Talk:St. Louis Cardinals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the St. Louis Cardinals on Wikipedia.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within Cardinals articles.

Portal

Baseball Portal

St. Louis Cardinals 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.

This article has been rated as B-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.

Missouri Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

High

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

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis (Sports), a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
	B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
	High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for St. Louis Cardinals:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Trim History section Add sections for Ballparks and Uniforms and Logos and Fans More references and citations of facts Add pictures of players through the decades

[edit] Future seasons?

Following up on the 2006 discussion below, what's the current standard for posting updates as time goes on? Recentitis is definitely a problem, as there is a ton of information available about any sports team and people will be adding new info all the time. I'm all for keeping the page updated with all pertinent current information, like rosters, records, etc, but there needs to be standards put in place for how to historically address a recent season. I personally like the idea of breaking it down by decade, possibly with a rapidly changing section about the current season. FE, right now, the Scott Rolen-TLR feud is big news about the club. However, the same thing happened with Ozzie and TLR in Smith's last season and with Auggie II and Steve Carlton in the late sixties. I like having that info on the page, but I'm not sure about how to organize it. Phyrkrakr (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Rivals

I disagree with the rivals that were listed. The Red Sox and Yankees can not really be called "rivals" because 1. the Cardinals never know when they will play them, and 2. the Cards hardly ever play them. The Astros should not be considered a rival, either, YET. Rivalries need time to breathe, maybe a generation or so. The Astros were nobody until the two teams were lumped in the same division in 1994. Contrarily, both the Dodgers and, more recently, the Mets are historical rivals. These two teams consistently fill Busch stadium regardless of their records. The Dodgers rivalry goes back to the 3-game play-off for the Pennant in the '40s and the NLCS in '85. The Mets rivalry culminated with the '85 Pennant run but was rooted in the Keith Hernandez trade. The Mets are still known as "Pond Scum" at Busch Stadium, so the rivalry seems to be real.

Otherwise, I believe listing rivals is a unique idea that adds to the information and enjoyment of the page. BUT, I believe each listed rivalry should have it's own link justifying the rivalry. It would be interesting to see how one team's perceived "rivalry" is another team's "lost weekend" series, attendence wise. --CrazyTalk 22:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This "main rivals" stuff that some anon has been pushing (and also pointing to mostly non-existent articles) is, on its face, Point Of View. Not that it matters much, it's only baseball, not World Politics. But I like your idea. Instead of some generic "main rivals" viewpoint, there should be articles on the rivalries. There are, in some case: Cubs-Sox, Giants-Dodgers, Yankees-Red Sox, etc. Unless someone can cite info in an article, they shouldn't be listing "main rivals" as a standalone item. FYI, I'm a Cubs fan, and I couldn't agree more with "pond scum" in reference to the Mets. That's polite, though. When my bro and I talk about the Mets, it's always prefixed with the "f-ing word". 1969 still hurts. d:) Wahkeenah 22:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree that the main rivals should only be the Cubs and Astros. No interleague teams should be listed under rivarlries since interleague play is new and and rare. Darwin's Bulldog 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Dodgers and Mets are NOT their rivals, their ravals are the Cubs, Astros, and Royals. I don't know if any of you have ever seen a Royals vs. Cardinals game but it's BIG. It may be inter-league, but it is a battle to prove who is the superiour Missouri team Saksjn 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)saksjnSaksjn 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cardinals v. Royals is a contrived "rivalry." It's manufactured by MLB and Bud Selig. 128.111.97.64 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the old, hapless, AL St. Louis Browns (which were briefly the Milwaukee Brewers in 1901)? They were not really strong rivals from what I understand, but given the overlap in names, I think it would be worthwhile to clarify the relationship. This seems like a reasonable reference: SportsEcyclopedia Skadron 01:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Division Title

Is there any evidence to back-up the St. Louis claim for their 9th division crown? (such as an actual award...) Popular allegations, especially in only one city, does not seem to have enough weight for such a claim.

