Talk:Oakland Athletics

message: The "A" on the uniforms is not Old English.--Hazillow 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This :Image:OldEnglish.png is Engraver's Old English. There are a number of differences between this A and the Athletics' A, but I would like to see a source for this. For the moment I believe blackletter is as precise as we can get. ~ trialsanderrors 08:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded 69.107.7.131 (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they have two alternates this season. They still have the green like they've had since 1994. The black is the new Alternate 1 or Second Alternate jersey. Though as I posted below it hasn't been used all that much, not unlike the black uni they had during the 2000 season. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniform

message: Anyone else see that Lewis Wolff is holding a press conference about the team's future on Friday. The new stadium will be a big part of this (and possibly if the team will even be the "Oakland" Athletics for much longer :( Gateman1997 02:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Stadium

message: Hello,<BR>
The rivals (See also: Bay Bridge Series (Athletics-Giants), City Series (Athletics-Phillies)) are listed on this page twice, once under the Rivals section and once under Quick facts. Do we need it in both places, or can it be stuck under the See also section? What say anyone?--CrazyTalk 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done!! Uncle Al, 20:00, 09 November 2005 (UTC
Someone put that the A's and Giants have met 3 times in the World Series since their respective moves west, and that they have won two and one of those meetings, respectively.  That's just not true.  They've only met once since either team moved west, and the Giants have not won a single World Series, let alone one against the A's, since their move to San Francisco.
=== Angels aren't listed? ===
Most fellow A's fans consider the Angles to be the A's main rival. A's fans/players dislike the Angels even when they're bad, though it's not as intense as Raiders vs Broncos, Yankees vs Red Sox, etc. For example, many A's fans who normally dislike the Giants for being "the wine and cheese team" wanted them to win the 2002 World Series just because they were playing the Angels. But we could have cared less who won if the Mariners were playing.
Articles about the A's-Angels rivalry from 2014:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/la-sp-angels-athletics-baxter-20140829-story.html
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/6/3/5774256/oh-how-i-love-beating-the-angels
From 2005:
http://www.sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2172668
Any objections to me adding a section about this sometime soon?
Sas3301 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivals 

message: Most fellow A's fans consider the Angles to be the A's main rival. A's fans/players dislike the Angels even when they're bad, though it's not as intense as Raiders vs Broncos, Yankees vs Red Sox, etc. For example, many A's fans who normally dislike the Giants for being "the wine and cheese team" wanted them to win the 2002 World Series just because they were playing the Angels. But we could have cared less who won if the Mariners were playing.
Articles about the A's-Angels rivalry from 2014:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/la-sp-angels-athletics-baxter-20140829-story.html
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/6/3/5774256/oh-how-i-love-beating-the-angels
From 2005:
http://www.sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2172668
Any objections to me adding a section about this sometime soon?
Sas3301 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angels aren't listed? 

message: Would someone who understands the US franchising system care to contribute some words of wisdom to the Sports franchising article.  It mentions Oakland Athletics as an example, but does't really say what it means.  [Note that the references to "football" in Europe mean Association Football or "soccer" to you.] --A Confused Limey aka Concrete Cowboy 13:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports Franchising

message: Some notes on my recent edits.  Though Finley began phasing out the name "Athletics" from the day he bought the team, the name continued to appear in team yearbooks until 1970.  The name "Oakland Athletics" appears prominently on the cover of the 1969 Yearbook (which featured a picture of Connie Mack).  For the record, the team wore "OAKLAND" on home and road jerseys in 1968, then the traditional "A" on home and road jerseys in 1969.  In 1970, the "apostrophe-s" was added, and has remained on the team's cap logo ever since.
:The 1982 Yearbook---the second full year of Haas' ownership---is titled "1982 Oakland Athletics Yearbook," and the traditional name is featured prominently in the publication.  The confusion arose, I think, from the fact that it was not until 1987 that "Athletics" was restored to the team uniform.  Uncle Al, 20:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Team Name

message: Steve Karsay has announced his retirement from baseball. 67.188.172.165 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Karsay Retires

message: If memory serves me correctly Charlie-O was originally a gift from Stuart Symington who wanted the Athletics represented by a Democratic mule rather than Republican elephant.  When the Athletics left KC there was controversy over whether the mule should go also.  I can't find a citatation on it although this was in the KC Star at the time.  Americasroof 07:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mule

