Brewers? -- GreenLocust 18:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Technically the Twins and Brewers are also connected by I-94, literally, in fact, as the highway goes pretty close to both ballparks. But since the Brew-has switched to the NL, the Twins seldom play them, and whatever rivalry there might have been there is almost not worth mentioning. If you want a *real* I-94 rivalry, though, the Twins and White Sox would fit the bill, better than the Brewers and Cubs do. Wahkeenah 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Minnesota rivalry shouldn't be mentioned. After looking at attendance records, it's clear that Minnesota doesn't generate much (if any) additional fan interest in Milwaukee, nor vice versa. I think for a rivalry to be legitimate, it has to at least motivate fans to go to the games (see the Cubs series for an obvious example). That said, I don't think the Twins-Chisox qualifies either, for the same reason. The only reason I even brought this up was the presence of an "I-94 Series" wikilink on the Brewers page (meant, I believe, to refer to the Twins, since it was in addition to the Brewers-Cubs series link), along with two mentions of the Twins rivalry in other articles, plus one just added to the Brewers page by somebody. I'm going to go ahead and delete those, since I don't think it really qualifies. -- GreenLocust 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and drop it. I don't know about in Chicago, but the critical games with the Sox the last couple of Augusts and Septembers were very well attended here, compared with the normal Dome situation. Of course, it was the heat of the pennant race. I wouldn't say the two teams really have a long and stored rivalry by any means. The one team that really brings the bodies into the Dome is the Yankees. But that's true almost everywhere. Wahkeenah 23:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

When the Twins come to town in Milwaukee there is an increase in fans at the games. They are always well-attended games. They don't play often thanks to the the difference in leagues, but inter-league play helps keep a Minnesota-Wisconsin rivalry going. Is it a huge rivalry? No. It is a rivalry though. Grassferry49 23 August 2005 (UTC).

- Here's the 2004 game log. The three Twins games (a weekend series in June) drew 29, 37, 34K. The next home weekend series, against Cincinnati, with whom there is definitely no rivalry, drew 31, 44, 32K (ignoring the Thursday game, for the purposes of comparison). Given that they play only one home series against the Twins all year, I would expect a bit more evidence of this rivalry to show up in the attendance figures. You can see a similar pattern in the Twins log. I'm from Milwaukee, so I'm sympathetic, but I think it's more of an "armchair" rivalry -- GreenLocust 19:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is anecdotal, but they should know: I have heard Bert Blyleven and Dick Bremer, their TV announcers, talk about how there "used to be" a lot more interest in this series before the Brew-crew switched to the NL. This is not like Vikings vs. Green Bay, where Twin Cities fans make pilgrimages to Lambeau to buy tickets from scalpers. Wahkeenah 19:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, there could be a "rivalry" with the Reds now since they are in the same division. A distinction needs to be made between a "momentary" rivalry and a "traditional" rivalry. The former is situation. The latter is long-term, and is as much geographical as it is situational. But both factors have to be in play. The Twins and the Brewers are still as geographically close as they once were, but they play few games together and those games don't really mean much now. Wahkeenah 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the Brewers went into the National League, the rivalry was instantaneous with the Cubs simply because of travelling Cub fans. county stadium and then Miller Park were overwhelmed by cubs fans who either coudn't get tickets for Wrigley or the drive north was shorter than the drive south. Most Brewer fans who encountered this, myself included, developed a quick disdain for Cub fans who were very derogatory not only to the Brewers, but to city of Milwaukee. Having gone to Brewer games since the lat 70's, I think this is definately a great rivalry now. Especially since the games and series have been very close. Even Bob Uecker got into the action by changing the Cubs version of "take me out to the ballgame" singing, "root, root, root, for the Brewers" instead of "cubbies." brooktroutman

Actually, if a remember correctly, last season the attendance for the Twins-Brewers game was higher than the Cubs games. Also, it is true that the Brewers DO play the Twins every year, as part of the whole interleague rivalry thing. I think it is still mentionable. Cheesehead Fan 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

the milwaukee brewers of the current national league era have one and only one rival: the chicago cubs.--Maximilian77 05:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] post-Braves, pre-Pilots

This article is really shaping up nicely - I agree that the Milwaukee Braves stuff more properly belongs in the Atlanta Braves' entry, and the Seattle Pilots information belongs here. I have added some information about the post-Braves, pre-Pilots era, including Bud Selig's attempts to draw an expansion franchise, the White Sox games played at County Stadium and Selig's deal to move the White Sox because they all relate directly to the founding of the Milwaukee Brewers.Chancemichaels 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

The chronology is a little messed up. The expansion franchises were awarded for inaugural play in 1969, yet the the history says that the strong attendance at Sox games in Milwaukee in 1969 got everyone's hopes up but they were dashed when Montreal, San Diego, Seattle and KC got expansion franchises. This actually happened in 1968, when the extraordinarily strong attendance wasn't rewarded with an expansion franchise. In 1969, the Pilots had already been born, and they actually played a game at County Stadium. How could it be better and more accurately worded? The material is well-researched and referenced.

[edit] Uniform Changes 1978-1993

I'm reverting to the original wording - "the road cap was eliminated" is, I believe, more appropriate than "the yellow panel on the front of the cap turned blue".

