Talk:Philadelphia Phillies/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archive of talk page conversations for the Philadelphia Phillies page. Please do not edit this page or change conversations. Raise any questions or new issues on the main page. If there is an issue here you would like to discuss, please make a new topic here.

Contents

[edit] Phightins

Never. Ever. have i heard of ANYONE calling the phillies the "Phightins." NEVER. I have heard of course the Phighten Phils. But never just the Phightins. nope nada no. born in philly lived there forever and have never ever heard it. it is NOT a nickname for them.


I completely disagree. I am from the area as well and Harry Kalas calls them the Fightins all the time. It is a legitimate shortening of Fightin Phils. I am not a big fan of spelling it with a Ph, however. Ragefather 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • So, how does Harry spell it? Ironically, some newspapers used to call them the "Fillies", no doubt a little joke of some kind, ya know, horsing around. Wahkeenah 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The phightens is idiotic. no one uses it. its like calling the boston redsox the reds. der. id like to see either vote on this phightins thing or a footnote citing its use somewhere. really.
The "Fightin's" is a commonly used name. This doesn't mean that everyone on the street says it, but it is often used in the media, akin to The Iggles. JesseRafe 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Alot of people use the nickname. It should stay in the article. Ironically, I hear no one, intentionally or not, mispronounce the Eagles as the Iggles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefsalsa (talk • contribs)
Yes, the Phightins is often used by harry, comcast sports net, and I see it used time to time on the Phillies wesbite (including the fan forums) Rawboard 01:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This convention continues to be changed on the main article. We have reached the point where we are violating the three-revert rule even though the content has been sourced. I am going to ask for mediation if it happens again. Killervogel5 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The team have traditionally been called both Fightin Phils and Fightins. HOF broadcaster Harry Kalas says Fightins fairly often I believe. Regarding ehe spelling of Fightin, Ph or F---while I will admit that many sportswriters and print reporters in general (mostly national) like to use the PH spelling for words beginning with F because it makes for a snazzier headline, MOST Philadelphians shudder at that conceit. Basically it is tired and trite. The Phillies traditionally, even though they have an alliterative double PH name, have shied away from usung the PH where not appropriate, the one notable exception being the Phillie Phanatic. The nickname Fightin Phils goes back at least to the 1940's when the Phillies played second fiddle to the Philadelphia Athletics. The Phillies, perennial doormats, rarely got big headlines and when they did it was usually about how they never rolled over in defeat---they fought to the bitter end. Print adds from the period would never submit Ph for F. That whole deal is a fairly modern convention---it's cutesy and cloying and tends to look silly above copy. I submit that officaillly (semi-officially I guess) the name is the Fightins. For headline purposes Phightins can be substituted but for teh academic purposes of teh article would be inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.235.140 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are you contradicting yourself? You said it's OK in some aspects, but not in others? And besides, who are you to make that judgment? I can source my changes and reverts. However, you need to be able to cite such statements and claims, like "MOST Philadelphians shudder at that conceit", "The Phillies traditionally, even though they have an alliterative double PH name, have shied away from usung (sic) the PH where not appropriate", and other biased claims, especially the "Basically it is tired and trite" remark. That just shows that you are not a fan of it. But just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Source your claims, then we'll talk. EaglesFanInTampa 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Are we confusing the Phillies with the Phantoms? That's where you'll find the gratuitous PHs... 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Source: [1]

Source: [2] Please note the item about the team-sactioned McDonald's "Fightin' Phils" cap.

Source: [3] A vintage "Fightin' Phils" 45 RPM record dating from the 50's. You can buy it if you like to make sure it's authentic.

Source: [4] Phillies-sanctioned (notice the logo and the MLB decal) "Fightin Phils" t-shirt.

Source: [5] An authentic 1950 Whiz Kids/"Fighin Phillies" banner.

