Talk:Tampa Bay Rays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baseball Portal

Tampa Bay Rays 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.

Tampa Bay Rays is part of WikiProject Tampa Bay, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Tampa Bay Area and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project.

[edit] "Professional baseball in Tampa Bay": New article?

It looks like this section would be a decent start to a new article. It probably has enough importance to stand on its own without being a part of the Rays article. Any objections to splitting this out? Sliver7 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a point in the section where I think that whatever comes after it should be kept. Everything else before that really has nothing to do with the team.

    Local leaders made many unsuccessful attempts to acquire a major league baseball team...

Keeping that and what follows, I think is relevant to the article because it depicts previous attempts at being awarded a franchise before finally getting one in 1998. All else before that should probably be moved. So what I'm saying is, I agree that the section should be moved, but not all of it. Just what is relevant to the team because of the history of ill-fated attempts to be given a franchise, which I would include to start out the "Before 1998" section. If there's enough information left to make a new article about Pro Baseball in Tampa Bay based on my idea, then I think it should be done. Tampabay721 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to come back to this before the "split" template was removed. I'll see what I can do about drafting a separate article for this, and have it ready to be looked at before I put it back up. Sliver7 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion... A separate article about baseball in Tampa Bay is a great idea, imo. Just this month, there were lots of newspaper articles on this subject due to the closing of Al Lang Field, and just today, I picked up the latest issue of Cigar City Magazine with a "baseball in Tampa" theme. I've also seen a couple of books on the subject. There's a lot of interesting history there that's defintely worthy of an entry of its own.

I'll mention this on the Wikiproject Tampa page as well. Zeng8r (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rough Draft: I've created a rough draft of the proposed new article: Baseball in Tampa Bay. Any assistance in getting it up to standards would be greatly appreciated. Sliver7 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good start. There's actually a book called "Baseball in Tampa Bay", and it can apparently be read in its entirety online right here. Also, since the article is supposed to cover "Tampa Bay", current and former minor league and spring training sites in Clearwater, Bradenton, Plant City, etc. should probably be mentioned. Thanks for getting this going, Sliver7! Do you mind if users edit the draft on your page? Zeng8r (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit right on the page I've got up. I just figured we could get it hashed out there before putting it out "live". :-) I'll be pretty busy through the weekend with other things, but I'll try to work on it as I get the time. Sliver7 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More updates: I'm not sure anyone else has been following the page as I've been editing it (I'm the only one so far to edit it, in any case). I'm using the 'official' Hernando County/Hillsborough County/Pasco County/Pinellas County definition of the Tampa Bay Area (so Bradenton, Sarasota, etc., aren't included in the article). In any case, I don't want to clog up this whole talk page. Additional help would be very much appreciated: User:Sliver7/Baseball in Tampa Bay (Also, Zeng8r, thanks for the pointer to that book. The whole thing isn't viewable via Google Books, but next week I'll see if the local library has it.) Sliver7 (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Split re-suggested: Article available: I've placed the split template back in the article. I think the article I've been working on (User:Sliver7/Baseball in Tampa Bay) is reasonably far enough along to move it to Baseball in Tampa Bay. When it's there, more people will see it to make the improvements it still needs. Please comment. - Sliver7 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarification (just in case), this would encompass up to the point suggested by Tampabay721 above. - Sliver7 (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Split Complete: Since there was no talk indicating opposition to the move, I've gone ahead and made the new article live, and edited the main Rays article accordingly. See: Baseball in Tampa Bay. - Sliver7 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citrus Derby

What's the Citrus Derby? --User:Kushboy 17:04 EST July 8, 2005

It's apparently a fig newton of anonymous user 24.171.36.233's semi-fertile imagination, along with all this bogus "main rivals" junk that he's been putting on every baseball team page. Wahkeenah 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

At least, there's some action being taken against these fake rivalries. [1] Win777 18:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The fake "rivalries" keep on coming. Win777 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

They posted a "Disco Demolition Rivalry" between the White Sox and Tigers. They are really getting desparate. Wahkeenah 17:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

I noticed a spelling error when I was browsing the page. I changed it, just wanted to make a record of it. Doughboy 16:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to post that here. Just leaving that in your edit summary will do. OsFan 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Devil"?