The Cardinals make that claim on their website[1] (click on the link for "more on 2001", it's the last paragraph). It is a minority claim, that is why it is merely listed in the footnote with the disclaimer "could be".--CrazyTalk 15:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Sporting News Baseball Record Book, which of course is a St.Louis-based publication, not that there's anything wrong with that, shows the Cardinals as having "tied" for first place in 2001, and having lost the Division Series (Houston is shown the same way). Whether they were "awarded" the division title is a moot point, because (1) the league regarded them as the wild card, for playoff bracket designation and (2) they were out after the first round. The only "award" I know of is whatever locker-room T-shirts the team might come up with. Maybe this year they'll get the only award that matters... the Bud Selig Memorial Award, otherwise known as the World Series Trophy. d:) Wahkeenah 15:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Baseball-Almanac.com, a very reputable source, the Cards were not co-champs in 2001. Likewise, the Red Sox article mentions nothing about them being AL East co-champs in 2005. The Dodgers' article also neglects to mention them being co-champs this year. The Cardinals' own website is biased and therefore not reputable in this matter. I'm going to edit 2001 from the list of division titles. The actual Major League Baseball website would be a much better source than the Cards' website.Politician818 01:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

MLB and the Baseball HOF both view the Cardinals as co-champs in 2001, with MLB noting it as the first shared championship in MLB history. I have the sources listed in the National League Central and I-55 Series articles, which can be added here. Agne 06:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: It seems that the sourced references from MLB and to the HOF were inadvertantly removed. I have restored them. Agne 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame site, which does mention the "co-championship," also lists every year in which the Cards won the NL Central. 2001 is excluded from that list of years. It says: 1996 2000 2002 2004 2005. (This must have not been updated, as the Cards won it again this year.) "Co-champions" is more likely an informal reference to the Cards having the same record as the Astros. The Dodgers article does not state that the Dodgers were NL West co-champs this year. The Red Sox article does not mention that the Red Sox were AL East co-champs last year. It's really inconsistent to make an exception for the 2001 Cardinals.Politician818 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we can not control what the editors of the Red Sox or Dodgers pages do so that is not a valid argument. For all we know, there might not be as reliable of sources for them to include. Secondly, your argument about the HOF site doesn't make any sense. It splits up the different kinds of championship and 2001 was the only kind of co-championship the Cardinals have had to this date. No one is arguing that the Cardinals were the NL Central Champion (singular like the rest of the years listed) but they were clearly co-champions which the HOF backs up. As such 2001 belongs in any accurate tally about the number of Cardinals division championships. Agne 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A good guideline would be to see how the Lords of Baseball regard the Dodgers and Padres of 2006, who also finished with the same record, in the NL West. Wahkeenah 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agne, there's no need to get nasty here. First of all, you have control over the Dodgers and Red Sox articles. You have as much a right as anyone else to edit them. You can use the Cardinals' situation in 2001 as a source for both articles. Secondly, if the Cardinals were "co-champions" in 2001, they'd have as much a claim to the title as the Astros. You're having it both ways when you say that the Astros were "the champion" while the Cardinals were "co-champions." "Co-champions" means that both teams get equal billing. Finally, there's no such thing as official "co-champions" in pro sports.Politician818 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you are interpreting this as nasty but the content of other articles is still irrelevant. The pertinent policies are WP:V - is it verifiable? Answer: Yes and the article is duly sourced. WP:RS-Are the sources reliable? Answer: Yes with the Baseball HOF and MLB.com. The Astros were considered champions in playoff seeding but officially they were co-champions. And co-championships obviously do happen in pro-sports and the MLB cite notes the historical nature of 2001 being the first co-championship in MLB. Agne 06:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just need to add here that that same Baseball Hall of Fame website neglects to mention that the Boston Red Sox were AL East co-champs in 2005. Both the Red Sox and Yankees finished with 95-67 records that year. This contradiction puts that site's credibility into question. [2] Politician818 08:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC) If the Cards were co-champs in 2001, then the Sox were co-champs in 2005.Politician818 08:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are honestly doubting the credibility of the official site of the Baseball Hall of Fame? Agne 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, since it contradicts itself. If the Cardinals were co-champs in 2001, then the Red Sox were co-champs in 2005. It's either BOTH or NEITHER, not just one. At the very least, the website screwed up.Politician818 10:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC) The Hall of Fame website only lists the Red Sox as a wild card in the 2005 season, despite their having the same win-loss record as the Yankees.Politician818 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is a contradiction. The Red Sox never request from MLB a co-championship designation. (For whatever reason they have. My Boston-born fiance says it's probably because they don't want something tainted by sharing with the Yankees). The Cardinals, however, actively sought recognition--of which MLB and the HOF recognize. I would bring up you concern about the HOF as a reliable source up on the WP:RS or the Baseball Project. Currently the official Hall of Fame site is considered one of the most reliable sources you can get with baseball related articles. Downgrading it's status as a RS will affect a lot of other articles and would need to be promptly addressed. Agne 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would the Red Sox have to request co-championship designation? If they were the co-champs, then they were the co-champs. Also, baseball-almanac.com, a very reputable source, claims that there is no such thing as a division co-championship. Finally, even with the co-championship, the Cardinals would have six and a half NL Central titles, not seven. 2001 would count as half a title for the Astros and half for the Cardinals. They can't each have one for the same season. Even the Hall of Fame website makes a distinction between the division championships that the Cardinals won outright with 2001.Politician818 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's an independent site. The only opinion that matters is that of MLB itself. If MLB says those teams are co-champions, then they are. If they say they're not, then they're not. If they're silent on the matter, then they're probably saying it's irrelevant. Wahkeenah 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The hall of fame website does add an "asterik" and explanation (the same as this article). No one is arguing that the asterik should be removed or that the article should claim that the Card's won the 2001 championship outright. Rather we have two reliable sources that verify that the Cards were co-champions of the NL Central in 2001 and the article accurately reflects that with the proper explanation. It would POV to disregard reliable sources that verify facts that you don't like simply because you don't like what they say. Agne 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame is a private institution, not an arm of the major leagues. What does Major League Baseball itself have to say about these situations? Wahkeenah 13:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Best Fans in Baseball?"