Source: [6]

Source:[7]

Source: [8]

Source: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.235.140 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sources should be linked on the main page, and some of them are valid, but for example, a source from a Mets blog would not be a verifiable Phillies source. Neither would eBay. Two verifiable sources from reputable news agencies were placed for the other spelling, and they have since been removed. Killervogel5 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sourcing policy. The ebay links are for context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.235.140 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that the page has been semi-protected, can we go in and revert the changes back, or would that still break the 3RR rule? EaglesFanInTampa 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No dice. We have to wait for mediation. Until then, it stays. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this issue has died down now that the protection has expired, but I am going to ask for mediation on this issue later today. Anyone who has something to add should do it before that time. Killervogel5 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a flyer from 1976 that says "Celebrate the bicentennial with the Fightin' Phils. I have also have a copy of the song "The Fightin' Phils" on 45, like the record on sale in eBay that I linked to (it's a crappy song, Phillies Fever is better---marginally). I have a Fightin' Phils t-shirt (similar to the one I linked to, but older) that I got at the Vet on fan appreciation day about a decade ago. Search the Daily News/Inquirer archive and you will turn up hundreds of articles where the team is referred to as the Fightin's. Type in "Phightin's" and you will get exactly 9 hits. If that's too local, go to NewsLibrary.com which sources 2052 news titles across the country. Type in "Fightin' Phillies" and you will get 916 hits. Enter "Phightin' Phillies" and you'll get 50. --Thefestooner (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm thinking of taking this case for the meditation cabal. Please determine if the case still needs meditation. If not, remove it from WP:MEDCAB. If so, please tell me on my talk page. Thank you. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 23:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well guys, what do you think? Are we OK with this compromise edit (both spellings), or should we let an outside voice determine how to proceed? Like I've said previously, I personally use the "Fightin'" spelling (and yes, I know, I was on the "other side" of this issue, if they can so be called), and I think that I am fine with leaving them both up there. I was not so concerned about the spelling; moreso about the intimations that there is no culture to change F to Ph, because that's just certainly not true. Input from all others is welcome, so we can decide whether our mediator will be able to help out. Thanks! KV5 (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision

[edit] Update

Editing/expansion help is now needed within the article's "Franchise history" section, beginning with subsection "1976-79." Thanks. —Smuglife 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

Hi everyone,

I am currently beginning the process of revising and rewriting this entry as it is very unorganized and incomplete. Most of the content looks copied & pasted, which is helpful, but not entirely readable. So if anyone has any suggestions, comments, or ideas (esp. concerning section & sub-section divisions) please feel free to leave them here on the talk page. I would at least like to see this article reach the level of B-class.

Thanks, Smuglife 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diversity

Hi.

I take issue with the "lack of diversity" noted in the Philadelphia Phillies article. Please note the following black/latino players on the 1993 roster:

Wes Chamberlain, Kim Batiste, Mariano Duncan, Milt Thompson, Ben Rivera, Juan Bell, Ricky Jordan.

These players were no bench riding scrubs. They were an integral part of that team's success, and much admired by the Philadelphia fans.

--Brendan O

Sir, this is a Wiki. You can add them yourself. - Fennec 16:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I made some changes to the section concerning the fans. It seemed too much like an apology/rant for my tastes, so I spotlighted the fans loyalty and appreciation for hustle instead.

Zjac7

[edit] Team History

The Worcester team has nothing whatsoever to do with the Philadelphia Phillies other than the fact that the Phillies took Worcester's spot when Worcester folded. They are separate ball clubs, as noted in the text, so the info box has wrong information. I will remove the incorrect information unless someone has a legimate, albeit bizarre, reason to keep it. --Leshii 04:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the references to the Phillies having been named the Worcester Rubylegs and having played at Worcester's park from the infobox to match. Unfletch 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the establishment date to 1883 so that the information in the text matches the information in the infobox. --Leshii 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cubs have been in Chicago continuously since 1870. Even if you count the two years they dropped out of the National Association, their return in 1874 predates the Phillies by nine years.--MrCub 22:55 UTC+6, 10 July 2006