message: Will Mount Davis be opened for the playoffs, or will they keep it covered?  They're supposedly selling standing room only tickets, they could sell more if the Mount Davis seats were opened up.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mount Davis

message: I believe the "A's" on the cap has thinner lines and harder angles than the updated "A's" in the main logo. Refer to player photos.
Yes, the cap logo is the same shape as the one in the official logo. The logo shown as the cap logo (the "fat A") is only used on some licensed apparel and does not appear on the uniform at all. 209.129.161.251 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same "A" however. Remember that on the caps it's 3 dimensional which is why it ends up looking skinnier. If you flatten it out it looks like the A we have in the current image. Gateman1997 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cap insignia

message: The image of the team's uniforms feature black cleats. Is there any way to change them to the white cleats that the Athletics wear? Would that violate any policy? Kraikk 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: White cleats

message: The A's are relocating to Fremont,CA which is inbetween Oakland and San Jose.
I think a section about their move should be added since they aren't really the
Oakland A's anymore.
--East Bay Citizen,
--D.M.
:The football Giants have been in New Jersey for decades, but they are still the New York Giants. And by the way, weren't the Oakland Oaks actually in Emeryville? Baseball Bugs 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There is no evidence they won't still have Oakland in their name post move. Wolff has only stated that "at Fremont" will be added to the name. Also, they're still in Oakland until 2010 no matter what happens at the very least. Gateman1997 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a parallel to "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim", or LAAA for short. I still think the Dodgers, in retaliation, should have then renamed themselves the "Brooklyn Dodgers of Los Angeles". d:) Baseball Bugs 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well distain for it not withstanding, it makes sense to recognize the city you actually play in while keeping the benefits that come with have a big city name like Oakland or San Jose in your name. Plus it's an added incentive for a suburban town like Fremont to cooperate with Wolff in that they'll have great recognition outside the Bay Area. Infact it would benefit Fremont much more so than a town like Anaheim which already has other well known destinations like Disneyland. Shame Santa Clara's not getting the same kind of deal from the 49ers. Gateman1997 02:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all about $$$ one way or another. I just wonder, with all the retractable roofs and such stuff as that in various cities... will the new Fremont ballpark have a retractable upper deck? >:) Baseball Bugs 02:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the designs they have on their website. Gateman1997 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they'll just have to bring along the canvases from the Coliseum. Actually, I hope the A's draw better with a better facility. Some of those Coliseum seats are so far away from the action they might be in a different time zone. Baseball Bugs 03:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: They won't need them in the new park. That's why it only holds between 32,000 and 35,000 fans. The Coliseum WITH the tarps holds 34,000 right now. Gateman1997 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making fun of your team, and you're not biting. Of course, being a Cubs fan, I've got not much to crow about. :) Baseball Bugs 10:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've been defending the A's for twenty years against loud mouth Giants fans. I let my team do the talking for me. 4 world championships and more trips to the post season in the time your team and theirs have garnered 0 championships speaks volumes more than I could. ;) Gateman1997 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet nobody shows up. Well, that was the case at San Fran for a long time, until they opened a ballpark that was a little warmer than the icebox at Candlestick. Maybe the new park will give the same boost to the A's. I think they got off to a bad start in 1968 when Finley said his goal was "to draw a million fans". Not to win the pennant, or to become part of the community, but to make money off the locals. I remember those great teams of the early 70s, which were broken up due to money and the Yankees, just like Mack's version of the team did in the early 1930s. The A's have always been kind of a shoestring operation. It would be nice to see them get some respect and some more fans than just the die-hards like yourself. d:) Baseball Bugs 22:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fremont will not have a major league ballpark, nor Santa Clara will get a NFL coliseum. The A's and 49'ers ownership are focused in being in direct proximity to their hometowns, while the San Francisco Giants baseball club has exclusive rights in the San Jose area by Fremont and Santa Clara for a future ball park site. The Oakland A's baseball club may be the first Major league baseball team to relocate four times in its history, originally of Philadelphia and Kansas City before they arrived in Oakland 40 years ago. From what I see in the future, the A's may be playing in Sacramento, Portland and even Montreal isn't a far fetched prediction, though the most feasible outcome is the city of Oakland not Fremont is going to house the Athletics if the city ever approves a new baseball park facility. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Santa Clara DOES have a NFL coliseum in 2017, so this post above me is outdated. Oakland will lose the Raiders in 2019 to Las Vegas. The Oakland A's continue to negotiate a new major league-standard baseball stadium in the city. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fremont A's" 