I'd love it if someone could explain this idea...what is that statement supposed to mean? I've heard it on TV lots of times so I don't doubt it's inclusion in the article, I just want someone to make sense of it. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

All it means is that we St. Louisans are very supportive and rarely overtly hostile. In places like Chicago and Philadelphia people get beat up for supporting the away team, but that just doesn't happen here. But, in truth, you would have to have been at Busch Stadium when Mark McGwire or Albert Pujols stepped up to the plate to really understand what that statement means. We just really love our baseball. Cabez 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anecdote (true one - I was there): The year McGwire hit 70 homeruns, the Cards were not involved in pursuing a playoff spot - McGwire was THE reason to follow the Cards. One Sunday late in his record chase, he was kicked out in his first at bat for arguing strikes. The crowd went nuts and the game was almost forfeited because of this. The following day when the umpires were introduced (I was there), they were given a 5 minute standing ovation ("Sorry we acted badly, you did what was right."). THAT is the kind of behavior that defines "Best Fans in Baseball." Kind of hard to cite though! -Quartermaster 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that. Of course, the concept of "best fans" is totally subjective. McGwire appreciated them because they actually showed up, as opposed to the oceans of empty seats in Oakland. I could easily argue that the Cubs fans are the best, because they keep pouring their hard-earned money into this perpetual loser (no bitterness here, no sir). However, aside from monetary contributions, the fans that probably support their team the most strongly are the Yankees fans, who have a history of interfering with on-field play to the their team's benefit. Now those are some useful fans. Wahkeenah 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this might be an area to be approached by stating (and citing) "Cardinals fans have been described by x as 'The Best Fans in Baseball' which is, of course, a subjective statement which can be claimed by other teams' fans." I think it's more valid to point out that this is an advertising slogan (it is) rather than an objective fact. Actually, I think the long suffering Cubby fans truly can claim the same "best fans in baseball" phrase exactly as you state.