Ah, the sentence previously said "one-location, one-name" team; the Cubs originally had another name. I took out "one-name" when I found the two cited refs (the CBS.com one looks pretty authoritative) that say the Phils were originally called the Quakers. I think this is kind of a trivial distinction anyway; I'd correct it and move it under the Trivia heading.--BillFlis 13:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The team changed its name - formally - for two seasons in 1944-5, thus disrupting the continuity of the name, no? Look at the inset: Philadelphia Phillies (1946–present). I guess the distinction would properly belong to the Cincinnati Reds (since 1890, depending on how one interprets the use of the name "Redlegs" in the McCarthyism days) otherwise to the Pittsburgh Pirates (since 1891). KriZe 14:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The Phillies never formally changed their name to the Blue Jays (the 1944-5 name you're referring to). Their own site says "...in a contest among fans to pick a new nickname for the team, Blue Jays was the winner. It never became the official nickname, and was phased out by 1949." Unfletch 09:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Old team logos may be found here.--BillFlis 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Series

I'm going to add the years they won the World Series as the Philadelphia Athletics. Noting that that was the teams name at the time.

  • And I'm going to revert your change. The Athletics were a different team, in the American League (and now the Oakland Athletics). Jeff Worthington 20:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roster

Where can one edit the roster as it stands now? Someone else can add that Brito is on the roster now, but I'd like to know for future reference...

Philadelphia Phillies roster →Vik Reykja 15:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's all please use that page for roster changes, so this page doesn't have to be edited so much and to keep the size of the article down. JesseRafe 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguate.

Could someone add a disambiguation link to the top of the page? I got here looking for Phillies cigars, not the team.

I wrote an article on Larry Anderson the Phillies Broadcaster, but the link is to Larry Anderson a magician...how do I change it to the disambiguation?

  • Done. Check it and you'll see how. Baseball Bugs 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Fans

Am I missing something? Why are Adolf Hitler, Saint Peter, etc. included?--ThreeAnswers 04:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Rowand

I'm sure this is the wrong place to ask this but does anybody have any idea how I might be able to find out what number Aaron Rowand wore on his jersey when he played at Cal State Fullerton??

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dermokichwa (talk • contribs) .

You might want to contact the athletic department at CS-Fullerton, http://fullertontitans.cstv.com/. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History and Team's Name

The early history here disagrees with official history here:

http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/phi/history/timeline01.jsp

--South Philly 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty funny! My web search overwhelmingly indicates that they were named the Quakers from 1883 until 1890. No mention of that at all on the Phillies' own site. It would be nice to let them know, but I don't see any way to contact them on their web site. This site has lots of pix of old baseball cards, including several "Philadelphia Quakers," but unfortunately none of them show the team name on the card (only the city name), which I think would be a real clincher. Here's another interesting site. Now some anonymous user has used the Phillies site to back up the claim that they are the oldest one-name, one-city team in pro sports.--BillFlis 17:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but I wanted to dicuss this before I made a change. Every book source I've ever read has stated that the Quakers, blue jays and live wired were all unofficial names. In fact the history section the phillies website at www.phillies.com states that they started in 1883 as the phillies. Isn't that the source we should lsiten to on the subject of thier naming? CharlieFandango September 20th, 2006

This great mystery has been discussed, see just above. There are five cited references in the article, all of which say that the team was originally officially named the Quakers. See also the U. Penn and baseball-card pages I cited just above. Here's another. Also, if you go to the official National Baseball Hall of Fame site and search for any of the old players (e.g., Ed Delahanty, Sam Thompson, Tommy McCarthy), it will list them as Quakers until 1890, when they became the Phillies; click on the link there to "Research Library" if you doubt their credibility. I have a question for you: Might "Quakers" later (after they officially became the "Phillies") have been used unofficially?--BillFlis 15:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I just found a way to contact the Phillies via email. I have a query into them asking whether they stand by the statements on that "official" mlb.com website.--BillFlis 17:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a ref in the article some time over the summer. I'm pretty sure MLB themselves officially states that the Phils are the oldest one-name, one-city, continuously used name. JesseRafe 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Could that be the (disputed) ref that editor South Philly cites at the top of this section?--BillFlis 12:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article length and season-by-season records/standing