message: I've been working on adding image forms of the retired numbers in all the retired number sections, and my latest one (mostly due to an incident on the controversial Reggie Jackson page), had been Oakland.  I followed the model of the numbers atop Mount Davis, except for Haas in which I used the jersey on the right field fence as a model.  Robinson's 42, however, doesn't seem to appear anywhere.  If anyone can find an instance of Robinson's number being displayed at the Coliseum, it would be greatly appreciate it, although if everyone's okay with the current model, that works too.  Also, anyone have a year for when Haas was honored? --Silent Wind of Doom 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see it []. It's on the railing on the second deck, directly above the Chevy ad. You can also sort of see the Haas jersey, which is on the fence to the right of the Chevy ad, behind the player. The "A's" is green with a white outline, and "HAAS" is green with no outline. Senor k (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired Numbers (Images) 

message: :Image:Oakland Athletics Cap (1985 - 1993).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 12:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Oakland Athletics Cap (1985 - 1993).png

message: the uniform picture does not include the black alt. uniform of the a's, someone needs to fix this.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times have they worn that uni this year? I've only seen it twice on TV. Kinda like the black uniform from 2000 it's kinda faded away already into non-use. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lost uniform 

message: I am thinking of editing the Big three section, adding more detail as i think this is an important part of the Oakland Athletics History. How do you guys feel about that?
Sidmsuri (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big 3? 

message: Am I the only one who finds the "retired number" table completely unreadable? The link colors on the green background are practically invisible; I had to highlight the page to read the names. What can we do to fix this? --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Retired number" table 

message: Per WP:SPLIT: "If a section is split from the original article, a summary section should be left in the original ("main") article. At the top, it should contain a link to the newly created page, easily achieved with  template." It appears that no summary was left behind when the history section was split from this article. If regular editors would care to write a short summary for the franchise history section, it would be of great help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary style 

message: The lede mentions several dynasties.  I understand the early Philadelphia dynasty, and the dynasty that won three straight in the early 70's...but two in a row means dynasty?  That would mean the Blue Jays of the 90's are a dynasty and I've never seen them mentioned as such.  Also, going to the World Series three years in a row and winning once most certainly doesn't constitute a dynasty, otherwise the Braves of the 90's would also be a dynasty.  Furthermore, and most importantly, there appear to be no references standing for the assertion that these were actually "dynasties" and thus this would appear to be original research.  I'll wait for someone more familiar with the A's history to rewrite this lede before I go ahead and do it myself.  Thanks.  TempDog123 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct in the OR nature of the dynasty talk. I'll see what I can do...--Chimino (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dynasties?

message: I don't follow baseball but the movie Moneyball made the 20 win streak out to be a "huge deal". The wikipedia page barely mentions it or features it prominently. In fact isn't that the most notable fact about Oakland A? (from a general populace POV)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meepdeedoo (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think their world series wins are more notable than a winning streak during the season. It gets the appropriate mention..the 2002 Oakland Athletics season page goes into a bit more detail on it. Spanneraol (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Thanks--Meepdeedoo (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 20 win streak notable?

message: Regarding this edit: I have started a discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Baseball regarding the capitalization. Please provide your feedback in that thread. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of colour names in team infoboxes 

message: Looking to create a wikipage for the Oakland A's 1972 team (The Mustache Gang) known for having beards and mustache's. Would appreciate it if anyone could point out any similar types of articles or if anyone knows good sources about the origins of the Mustache Gang.  Appreciate any feedback. Thanks BrazilSean (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mustache Gang