If the Cardinals and/or any other team actually use that as a slogan, you should be on safe ground citing it with no fear of contradiction. Well, almost none. Wahkeenah 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing this may be difficult, but I know I have heard many players say things like "You haven't played baseball until you've played in St. Louis." I also want to say that, because he was so overwhelmed by the quality of the St. Louis fan prescence, Mark McGwire worked to convince Jim Edmonds to join the team. Again, needs citation, but it's a direction. Topher0128 16:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider where he came from. Big Mac was probably just to have people in the stands. Wahkeenah 22:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

While any team (except the Marlins ;) can claim "the best fans in baseball" it's a widely reported media trope seen in the NY Times [3] and the San Diego Union-Tribune [4], among other places. I didn't really find a source for the claim, but I seem to remember ESPN pushing the idea starting around 2001, and it's now stated as a matter of fact by the team, along with the "baseball heaven" tagline. You can find anecdotal evidence all over the place about respectful, knowledgeable fans in St. Louis, like Ken Griffey's 500th HR and Biggio's last game in St. Louis. I'm pretty sure they still boo Barry, though.Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Boo Barry? Wasn't that the name of a cereal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THE REAL RIVALS

Ok im going to set the record straight. The two main rivals are the Cubs and the Royals. I know some people dont consider the Royals to be a rival because its and inerleague match up, but i asure you it is a rivalry. Ive been to plenty of Card/Royals games in Kansas City and the hostilaty is crazy. The tention is high and theres almost more Cardinals fans than Royals. Theres alot of smack talk and good games, even though the Royals suck. Ive had a blast at many of these games and they felt like a fierce and healthy rivalry to me. --J. Licata

It's a rivarly that's artificial, thanks in part mainly due to the "genius" of Bud Selig. The only "Real" rivals that the Cardinals have are the Cubs. Darwin's Bulldog 15:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's totally artificial, as it has to do with statewide "braggin' rights". And the Royals were formed a long time before Selig came along. However, you're right that it pales next to Cubs-Cardinals, which is one of the fiercest rivalries in the game, going back to the 1880s. Wahkeenah 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For two teams to be rivals, they have to be in the same division. They have to play each other the maximum number of times possible during the season. The Cardinals and Royals are not rivals, regardless of how excited the fans are during the games. The Cardinals' archrivals are the Cubs, just as the Giants' archrivals are the Dodgers and the Yankees' archrivals are the Red Sox.Politician818 06:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, wait a minute. You cannot honestly say that two teams have to be in a division to be rivals. One of the biggest rivalryies in baseball was the Yankees and the Dodgers. From the days they both inhabited New York, they have been bitter rivals, which held on even when they went to the other coast. It may have petered of as of late in the eyes of younger fans, but it was big in it's prime, between two in different leagues, and eventually two coasts. The same can be said for the National League Giants, who Gherig mentioned in his famous speech as "a team you'd give an arm and a leg to beat". Nowadays, there's an intense rivalry between the New York Yankees and New York Mets, which has finally gotten a chance to be played out with interleague play. Just because two teams are not in the same division or league does not mean they're not rivals. Silent Wind of Doom 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard that many Royals fans believe there is a rivalry. (I was in KC for a three-game weekend this year; wonderful people, great time.) However, Cards fans don't see it that way. To Cards fans there are two rivalries: the old one with the Cubs (always fun, so much history) and the new one with the Astros, since those two teams are always fighting it out for the division since the Central Division was created. Fan-1967 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a cards fan, and the Royals are rivals of the cards. I have friends who are Royals fans, and when the Cardinals play the Royals, it's big. REAL BIG. Saksjn 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)saksjnSaksjn 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Cardinals fans are still irked about 1985. They just can't let it go. Meanwhile, I think you'll agree that the Cubs are still the primary rivals of the Cardinals. Wahkeenah 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never say the Cardinals-Royals are not rivals, but the Cards-Cubs is definitely a whole other level of rivalry, and the article should make note of this. I am not sure if I consider the Astros rivals of the Cardinals though. They have certainly played same great games and postseason series recently, but I believe the Astros-Cardinals is more of a feeling of competitive respect and knowing that the other is your chief competition for a playoff spot. If they both weren't competing for the division title or in a playoff series, it wouldn't be the same. Whereas the Cards-Cubs and Cards-Royals go up to another level entirely in the playoffs (even though they only played the Royals in '85 and haven't played the Cubs in the postseason since they were in the AA). Timpcrk87 00:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The telling sign is the number of visiting-team caps in evidence when they play in Chicago or St. Louis. Wahkeenah 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