Why is "Devil" in quotation in relation to the team's name. The team's name is the Devil Rays, not the Rays, despite the poll of season tix. holders. I'm going to take the quotes off, unless someone can explain them. Wxthewx99 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single Season Records

The line that states the requirements to qualify for single season records:

Average records require qualification for end-of-year awards according to MLB standards. For batting average, a player must have a minimum 450 plate appearances. For ERA, a pitcher must be have played in at least 30 games and started at least 25 of those games.

This contradicts what I have understood the standard to qualify is. To my understanding, to qualify for the batting title, a player needed 501 plate appearances during the season, and pitchers, to qualify for the ERA title needed at least one inning pitched for each team game, whether he be a starter or not (so usually 162 innings per season to qualify for the title). Darwin's Bulldog 05:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have started some copyediting of this article, but it's in major need of revamping. I'm going to start such an action, this article needs a colaborate effort to repair. Yank sox 04:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before the Devil Rays

The Before the Devil Rays section is not even remotely NPOV in either tone or content. It needs a thorough rewrite from someone who knows more than I do about the history of bringing baseball to Tampa Bay. CoramVobis 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't? It seems perfectly fine to me, though sorely lacking in refs. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete: Prominent Major Leaguers from Tampa Bay

This list has nothing to do with the team. Yes, some of the people on the list have been on the team, but this list is of MLBers who are from the city, not the team. It should be deleted. Doc502 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It should be kept. While the Devil Rays have been in existence for less than a decade, the Tampa Bay region has a rich baseball history, in part because of the prominent major leaguers that it has produced. The list of players is needed in order to understand that the history of baseball in Tampa Bay is far more than just the history of the Devil Rays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpt108 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

But this isn't an article on the history of baseball in Tampa Bay...it's an article on the Tampa Bay Rays. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "famous" fans

Is that section neccesary and/or cite-able? I've heard that a couple of those on the list have been spotted at the Trop, but most I have not, and no sources have been included. Also, does someone count as "famous" if most people have no idea who they are? Zeng8r 03:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The latter portion of this article is really unorganized and includes some questionably relevant information. I feel as though this section is meaningless and ought to be removed. --Valis2374 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change

According to a press release the Tampa Bay Devil Rays will become the Tampa Bay Rays on November 8, 2007. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Since that's the case, shouldn't that wait until it's official next Thursday, since they're technically still the Devil Rays until then? And would this mean removing all mention of the word "Devil" from the article, when referring to the history of the team? Tampabay721 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Update to the Article

I just edited out all mention of the word "Devil" where I thought it would be necessary. If anyone knows how to change the color of the Season Records table, and how to go about updating with the new logos, please don't hesitate. Tampabay721 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

    Logos done, will do the colors. 
    Wait, colors done too. thanks for your updates. --Gingerbreadmann 01:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I Forgot to add that Raymond the mascot is supposedly involved in the new changes too, but I don't know when his new look is going to be unveiled, if it hasn't been already today. A new picture of him will probably be needed whenever possible. Tampabay721 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't all references to the "Rays" between 1998 and 2007 (except for the introductory text at the top of the page) be "Devil Rays"? The name of the team for all those years was Devil Rays and such sweeping edits would appear to be 'sweeping' the old name under the rug. I recommend reverting all references to the team from 1998-2007 to Devil Rays. Basically, using Rays everywhere but in the aforementioned timeframe in "Franchise History" is fine. Using Rays between 1998-2007 is like calling Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth prior to 1952 (like talking about her as Queen Elizabeth in the 1940s). --Thirdmoon 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I just want to make sure that whoever comes across the article understands that the team is no longer to be referred to as the "Devil Rays," although that can be seen under the Names section on the side of the article. I think that referring to them as the Devil Rays throughout the majority of the article, would be confusing when all of a sudden after the 2007 section, they are just referred to as the "Rays," because it's not such a dramatic name change. I propose a little tweaking of the franchise history section, to resemble that of the Los Angeles Clippers, which I came across to get an idea. Just a short sentence to explain that they WERE the Devil Rays, or to just include in the Level 2 heading under the start of the Franchise History section to say something along the lines of "As the Devil Rays." I'm just looking for ideas to make it as disambiguous as possible. Tampabay721 08:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that "As the Devil Rays" compromise for seasons before 2008. Zeng8r 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New name: Florida Rays?