I never knew why there was a need for the Phillies' entire 120 year record to be on this page, but nobody else has complained, so I never did anything. As this article is 41 kilobytes long, I suggest moving the records to a new, separate page. JesseRafe 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make it into a table, instead of just a huge list, or divide it by decades. killervogel5 12:43, 7 January 2007 (EST)
I would vote for either a new page, or a table that can be opened on a page if a user wanted to. Either one would work. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I vote for a new page, with a table, similar to the season-by-season results for the Eagles. Bjewiki 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a new page is the way to go, but the question is, should it be a separate page that is displayed in this page with a template like the roster is, or should it just be a link? Should the all-time record still be in this article, and maybe even, say, the last five or ten seasons? JesseRafe 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldnt mind having the last 5 to 10 seasons being shown, but the list itself from 1883 to today is a bit long. Maybe do it like a preview to an article, showing the last 5 to 10 seasons, and a link above it to the entire 124 seasons. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I created a table format for the season-by-season records. I am indifferant as to weather its stays on the main page, or a separate page is created with an abridged version on the main page Mitico 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Using the Yankees' page as a base to start from, I have redesigned the table and put an abridged version on the main Phillies page. This table includes a few more pieces of information. Killervogel5 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I altered the table so that it's transcluded from the Phillies seasons list. KV5 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Booing safe landings" at PHL?

I've heard it before, but really, how encyclopedic is a long-standing joke that was made up by obvious Mets fans? I mean, something like that, while adds character to the article, need to be verifyable, and if it's not, what's it doing here? C'mon, I'm a huge Phillies phan and have heard this from out-of-towners about us for years, but unless we can find a source, I don't think it's appropriate. Just my thought.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know its sometimes a bad diss on Phillies phans (and Philadelphia Fans in general), but thats one that is usually thrown around on there about how rough Philadelphia fans are. I would keep it with the {fact} tag, but one of us should try our hardest to find it (A link to it). Trust me, I dont care much for it, and being a West Virginia fan, I hear all sorts of stuff about West Virginia too, but I would keep it on here, if at the least for the time being.
And to add, its not just Mets fans, but I heard that from lots of other fans. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is a joke, about Philadelphia fans in general...i think it should be removed unless there is some sort of link that says something similar about it. Even at that point, it's a joke, and i'm not sure it belongs. I vote we should removed it for now. Bjewiki 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
The entire fan support section needs to be re-worked. Unless citations available, most of the section should be deleted. Jokes / rumors are not encyclopedic Mitico 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Further, the "700" level section just is a copy & paste of what is written in a separate page. I think the 700 level should just be referenced and linked. I will be removing and working on this section soon. Objections? Mitico 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed 700 Level section
By the way, the part about booing Santa Claus happened at an Eagles game, not a Phillies game, and therefore should not be included in this article.

[edit] Historical Teams

Does this section hold any value to anyone? I think its redundant to the historic sections, especially since the section lists mostly dead links. I propose to delete this section. Comments? Mitico 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RemovedMitico 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Results & events

How much day-to-day information should appear on this page? The page has already been edited multiple times to comment on game 1. I think this kind of information should be directed to 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season. I think the main phillies page should be reserved for highlights only (hitting streaks, all-star appearances, major trades, etc) - no game results. Mitico 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I have been updating the Phillies 2007 record is because they will soon reach the 10,000 losses milestone. T.Nguyen092 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Yankees Quakers"

Under Origins, it says: "Founded in 1883 as the Yankees Quakers". Yankees? Where does that come from? Is that a mis-type? If not, is there a source for that? Thanks!

This is probably a spurious interpolation. I've never heard of the moniker, & have seen no reference to it, & it makes no sense. If no one objects, I'll take this out. Adamgarrigus 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mid Importance??

As a phillies fan, I am biased, However I am somewhat offended at the fact that phillies only get a "mid" importance rating on wikiproject baseball. I think that one of the oldest (albeit losingest) franchise in baseball gets a "mid" rating. The New YOrk Yankees recieve a top rating as do the red sox. I think that each club should get "top" importance as to not show that one club isnt any more "important" than another. things like "baseball bat" and "home run" can be given lower importance ratings. 70.20.162.98 03:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm jumping on this train now too. I know this is an old topic, but I think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. The Yankees (and probably some other teams) have a Top rating and the Phillies only have Mid. This needs to be standardized. WikiProject Baseball says that all teams should be rated either High or Mid, based on their "transcendence," whatever that is supposed to mean. Killervogel5 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the other pages and see what they are rated, but if there are teams like the Pirates and Devil Rays that would have Top importance, ill switch this up too. Whammies Were Here 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just looked at a few pages, and its all over the board. Theres a few, like the Rays, Twins, and Astros, where its at High, and a few, like the Rockies and Pirates, and they are at Mid. I would rather hear from someone on why some should be at Mid, but with this, and other pages, I will switch them to High, since I belive since we are talking about a Major League team, and not a Minor League team. Whammies Were Here 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10,000 losses