For some reason the team logo does not appear on my screen :( Does anyone else have this problem? If I click on the blank white box, I do get the logo. BobJones 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I cant see it either.Sir hugo 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense. I temporarily substituted the Cubs logo, and it worked fine. You'll probably have to find an Admin. Wahkeenah 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

After some experimenting I found out that this logo doesnt like being 100px. I did a substitution for the full infobox code and raised the pixel count to 101 and it now works.Sir hugo 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing. Maybe that cardinal didn't like those "goose eggs". Wahkeenah 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cubs & Cards fan input requested

The article on the Cubs-Cardinal rivalry, I-55 Series has been nominated for Good Article status, and I would like to get some input on things that can improve the article. Agne 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

started discussion at Talk:I-55_Series, since I'm sure Cubs and Cards fans can discuss this together ;)

--Spiffy sperry 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge (2007 St. Louis Cardinals)

Why this page exists, I am not quite sure, especially when 2006, 1982, etc.. St. Louis Cardinals pages do not exist. Why would one for a future season exist? --Holderca1 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It exsists because I'm going to follow the entire season. I.E. box scores for each game, transactions, injuries, etc. -- crimsonblood820 12:44, 2 November (CT)

While I respect your enthusiam, having box scores for every game would fall under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. We don't even have box scores for every WS game. I haven't looked at it in depth that much but [5] might be doing what you are looking at doing. Wikipedia typically frowns on keeping that type of current info on here as it is more of a news item than an encylopedia item. Are you going to be able to update it every day? I would imagine that some time between April and October, real life will call and you won't be able to keep up with it. I often find myself wanting to edit a million things at once, especially when I was new here. At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia, I will let some others chime in on this, to see what they think. --Holderca1 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. So long as there are Card fans around on Wikipedia, even an incomplete but indepth article would be great to have. So long as it's sourced, summarises beyond what a news article would provide... though I encourage you to write detailed game reports for Wikinews, I can't personally view it as "an indiscriminate collection of information". The collections refered to tend to be "People who sang in music videos while standing on one foot", whereas the 2007 team is essentially its own unique entity, with a beginning, middle, and end. -- Zanimum 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is wanting to have the box scores for every game on there. Do you know how long an article would be with 162 box scores on it would be? If he would create the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals page to show what he has in mind would help. I believe the 2006 season merits it over the 2007 season since it has already happened and they in fact won the World Series. --Holderca1 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Denver Broncos season exists although its much shorter; I'm not saying the 2006 merits it over the 2005 season, just any sourced content that looks at overall trends, not necessarily even keeping a full season worth of score tallies, would engage fans of the team looking for summarised content. -- Zanimum 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as a game summary of every game is not included, the article would just be too long if they were, I am okay with that. But I would still like to see the 2006 article created to get an idea of what he has in mind. The 2007 season doesn't start until March/April so there is plenty of time. Also, if a 2007 season article exists, we are obligated to create one for every season or that would be POV to current events. --Holderca1 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This hasn't been discussed in over a month so I'm taking the merge tag offInvisibleman5108026 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article size & FA

I have created the article History of the St. Louis Cardinals and copied the entire history section of this page over to that page. With that done, the history section of this article can be trimmed down dramatically to a summary, perhaps by decade. I think this is as good of time as any to get this up to FA status. See the New England Patriots page as a guide, it passed FA. --Holderca1 18:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone want a user box?