I just noticed the couple of sentences stating that the Rays contemplate a change to become the "Florida Rays" when/if the Marlins never move or change their location name. I follow the Rays more closely than anyone I know, and I've NEVER heard that even mentioned as a joke possiblilty. It's also not cited, so unless someone can find a good source, I'm taking it out. Zeng8r (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Where would the Florida Marlins go? There were rumours floating the Marlins wanted to respresent just Miami as opposed to the entires state of Florida. In any event, I wonder if it's possible to still refer to the Rays as the Devil Rays, just as many people call the Blue Jays the Jays -- either name is acceptable so we can't have to search and remove the word "Devil" at every instance of "Devil Rays". New York Dreams (talk)

I think somebody already tried to change all references to "Devil Rays" to "Rays". Of course, that's a bad idea, because the change only applies after the close of this season. All previous references to before the change are still valid, and should NOT be changed. - BillCJ (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the "devil" issue here. In the "future" section, the article currently says that the Rays are contemplating becoming the "Florida Rays" (ie not "Tampa Bay") if the Marlins abandon the appelation for any reason. Since it's such an out-there claim that nobody even knows what I'm talking about, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Zeng8r (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that is official, it seems as though not only is the name different, it refers to something new. That is, it seems as though ray is now short for "sun ray" instead of "devil ray." Sylvain1972 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TampaBayDevilRays 1001.png

Image:TampaBayDevilRays 1001.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Draysunis.PNG

Image:Draysunis.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniforms

Hey folks. I've talked with Silent Wind of Doom and asked if he'd be interested and making some GNU Free Documentation Licensed uniforms for the page. He's agreed, and hopefully it shouldn't be too long until the uniforms are back up. If you don't know who Silent Wind of Doom is, check nearly every MLB organization's page; he's created most of the uniforms. FRACTIONS (t | c) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There we go guys, some GNU'd uniforms. FRACTIONS (t | c) 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rays trio.jpg

Image:Rays trio.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.

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) 04:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond

Though I'm not losing any sleep because the Raymond picture is now considered "old," this[2] is the new look of Raymond from "his" blog on raymond.mlblogs.com. So, since I have zero clue as to the Wikipedia guidelines for uploading and using pcitres, if someone could take the time to do it and replace the old picture, that would be great. Tampabay721 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Let's try to get a non-fair use one once Spring Training starts, though. Eagles Fan In Tampa 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Raymond, I've gone ahead and (re)created the article for him at: Raymond (mascot). Sliver7 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soccerball

I keep seeing this soccerball image on baseball pages, and I'm just wondering if there isn't anything better to put there... Drippingyellowmadness (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the soccer ball pic is not actually an image directly placed on this or anyother baseball page. It is part of the {{current sport-related}} template, which is used on many Wikipedia sports-related pages, not just baseball articles. If the pic bothers you that much, you might bring up the issue of changing it to a more generic sports image at the Template talk:current sport-related discussion page. - BillCJ (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing Yankee Issue