How come there is no mention of the 10,000 losses? I am a life long Phillies fan.....sadly.......but this is our sad franchises legacy..... No other ball club is even close....even the clubs as old as ours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.206.55 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 June 2007

  • I have been updating their season record as best as I can ... on the 2007 Major League Baseball Season page I have been updating the page counting down the number of losses they need. I agree this milestone (not a great one) should be recorded in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.Nguyen092 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 June 2007
  • It should get noted under ther 2007 section. --evrik (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This is speculation since they may never lose again. I know that has little chance of happening but still. I also removed the part about the count down since that isn't specifically mentioned in the cite. If it happens and there is more press, then include it I guess since it will be a first. Thanks--Tom 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I could post some sources for the fan countdown ...
http://www.countdownto10000.com/
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/sports/20070627_Must_be_10_000_ways_to_promote_dubious_mark.html
--evrik (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The first cite above looks like it for sale/commercial non reliable source/site. The second one is an article about the up coming milestone. To say that the fans are"counting it down" reeks of original resaerch/fringe material. Anyways, I don't mind mentioning the future event, just the way it is worded must conform to guidelines. As I asked on your talk page, do you have some agenda to promote about this? If they reach 10,000 loses, you can add more about it from reliable sources. Anyways, anybody else want to chime in or is it only me?? Thanks!--Tom 22:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, no agenda. It's relevant as it is about to happen, only eight more losses (I think). ----evrik (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree. Put it on there, as it is a milestone (though a bad one) that the Phils are gonna hit. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the argument's about if it should be online or not, more so than it's about semantics now: "may" as opposed to "will". In all honesty, the chance they don't make it to 10K before anyone else in the world is .000000000000000000000001%, but the possibility's still there; statistics are not set in stone, after all. Who knows? We could wake up tomorrow, Bill Giles, et al., could all decide the team's in the red, declare bankruptcy, and close up shop. Then, they would never make 10K, would they? Yeah, far-fetched, but it's still a (even though unrealistic) possibility. So, just for the sheer fact that we can't predict the future to that extent, it should stay "may", unless you know something I don't about tomorrow. If you do, gimmie the Lotto numbers; I need the money! EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Using the exemption to argue the rule ... great reasoning. Well, its gonna happen in the next mont, and then it will be history. ----evrik (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me guess, you are a closet Mets fan :) Seriously, a few editors have now disagreed so can we give it a rest?? --Tom 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I see two in favor and three against. Not an overwhelming majority. In any case, it'll happen next month and then will vs may won't matter. --evrik (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Cheers! --Tom 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that the phillies have lost their 10,000th game tonight with a 10-2 bashing by the Cardinals...but does it have to get repeated 4-5 times? I think the 2007 section needs to be rewritten, as ti stands it reads like a bunch of facts or statements, and not sentences that have any flow or anything that resembles coherent paragraphs... User:jesusfreakz85 22:10 15 June 2007
I tweeked it a bit. --Tom 12:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break out season-by-season records?

I suggest doing this, to improve readability and to save space, as has been done in the New York Yankees article (see New York Yankees season records).--BillFlis 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was already done here: Philadelphia Phillies seasons. I think Philadelphia Phillies season records should be merged. Mitico (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The only reason I went ahead with it is because nobody left any notification here that they were addressing it. My stuff is linked up on the Phillies page right now; I don't think that there would be any problems merging them. I can take care of it. Do we really need the information about attendance? It seems kind of unnecessary. I think maybe we could take the new table, which looks a bit more streamlined, and merge it in underneath the abstract. Keep the picture and such. That would make a nice page. Thoughts? Killervogel5 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10,000 losses

To the IP-on-U Phillies fan that keeps reverting the 10,000th loss info... that is a notable and verifiable fact that has been well-covered by the media. Stop deleting it. Baseball Bugs 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent tag on 1993 NL Champ season