Would fans be interested in a STL user box for their user page? I am currently displaying what is below on mine. I could make a template out of it. However, some work with the colors needs to be done. I am no artist and will not work on that more.

{{Userbox|border-c=#F00|border-s=1|id-c=#fff|id-s=18|id-fc=#F00|info-c=#F55|info-s=8|info-fc=#fff|id=<font face="Times New Roman">STL<font>|info=This user is a [[St. Louis Cardinals]] fan.}}

STL

This user is a St. Louis Cardinals fan.

-Will Pittenger 04:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to use the Cardinals logo in a template, can't use fair use images in templates. --Holderca1 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a Detroit Tiger box around that has the Tiger D in it. And the logo I used was already in use in the article -- at higher resolution than what I used it for. I took the same exact image file and shrank it to fit. Between the two, how was my version in violation? -Will Pittenger 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The logo in the article is okay because it depicts the logo of the team the article is about, that is why we are allowed to legally use it under fair use since it is a copyrighted image. We can't legally use it elsewhere such as in userboxes or templates. --Holderca1 03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely...Fair use items are not permitted in userboxes. But a suggestion, usually userboxes say this user rather than this person. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadog.M.S (talk • contribs)

My apologies if someone mistook me for a lawyer. I don't always understand this legal stuff. In this case, I did not understand until after I went to bed last night. I have updated the above version the copy on my page. (Note the text fits on one line now.)

Also, could someone explain why the D logo is legal in {{User:Benwildeboer/UBX/User Tigers fan}}? Is that template in fact illegal? It clearly uses a GIF taken from somewhere.

Finally, are images used from remote sites legal? -Will Pittenger 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That logo looks different the Detroit's logo, and the page says that a user created it. I don't understand what you mean by images from remote sites. --Holderca1 11:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is already a userbox for this, {{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/MLB-Cardinals}}

STL

This user is a St. Louis Cardinals fan.

--Holderca1 11:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to adopt that box per WP:UM. It now has instructions on my page for it. -Will Pittenger 06:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uniforms

The hat on the road uniform is wrong. The black hat is the "Sunday Cap" and is eorn only on sunday. On the road the Cards where a navy blue hat with a red bill and the birds on the bat logo. Can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saksjn (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

That's incorrect. The road cap is navy blue with the StL logo. The Sunday cap is navy blue with red brim and the single bird on bat logo and is only worn at home on Sundays. Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Edit: Also moved this back to a separate section, as it was mixed in w/ the userbox discussion above. Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Championship Season

Shortened this section. The Cardinals have been around since 1882 and have won the World Series ten times. The '06 section was taking up too much of the article. Vidor 21:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Further shortened all the material from the 2000s decade. Article needs to have better balance between different eras. Vidor 11:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortened or taken out completely? There's NO mention of the 2006 championship until the 2007 section where they are referenced as defending their World Series title. That's way too skimpy. Especially when the last time they had the title was in 1982.220.148.120.214 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - We need to bring back *some* mention of 2006. The article goes from mentioning 2005, to how in 2007, the Cards started defending their WS championship. Makes no sense now. Let's put some of it back. I'm for balance, but having nothing there isn't right either. --Umrguy42 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added in a description of the 2006 season after noticing it missing, but it should probably just revert to an edited version of what was there before. Pertinent info to me: Lots of injuries, Pujols' great April/May, team's almost historic collapse down the stretch, then playoffs. Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Pujols is now a United States citizen...flag change?