After today's bench-clearing incident with the Yankees, I feel that this is going to grow into an even bigger story, even larger than it has already become, so should that warrant its own section, rather than what I'm anticipating to be a ridiculously long sub-section under "Rivals"? Tampabay721 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should wait for the dust to settle rather than give a blow by blow account (literally) as it happens. Zeng8r (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I just set-up the subs cause I didn't know what would happen next. Now with this going in the directions it is, it could very well warrant its own article, like Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. Eagles Fan In Tampa 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that it seems the whole thing has subsided (with the players at least), I think the section should be shortened and just placed in the 2008 section I just added. It doesn't seem like anything else will happen related to the spring training incidents, but if it does, it can just be added on there. In my opinion, this isn't so much a "rivalry" like most people would view a rivalry, (For example, Seminoles-Gators, Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-White Sox, etc.), but an incident in one particular season between two teams in the same division of the MLB. OR if anyone has a better idea to do something with it, or even just to let it be, go ahead and throw it out there. I won't lose any sleep if someone disagrees, but I just feel it's better off in a 2008 section. Tampabay721 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been general animosity between the two teams for a few years; its just showing more this season. Saksjn (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the separate sections for Red Sox and Yankees under "Rivals"; each section just outlined a single incident (or 2 in the case of the Yankees, both in 2008 though) and attempted to conjure a 'rivalry' out of the incident. There is nothing notable about the brawls that is any more notable than a brawl between any other two teams. If there had been a history more than just this current season for the Yankees/Rays, I could see it. The Sox/Rays did have a few brawls a while back, but unless someone wants to outline them instead of just saying "there were a lot of brawls when Lou Piniella was manager", it doesn't fit. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Being a "bold" editor does not include barging in (as an anonymous user, no less) and cutting out an entire section of a very actively edited article, imo. The rivalry section is notable and needs to remain. I'll wait for more input from other consistent editors of this entry before reverting the text, but mark me down for a proverbial strong keep. Zeng8r (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I said this almost two months ago, and commented on it again almost a month later, so I'll reitierate both into a "Super Comment." This is NOT a rivalry as big as most "household name" rivalries that I mentioned above. However, the spring training issue with the Yankees certainly IS notable considering the attention it received, and was NOT just as notable as a "normal" bench-clearing brawl, considering the events that led up to that day. Also, you can't begin to think people are going to buy the reason for taking off a section about incidents between two franchises whose ages differ in around 90 years because there isn't more of a history between them. Does it need the trading of a future legend more than 85 years ago for there to be a "history"? The section itself, doesn't need to be kept if we can find a place it fits. The intent for the Yankee section was that it would be carried over into the regular season, which it has not after 6 games between the two teams. Becuase it hasn't, it should probably be moved to the 2008 section of the entire article. The Yankees and Red Sox are both rivals because they are in our division, but no more than the Orioles and Blue Jays. However, we do not have as many notable incidents between the O's and Jays, or any other team for that matter, as we do the Yankees and Red Sox. I can understand taking out the Red Sox portion, perhaps because that was too long ago for me to remember (being 18 and having not such a great long-term memory), but don't even try to feed me some bull about the incidentS with the Yankees earlier this year is nothing more notable than a minor altercation that just happens to clear a bench or two. If there's a place for Sammy Sosa's corked bat, there is absolutely a place for everything that happened between the Rays and the Yankees. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk to most fans and they will make some comment about the "freaking Yankees" or the "annoying Red Sox." We definitely hate the yanks and sox a lot more than the jays or orioles. Saksjn (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colors Section

I noticed an error when I read over the section about the uniform color changes. It notes the teams that do not have a shade of red or blue in the uniforms. However, the Pittsburgh Pirates do have red uniforms that they use as alternate home uniforms. Their spring training uniforms also have a shade of red. The Collector 02:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but that sentence doesn't really clarify what type of uniforms. The red Pirates jersey you're referring to is an alternate, while whoever wrote that part in the article was probably implying the standard home and road jerseys. So in a way, I think they're both kind of correct, but the article needs to specify one way or the other. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cowbell

Should we add a section on the significance of the cowbell to Ray's fans? It's basically the same thing as the Terrible Towel. Saksjn (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no... comparing the cowbell to the terrible towel is definitely a stretch. I mean the cowbell has its notoriety (if you can call it that), but I don't think it's notable enough to have its own article. If there was an article, what would it say? "The Rays Cowbell is a promotional gimmick thought up by person X. People complain about it a lot." phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 02:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Saksjn said "section" not "article," but even a section might be a stretch for me. The Steelers are synonymous with the Terrible Towel, and I don't think cowbell is much endorsed by the Rays other than that one night of the year. There wouldn't be much to write unless we had it in a trivia section. But so I've seen from the templates, trivia sections are discouraged, so then what? Tampabay721 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is, whenever they want more crowd involvement, no matter the game, they flash "More Cowbell!" on the screen, so it's promoted more than once a year by the Rays. They only give them out on one night. I guess they expect you to buy one if you miss that night or something. If the Angels have the Rally Monkey, the Steelers have the Terrible Towel, and the Twins have their Homer Hanky in their articles, I don't see why the Rays can't have this. How it would be worded w/out being trivial, however, is definitely gonna be tricky. Eagles Fan In Tampa 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fans bring cowbells to every Rays game; I personally own one myself. Just think about it: they flash "More Cowbell!", one particularly well known fan is known as "the cowbell kid", and they have a template on the big screen that points at him and says "cheer with this guy!" Even fans that don't have cowbells routinely bang on the seats in unison with the cowbells. Just watch a home game on TV, the constant banging of cowbells will likely drive you nuts if your not used to it. I think a section would be easier to do, but an article could be warranted for. Saksjn (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I know all about the Cowbell Kid, especially through MySpace, and I make it a personal mission to sit next to him for every game I go to now. All I worry about is a section that will be long enough to be relevant, and also not be trivial, like EaglesFanInTampa said. Tampabay721 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any sources that mention the cowbell kid, cause he's kinda a local celebrity. At least among fans. Saksjn (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I found one here that gives a good history of the cowbell and some quotes from "the kid".