Figured I'd clear up my position on this one - I don't question for a second him being called "Wild Thing". I don't think I'd be much of a Phillies fan if I didn't know that much! ;-) I question the tone of the section in general (as well as a few other sections). It assumes too much on a few things, and lays a sound beating on our embattled former closer. (I'd rather have him then Jose Mesa, though.) For example:

Beloved by their fans, this team, which included such names as Darren Daulton, John Kruk, Lenny Dykstra, and Curt Schilling, surprised the city and the nation with their achievements. I loved that team (and most subsequent and previous teams) with all of my heart, and I'm sure a ton of other fans did as well. However, is this really a verifiable statement?

Williams had been the target of Phillies' fans' ire throughout the 1993 season because of his repeated ninth inning shenanigans, which included wild pitches and walks. Again, probably true, but can it be sourced?

He rarely closed out games without almost giving them away, hence the nickname "Wild Thing". Five bucks says we can't source this.

Following the 1993 season, the Phillies team was dismantled, with the departure of many of the core players, including Williams, who went on to flounder with several different teams, including the Houston Astros. This sentence is clunky and seems to be as difficult to verify as the other statements.

In all, this section (and a few others) could probably benefit from some attention. I'll be happy to glance it over and make some corrections. Any thoughts from the Phanatics out there? Sidatio 18:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say nearly all of that stuff is editorializing by a fan who's still angry that the team lost the Series in 1993 on a home run Williams gave up. That's the way things go with relief pitchers. Even Mariano Rivera "failed" the Yankees when they needed him the most, in 2001 and 2004. Baseball Bugs 19:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I can relate - I still hate Joe Carter. I'll work on it at some point in the near future. So many projects, so little time! Sidatio 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In the one-game playoff in 1998, Joe Carter came up in a similar situation, for the Giants, against the Cubs. Instead of Mitch Williams, the Cubs had (the late) Rod Beck on the mound. Beck had nothing left, but he managed to get Carter to pop out to Mark Grace and end the game, putting the Cubs into the post-season. I recall Williams from teh Cubs' divisional winner in 1989, and he was downright scary as a reliever. Not as scary as LaTroy Hawkins, though. That's another story. Baseball Bugs 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If it can't be sourced PLEASE remove it post haste. If Mitch hadn't given up that homer, I would have been at game 7. I sat 10 rows of home plate back for game 6 at the Vet in 1980, it was sereal to say the least :) --Tom 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Your attitude toward Carter, FYI, is about the same as mine towards Garvey in 1984. But they're just doing what they're paid to do. I think most of that section is true, but is editorial bellyaching. Baseball Bugs 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Then it should probably be removed, imho. Anyways, --Tom 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing the part about Carter hitting the homer off Williams. He hit a slider, not a curveball.

Is that fact verifiable? If not, the pitch selection shouldn't be in the article anyway. Killervogel5 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That fact is verifiable. On the official 1993 World Series video, Paul Molitor says that from his position at first base, he could see that Darren Daulton was calling for a slider, and distinctly remembered thinking that "if Mitch makes a mistake on that slider, Joe could hit that ball real good." Which, of course, he did. I don't see why that detail should be taken out, as it provides a little bit of detail.
Can you source it and cite it? If you can, it can gladly stay. Otherwise, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Also, please sign your posts, so we know who we are talking to, using four tildes (~~~~) after your message. Thanks! Killervogel5 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I just gave you the source, and the citation. The source/citation was from an official MLB video about the Series, stated by a player who, given his Hall of Fame status, can be considered an expert in the field of baseball. Besides, if you watch the homer, you can clearly see that the pitch was in no way a curveball, unless Mitch Williams had some magic curveball that behaved exactly like a slider. 99.236.47.69 (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you have a source, but that didn't mean you cited it. I don't mean to imply that you are wrong, because you are most likely correct in this assessment, but if the information's contentious between editors, then it can't go in without a valid citation. Have a look at the citation policy, because I have no idea how to cite a video. Killervogel5 (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chico Ruiz

I am not a Phillies fan, but it seems to me that the discussion of the 1964 collapse should include a discussion of the famous theft of home by Chico Ruiz that kicked off the losing streak. It's a humorous incident and I understand that the date of the first loss of the 10-game losing streak is referred to as "Chico Ruiz Day" in Philadelphia.