Recently (February 2007 IIRC) Albert Pujols took the oath and thus became a United States citizen. I noticed today that in the roster names/flags section, the flag of his birth country (Dominican Republic) is used. This prompts several questions. (1) Are these flags intended to show country of birth, country of first citizenship, country of most recent citizenship, or what exactly? (Poked around a bit and did not find an answer for this one.) (2) In the case of dual citizenship, which flag does Wikipedia use? -- I imagine that there are at least some instances of dual citizenship amongst current major league players. No idea whether Pujols holds dual citizenship. (3) Maybe the player should be offered the opportunity to choose between flags (in Wikipedia), in the case of dual citizenship? (4) Is there any precedent in Wikipedia for honoring the preference of someone who is a subject of a Wikipedia article? Has this question even been raised/discussed?

Apologies if this is not the perfect place to ask these questions. Would welcome suggestions about other places to ask. Publius3 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Was just noticing this myself, and also was wondering what the protocol should be. Should the flags indicate citizenship or country of birth? A strong case can be made for either. Tysalpha 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Johnson's number

Tyler Johnson's number on the roster should be 61.69.153.172.250 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Number changed to 19 in May 2007 (for his birthday, iirc) Phyrkrakr (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Hancock section

Three paragraphs to cover this event is a clear case of "recentitis" and has undue weight for the rest of the article. As a Cards fan, my heart was broken over this tragic lost but there needs to be some prospective here. The Josh Hancock article has all the pertinent information as well as 2007 St. Louis Cardinals season article. I think Hancock's death should be treated in this article the same was as Darryl Kile's with just a one line mention and wiki link to the main article. I'm going to edit the article accordingly. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cards nickname

If a source is needs one only needs to look at the Cardinal's official website to see that the phrase "Cards" is how the own team frequently refers to themselves. If we need to add a source citation, is it going to mess up the infobox code? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing Style

The whole article is full of informal slang, jargon, and other colloquialisms that really aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I realize that this is how baseball aficionados talk about the sport, but Wikipedia needs to be written with a general audience in mind. There is also lots of obviously biased language that violates NPOV. Much of the article could use cleanup.

Spin2cool 22:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of racism

The alleged planned boycott against Jackie Robinson is vigorously denied by the interviewees in "The Spirit of St. Louis: A History Of The St. Louis Cardinals And Browns" by Peter Golenbock. I am noting this very briefly. As a baseball team in a former slave state, and having the reputation of being full of hillbillies (see: Dizzy Dean, Enos "Country" Slaughter, etc.), it was going to be easy for people to convince themselves that the Cards would react badly to Jackie Robinson whether or not there was any further evidence of such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for the alleged boycott? The only source I see cited in that part is the interview refuting it. Phyrkrakr (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some question how serious the threat of a boycott was. Supposedly Ford Frick sent a letter to all the clubs threatening them with severe retribution if they boycotted. SABR had an article about it a few years ago. I'll look into it when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Pujols

Albert Pujols was born in and played for the Dominican Republic national team. Seeing as how the Dominican constitution allows for double citizenship, the flag next to his name should be that of the Dominican Republic. DannyVC 03:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortened history section

I've been working on a shorter history section for the Cardinals article based on other sports team articles that have reached FA status, such as Chicago Bears and New England Patriots. Because it will be a very drastic edit to the article, I want to let everyone know so they can review it first. Here: User:Timpcrk87/sandbox/Cardinals Leave comments either here on on that pages discussion page. Timpcrk87 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just today, another editor was working on cutting down the size a bit. You might want to take it up with him before you go chopping further. Also, do you plan to then write the spinoff article for the full history? (Maybe there already is one?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Yes, there is one. Just be sure to keep the two articles consistent with each other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend shifting the info you're cutting into the "History of the St. Louis Cardinals" article before you cut it. Vidor (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I've only seen positive responses (also see here), I'm going ahead with the edit. I made sure everything from the previous version was at least preserved in the History of the St. Louis Cardinals article. Also, I'm going to temporarily keep the version I'm removing here, as much for myself as anything. Timpcrk87 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)