The cowbell promotion was the idea of principal owner Stuart Sternberg, who picked it up from a classic Saturday Night Live skit. But its loudest proponent is "The Cowbell Kid" otherwise known as Cary Strukel, 38, a bartender and small-business owner who has become a one-man marching band of Rays fanfare, complete with giant blue afro wig and scuba flippers.

Strukel's proudest achievement is a clip from ESPN where Yankees broadcaster Michael Kay was heard saying about him, "I want to go down and make that guy eat the cowbell!"

But even Strukel realizes cowbells must be used with care.

"When you're beating it for absolutely no reason," that's not good, Strukel said, "but if it's in the ear of a Yankee fan, that's okay in my eyes."source Saksjn (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another article including The Kid, and I don't know if it would be appropriate to include, but for informational purposes I suppose, he's on MySpace. As for a picture of him, anyone could get a free one of him whenever the team comes back from this road trip, because he's at almost every home game. Tampabay721 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just added a section. It sounds a little fan siteish, so it would be nice to have a non-fan edit it. Saksjn (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone had a picture of this year's cowbell, which they gave out last Saturday, I think it would be good to add it in there with the section. Tampabay721 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How about another picture with the bigger cowbell that people use drum sticks on? Saksjn (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't get too crazy about pictures, though. If we just use the one that the team gives out, it will show people how original they are in the look, and that they're not the same as the ones that people use drum sticks on. Otherwise, we could just use the cowbell picture from the cowbell article, and it wouldn't have much of the same meaning behind it than if we had the picture of the official Rays cowbell. I mean, you wouldn't get a yellow towel, write "Steelers" on it, and call it a "Terrible Towel." I would assume people knew what a real cowbell looks like, but they won't know the kind they give out at the game for that one day a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tampabay721 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

This is the dumbest thing I think can be discussed here, however I think it should be addressed... The infobox for the team mentions that one of the nicknames is "D-Rays," and a recent edit removed that name. The edit was reverted on the grounds that many people still call them that. Now, I don't want to nitpick because I don't really care, but for the sake of integrity, I think it should be removed per team rule on how references to the former name are not allowable under penalty of a $1 fine.[3] I just think taking that tiny thing out is in the best interest of the article. So if anyone agrees with me, I won't feel too stupid about it. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree with this. I don't feel that it should be removed, however, but that it should just be formated like their old name (i.e., D-Rays (1998-2007). Just my two cents. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 05:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like "former names." There could be "former nicknames" I guess. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that'd be a good idea. Lets wait like a day or so and see if anyone else would like to give input. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 06:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm for that, sounds good. Did you hear about sports center purposely calling them the Devil Rays 30 times to donate to the Ray's Baseball Foundation? Saksjn (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? When'd that happen? That's really cool! phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6/5/08 Red Sox brawl

How long until someone should add something about what Coco Puff started? After suspensions are handed out? Also, where should it be added? I think this is as notable as the Shelley Duncan incident since it has more to it than just a common HBP turned bench clearing. Not a huge section or anything, but a brief mentioning like Coco Puff's article. (although that might not be a good example) Tampabay721 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The English Language

"Tampa Bay's primary rivals are the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees, whom in 2008 they have been in an on-field altercations with." This is a severely fucked up sentence.

I took it out. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)