[edit] Celebrity fans

Why was this section wholly removed? Some of those sources clearly showed fanship (in the case of Alito). And I'm sure articles could be dragged up for the rest. Kevin Eubanks clearly wears Philly sports periphenalia on the Tonight Show all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.94.136 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality flags

Whatever happened to the flags depicting players' nationalities in the roster box? I thought those were a great addition to the roster, because it gives everyone a quick reference to finding out where the players on a team are from. I will gladly find and replace all of the flags if they can come back. Any objections? Killervogel5 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I had seen, and been told on some minor league pages, some of the nationality flags were taken off for a cleaner look on the player pages. I guess it is to apply too now on MLB pages. Whammies Were Here 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. I'd kind of like to find that debate so I can contribute my voice to it. I know that the Lancaster Barnstormers page still has them. Killervogel5 (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I know I have passed by a few other pages, mainly the independent minor league teams, and some of them still have flags up. I guess its just a matter of the people who usually watch over those pages on putting up the new code so flags do not appear. Whammies Were Here 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breakout Team History

In looking at the length of the team page, I think that we should start thinking about breaking out the team history into its own page, per Wikipedia guidelines regarding page length and WikiProject:Baseball's guidelines for other teams. Right now, the page of "History of the Philadelphia Phillies" is just a redirect to the Phillies page, and it doesn't even link to the history section. Please give your input. I'll take care of the move if we can reach a consensus. If no one responds, I'm probably just going to jump on it anyway. KV5 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should get its own page. There should still be a section here, not just a link to another page. The section should have some bit of weight too, briefly going over the oldest most continuous team parts, the futility of the 20s through 40s and the rivalry with the As, the good teams of the 50s, 80s, and 90s. Other minor bits could be a few sentences between these main areas, but I don't think the history should be wholesale redirected. JesseRafe (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I will try to hash out a basic design and stick it up in my sandbox so that everyone can take a look at it. Right now, there is a big table there, but I will get that stuff up there as soon as I get done with it. KV5 (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the History section here should be bare-bones. That way, people who want to learn more can go to the article for further info. Something briefly touching oldest same-city team info, briefly talking about the World Series', and something briefly regarding the futility leading to 10K losses. Other than that, if we make it too wordy, the article will lose its purpose and it'll just be unnecessary prose to the Phillies article's Cliff Notes. The History section in the article needs to be a super-brief synopsis to entice people to read more over at the main article. Just my theory.... EaglesFanInTampa 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was thinking that I would hash out. I'm going to work on it this afternoon after work; unfortunately I won't have time AT work to waste today, as I do sometimes. KV5 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've done a rough draft of what I consider to be a very basic abstract of Phillies history in my sandbox. Everything that is currently on the Phillies page would be moved to "History of the Philadelphia Phillies," and I will get rid of that redirect. I'll allow two days or so for suggestions, here or on my talk page, and then I'm going to be bold and do it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Before actually having read your new article, it's worth pointing out that the trend in the sports articles is, indeed, to create a separate article for the history and to (hopefully) significantly pare down the history within the main article, to avoid both repetition and divergence. One detail point: The Phillies are not the oldest continuous team in baseball. That would be the Atlanta Braves, who date to 1871. The Phillies began in 1883, the same year as the Giants; and the Cubs date to 1876 (or 1874 or 1871, depending on your viewpoint). The name Phillies may be the oldest, but a name is not a team. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't say that the Phillies are the oldest club. They are the oldest one-name, one-location club, yes, but that's not even in the article anymore. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. I was commenting on an earlier comment in this section that said something about "oldest most continuous team", which is an inaccurate statement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Now I've read it, and I like it, as being the way the main page should look. A team's history on the main page should focus on trends and triumphs, rather than getting into too much season-by-season minutia. Admittedly, that's hard to do with a team like the Yankees, but the Phillies aren't the Yankees, nor is anyone else. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me; thanks for the input, and sorry 'bout the misunderstanding. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I got tired of waiting, and I broke it out. Comments welcome. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)