First of all, the new sentence is clunky. The front of the cap "turned blue"? Second of all, MLB describes uniform changes using the original words - uniform elements such as alternate caps and uniforms are "added" and "eliminated." -- Chancemichaels 13:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] All time record

I changed the all-time record back to 2,761 wins, 3,100 losses (.471 winning percentage), to reflect the record at the end of the 2005 season. WP is not a news service. --mtz206 (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, WP is not a news service, and we should not introduce content that requires daily updates in order to remain accurate. I don't see the utility in constantly updating their "all-time record" as each game occurs. --mtz206 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mtz206. Readers can go elsewhere to find daily statistics. Royalbroil 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topic headers

Just wondering what the point of "Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" is. I believe "We're Taking This Thing National" was actually the team's slogan the year they changed leagues, so there is actually significance to that. Unless there's some significance here that I'm missing, I'd propose that "Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" be removed. It comes off as being a bit frivolous. Dhmachine31 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" was the headline in the Milwaukee Sentinel the day after the Brewers won the ALCS. We should include the graphic to justify the headline. --Chancemichaels 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Looking at it again, there is a graphic to justify the headline. Prominently displayed in the "1982 memorabilia" photo is a copy of the newspaper. What do you all think about adding the headline back in? --38.117.200.131 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] National League move

Regarding my edit here [1], there is an on-going discussion at my talk page. In general, this section opines using weasel words. If these concerns are valid, they should be presented as encyclopedic facts with citations to reliable sources expressing such concerns, not just innuendos. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully it looks better at least my part of it. Smith03 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see little encyclopedic utility in this statement: "MLB had other options besided moving the Brewers to the National League. MLB could have put both Arizona and Tampa Bay in one league or moved a National League team to the American League." Of course MLB had other options. They had 30 options. Mentioning two of them is not informative. We should present what happened, and only present controversy if it existed to such an extent that it was discussed by reliable sources. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I change it back to your last edit after I realized you had made some changes so it is better than it was when I first saw it . I do however think that "MLB had other options besided moving the Brewers to the National League. MLB could have put both Arizona and Tampa Bay in one league or moved a National League team to the American League." is encyclopedic because it puts out that MLB had more options than just moving an AL team, when I first read the article today the way it was wrtitten it the article impleaded that the only option was to move an AL team to the NL. It is also certainly reasonable to point out or remind readers that Selig both owned the Brewers at this time and was the commissioner that is a fact. No problem letting readers draw their own conclusions from that. Sorry if you feel that I am attacking your team or your work on the article but it certainly is reasonable to raise points about motives behind way this team was moved to the NL (yes it needs to be sourced) yes baseball had 30 options so why did they pick this one?Smith03 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not "attacking my team or my work on the article" - no one owns anything around here. Just trying to ensure encyclopedic quality. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Season Results?

I am very hesitant about having 2007 listed in the season-by-season results, requiring daily maintenance. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Shouldn't we let the dust settle? --Chancemichaels 01:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Agreed, and for that matter, the blow-by-blow account of the 2006 is far too detailed in comparison to other years. In my opinion, the article should focus on events of historical significance that someone reading in ten years would likely care about. As for the 2007 record, there's no real stopping dedicated fans from doing what they will. --Beaker342 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is - we reach a consensus here, and editors will honor it. I think your criteria is a solid one, if we can get a few more people to chime in then we can apply it to the article. --Chancemichaels 16:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Maybe I just don't see the harm in the record changing every day. What would a consensus look like? You can't enter the 2007 record until October? I don't see it working, though I'd go either way. I think the ten year criteria, though I just pulled it out of thin air, is actually a Wikipedia guideline WP:RECENT. Thus, events like the bullpen blowing a game in the 2006 season don't matter. If it was game 7 of the NLCS, it would be a different story. As for the 2006 season summary, I'll say this, it's a lot better than some of the garbage on other team articles. For example, take a look at the disaster that is the Toronto Blue Jays. --Beaker342 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right - that's a mess. As for this page, I don't know exactly what we need for a consensus, but we can wait and see. As for changing it every day, that's contrary to Wikipedia policy - this site isn't a place for current news. I don't think the 2007 season record should be included until it is complete. --Chancemichaels 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] Throwback

The Throwback uniform has been included, which is good. I, however, am not sure where to find out what teams use throwback uniforms and which do not, as well as which throwback is used. I know the Nationals wear the old "Grays" uniforms as well. Is this practice just among these two teams, or can someone tell me where to find what they wear, or give me a good list with an inclusion of what it looks like so I can pick which one off the MLB shop site is used. Silent Wind of Doom 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are regular throwbacks, and then there are one-offs (like the Milwaukee Braves and Milwaukee Bears uniforms this team wears). I think the regular alternates should be included in the box, while one-offs should be excluded - though mentioned in the text if warranted on a case-by-case basis. As to the complete list, MLB does have a comprehensive list of approved uniforms, but I don't believe it is made public any more. --Chancemichaels 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Brewers 2007 Uniforms.jpg

Image:Brewers 2007 Uniforms.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 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 21:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NL Brewers Retro Uniform.jpg

Image:NL Brewers Retro Uniform.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.

BetacommandBot 10:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Al 1997 milwaukee.gif

Image:Al 1997 milwaukee.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.

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) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)