Talk:Boston Red Sox/Archive 3

message: I failed this because of no refs, long history section, cleanup tag since august, fair use issues, etc, this article has so many problems. Jaranda wat's sup 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failed 

message: Why is there no mention in this article that The New York Times Company, which owns The Boston Globe as well as obviously The New York Times is an owner of the team? It seems pretty relevant to me that the biggest home town newspaper of the team as well as the biggest home town news paper of the team's biggest rival are owned by the same company that owns the team. — Linnwood 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times Company 

message: I put in a requrest to have this page semi-protected, but it was denied.
However, I have to respectfully disagree with this decision. If you look at the history for this page, nearly every single change of the last 250+ edits is either vandalism or a revision. Does anyone else think this is a little ridiculous? Zomic_13 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now semi-protected. Thank you. Zomic_13 17:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Protection 

message: I reverted the change to sprotected2 back to sprotected. Due to the nature of the topic it may attract new anon editors (and it looks like there are some decent anon edits amongst the vandalism) and I think we need to keep the protected nature of the page very apparent even at the price of aesthetics. Ripe 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprotected vs. sprotected2 

message: 
Could someone add the little box to this article that I've added to all the other baseball articles: It should look like this:

An example of how I did this elsewhere:
64.178.96.168 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Maybe you could get the one at 64.178.96.168 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I just requested that this page be semi-protected again,as IP vandalism has started to pick up since the old protection expired. Black Harry (T|C) 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Page Protect Request

message: WP:EL allows Blogs written by knowledgeable sources, so the ones written by local media members should stay, the others should be gone.  Black Harry (T|C) 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: If anyone is interested I've added succession boxes to Brad Mills, John Farrell (baseball, and Dave Magadan's oages, as well as their past few predecesors. If anyone wants to make these go back further, it would be great.Hoponpop69 04:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coach succession boxes

message: I created the 2004 Boston Red Sox season article, but I need some help because writing isn't my strong point. I hope to make this article a GA or FA some day, and I would like the article to get in a good start. -- JohnnyAlbert10 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking maybe copy-paste the text in the "2004: World Champions" section of this article and put it in the 2004 Boston Red Sox season article. And in the "2004: World Champions" section of this article, write a brief summary of the season. -- JA10Talk • Contribs 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: The Red Sox are also known as the Carmine Hose
216.15.115.41 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But we need a WP:RS to show the readers/editors that what you're saying is true. But if you throw it in the article without a citation, we will call it original research. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: "The Red Sox are also one of the most profitable teams in sports due to the high apparel sales generated by the team" - All profits from apparel sales are distributed evenly to all 30 teams, so this is not true and should be removed.Kgppra17 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparel profit

message: :Image:Huntington Avenue Grounds.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the image page it points out that the Grounds were last used in 1911, implying that the photo is too old to still be in copyright (ie, it's public domain now). Huw Powell 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the 27th, I changed the licensing on that photo to indicate pre-1923, and I think that has pretty well settled the issue. It says "ballparks.com" on it, but they put that stamp on every one of the photos on their site. It amounts to a free advertisement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Huntington Avenue Grounds.jpg

message: This article makes statements that are simply wrong. First, it states that Grady Little was not fired as manager in 2003. He was.  Merely because the act of firing is because a contract is not renewed makes it no less a firing.  The weasel-words "not renewed" ought to be left to press releases. He had the job. He wanted to keep the job. The club involuntarily terminated his services. He was fired.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.57.107 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He wasn't fired.  The team simply let his contract expire.   Sasha Callahan 06:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant Error

message: Roughly the same amount of space is devoted to pre-2002 as to post-2002 in this article. Granted, the last few years have been significant, but some effort should be made to achieve a more equal coverage of the earlier period, or to trim down the newer portion. Biruitorul 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to "talk" to comment on something that strikes me as fitting here.  Along with what you mention, or at least "how" you mention it, the 2004 to present "season wrapups" are what, half the article?  My suggestion was going to be to create articles for those seasons alone (and leave much shorter summaries in this article).  Not because WP is going to become a play-by-play sportsapedia, but because 04, 07, and the transition from one to the other are very immportant in Sox history.  Perhaps other notable seasons could also be researched and detailed in their own articles too?  One reason I think this makes sense is that far more people are now likely to make recent "season articles" complex and in-depth than will for the "pre-WP" era. Huw Powell 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance issues

message: Someone needs to add Johnny Pesky (#6) to the list as it was announced today, Sept. 23, 2008, that his number will be retired on Sept. 26, 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stlrfn81 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the box all ready to go once the Red Sox officially retire Pesky's number.  I've made it even across the board so it's not jumpy or uneven.Pharos04 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They already have, on Friday, September 26th before their game with the Yankees. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I stopped following baseball after i found out my mom was a lesbian .  Hence, my surprise when I clicked on 42 to get taken to Jackie Robinson's page, as I was pretty sure he never played for the Red Sox.  I thought that this was an error or even possible vandalism.  I'm wondering, if should there be a special indicator next to each retired 42 on each MLB team page to indicate that Robinson's number was retired across the board, not just on the team he played on.   Clemwang 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is actually not the case, as number 42 is currently in use by Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees. Robinson's number (42) was not retired universally, only be teams that chose to retire it, therefore it needs no special indicator as only certain teams chose to retire it.--72.10.101.109 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is not true. The number was retired universally by MLB. However, players who were already wearing the number 42 could continue to wear it. There were several players at the time who had #42, but Mariano Rivera is the last of them. - Zomic13 16:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't be the first time a team has retired a number for two players.  Heck, wouldn't even be the first time the Yankees have retired a number for two players - #8 was retired by the Pinstripers for Bill Dickey and Yogi Berra.  The Yankees will display two #42s in Monument Park - Rivera's in the customary number-over-pinstripes, and the Jackie Robinson logo for his.  SixFourThree (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired numbers 

message: I have to ask why there is no section regarding the Royal Rooters, the fan organization that formed in the late 19th century. The history of this organization ties in closely with early Red Sox Nation, and with baseball's history in general. I suggest that that article be merged with this one, or that this article have at least a small section regarding both the Rooters from the late 19th and early 20th century, as well as the modern Royal Rooters of Red Sox Nation.--72.10.101.109 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? There's an article for both of them (see Royal Rooters, Red Sox Nation), there's no need to paste that information here Doc Strange (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of a Section Regarding the Royal Rooters 

message: Since I don't see any discussion on the proposed merge (of merging Red Sox Nation into Boston Red Sox) by X3210, I will start it off.
*Strongly Oppose - Red Sox Nation should not be merged. The term for the group of fans is notable (it is mentioned in all types of media, ranging from national (ESPN) to local). There is no reason as to why they should be merged. Red Sox Nation is a term used to describe the fans, whereas the Boston Red Sox article is about the team. -Zomic13 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merge 

message: Could someone who bothers to register change arised->arose 70.5.95.218 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Fix

message: :Image:Oldredsoxlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
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 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Oldredsoxlogo.gif

message: This article needs to cite that the Boston Red Sox was the _last_ major league team to integrate racially.  Source: http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/oct/redsox/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzuun (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Though it is an embarrassing and sad part of Red Sox baseball history it nevertheless must be included.--72.10.101.109 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration

message: Clutch hitting in largely a myth, and should be removed - e  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.111.135 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Neutrality

message: The artlice states that the Red Sox beat the Philadelphia Atletics in the 1915 World Series. They beat the Philiadelphia Phillies.
Cvermette (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it, thanks.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Error regarding 1915 World Series