message: The Hall of Fame section is wrong on a couple of points, partly due to some misleading info and partly due to some incorrect info.  One problem is that just because somebody played a game for the A's doesn't necessarily mean he should be listed, e.g. Orlando Cepeda, for whom you could count on one hand the number of games he played for the A's.  And Ty Cobb??? Yes, he played for the A's in the last two years of his career after he got run out of Detroit., but nobody associates him with the A's. Those two should be removed. (Remember, the vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not experts in the field, and including them in the list gives those readers an erroneous impression.) I'm not sure what the correct threshold is, but one should be determined so that there are no "what's-he-doing-on-there?" situations, which probably would delete several people from this list.
Also, there is a problem with the (1) and (2) footnotes in the table. For some reason they include "player/manager" which doesn't apply to anyone here at all. Of the six, only Lou Boudreau was ever a player/manager and that was only with Cleveland. So that should be completely deleted. (Why is it there in the first place?) Also, the exact nature of the connection of the managers to the team is also unclear. I would suggest the following correction:
Luke Appling and Lou Boudreau should read, "inducted as player; managed Athletics"
Whitey Herzog and Tommy Lasorda should read, "inducted as manager; played for but never managed Athletics"
Tony La Russa and Dick Williams should read, "inducted as manager; played for and managed Athletics"     __209.179.55.119 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading and/or erroneous info in Hall of Fame section 

message: I don't think the A's Fremont "move" should be more than just a brief note since it did not pan out and was a bit of a longshot. I have since updated the very realistic talks of moving the A's to Howard Point at the Port of Oakland. The San Jose move is interesting because it went all the way to the high court so it's worth noting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaB1122334455 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the stadium rumors 

message: Per this RFC, reliable secondary sourcing is needed to establish the significance of entries in "in popular culture" sections. IMDb and wikis are not reliable sources, while TV shows and transcripts are primary sources that cannot establish their own significance. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not restore such material absent appropriate sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Oakland Athletics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vGoo85z6 to http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/oakland/oaka_s.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Oakland Athletics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219001008/http://philadelphiaathletics.org/event/20040605walloffameday.htm to http://www.philadelphiaathletics.org/event/20040605walloffameday.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906180700/http://philadelphiaathletics.org/event/walloffameplaques.htm to http://www.philadelphiaathletics.org/event/walloffameplaques.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/oakland/oaka_s.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Oakland just filed a lawsuit over the ballpark. MLB just had threatened to relocate the team to Las Vegas.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.9.27 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Las Vegas

message: Maybe time to condense this section or split it off? conman33 (. . .talk) 00:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest to moving it to: Oakland Athletics relocation to Las Vegas or Las Vegas MLB stadium? 70.186.231.186 (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should promote the Oakland Athletics relocation to Las Vegas redirect to a full-fledged article until the relocation takes effect. Songwaters (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RECENTISM was surely at play. It seems we can split off information on the stadium. I will try to draft that shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vegas ballpark definitely should have it's own article and much of this should go there.... however the section is way too detailed even for that.. a purge is called for. The parts about improvements to the Coliseum should probably go to that page. Spanneraol (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

text: As of now, the section in question is still enormous.  I would cite not only WP:RECENTISM, but also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE.  -- HLachman (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ballpark" (which includes info about the possible relocation) section is longer than the team's actual "History" section

message: Someone should mention the name change once they move to sacramento in the lede and infobox. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/oakland-athletics-sacramento-rcna146413 2603:8001:B5F0:8370:1DFA:D1BA:EBE8:6872 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be mentioned in the body of the article, but not in the lead until the conclusion of the 2024 season when the team actually moves and the article title itself is changed. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably talk about this, sooner than later. Athletics is a disambiguation page. Should we move it to Athletics (baseball) when they are in Sacramento? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think we have time to wait on this.... they may change their mind before the 2025 season gets going... "Athletics" with no pre-amble is kinda idiotic. Let's wait to see what the official rebranding is and what they change their legal name to. Spanneraol (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably correct. I just found out the other day that the Oklahoma City Dodgers are being called the Oklahoma City Baseball Club this year. There was also the Washington Football Team recently. It could be Athletics Baseball Club or some such term that we just don't know yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't think the legal company name should play a role, since English Wikipedia articles are named based on common usage. (Plus, since the organization is in the same state, and there's no change in ownership structure, it's quite likely the same name will remain.) isaacl (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the team re-brands as just "A's", then it'll just be a move across the current redirect if there is consensus for that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Oakland Athletics to just Athletics