Talk:Los Angeles Dodgers

message: It's accurate and leading to list all those nicknames as if they were used only in the specific years. In fact, they were all used, interchangeably, until the ball club officially identified itself as "Dodgers" by putting it on their uniforms. The fact they used "losers" in the 1920 World Series program is also quite telling, as that team is conventionally called the "Robins" in reference to manager Wilbert Robinson. As another example, the Chicago Cubs were simultaneously called the Cubs and the Colts by rival newspapers in the early 1900s, an issue which was only settled when the club formally adopted the nickname "Cubs" in 1906. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All the nicknames are used by the reference sources such as Baseball Reference... and the Cubs page does list those other nick names. Why do you want to change the dodgers page but not all the other MLB team pages that list similar nick names? These were nicknames used to refer to the team. Leave it as is. Spanneraol (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks clumsy, too much information in the infobox, and is misleading. You can put a specific year on when the Tampa Bay Devil Rays become just the Tampa Bay Rays. You can't do that with the Dodgers. If the other infoboxes are this cluttered, they need to be streamlined also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for keeping it in the way it is. Why remove all the info, because one of the names is confusing? If there is something that needs additional clarification, then lets say so in parentheses, but otherwise, don't kill the cow because its milk is spoiled.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've added a disclaimer, which is a good start. "Bridegrooms" and "Grooms" are the same thing, there's no reason to distinguish them. That would knock two items of the list. You could specify the first time (Trolley) Dodgers was used and indicate that it never went away. And then you could list alternate names such as Superbas and Robins which overlapped Dodgers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave that to your discretion. I was just trying to come up with a good solution, becauseI can see how it would be confusing otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can streamline it a bit without losing the basic facts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The Indians are "The Tribe", so the Robins would be "The Flock". Never heard that one before, but it would make sense. By the 1950s, when memories of Wilbert Robinson's era were fading, Willard Mullin's "Bum" character became pretty much the personification of the team. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newest nickname for the Los Angeles Dodgers is "The Blue Flaming Homos"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.246.207 (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: This article makes it clear that while MLB has taken over the operation of the Dodgers, McCourt is still considered the owner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True, though that hasnt stopped various people from trying to change the ownership info on various dodgers pages. McCourt is still the owner until he sells the team. Spanneraol (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the ownership clearly hasn't changed. However, I do find it odd that this page presently has no apparent reference to the management change imposed by MLB. I'm not actually all that familiar with the facts of the situation, but surely someone who has been following the story could drop in a sentence or two in the appropriate section, be that the introduction or elsewhere. SS451 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should definitely be in the article, as it's not exactly a trivial event. Maybe you could proposed a sourced statement here, and we could discuss the best place to put it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the history article... not sure that there is really a spot for it here... I might wait a bit for a bit more historical perspective before adding to this page. Spanneraol (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgers ownership 

message: This article needs some cleaning up, as especially the introductory paragraphs go in too much detail. An introduction should be used for a rough overview of a specific topic, so most of this one here should actually be part of the history section (and the Boston Dodgers article). Im not very knowledgable in Baseball so it'd be nice if someone could "take care" of this. --18:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree; to me they seem very short; plus readers can skip down. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lead is fine; the only thing that could go is the bit about Dodger Stadium being third oldest behind Fenway and Wrigley.  That's a bit trivial.  I just added the glaringly absent stat about the 12 rookies of the year.  --Drmargi (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   I didn't notice the date of the first comment here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First block / Introduction way too long 

message: I've just reverted, for the second time, a group of edits that relegate Magic Johnson to membership, but not leadership, of the investor team that bought the Dodgers.  I feel this is misleading wording, as reflected by both the Dodgers' website and the LA Times reporting; it was clear that Magic interviewed potential investors, and put together a team that shared his values for the team.  Any speculation about who will be leadership in the team or manage the group (and it's all framed as speculation at the moment) will be germane once such roles are confirmed, but not now.  At present, this is Magic's deal and he is the face of it.  The article should reflect that.  I also see no point in remove reference to the allied deal that will purchase the parking lots and other properties.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say Magic fronted the group but the Guggenheim guy made the final negotiations with  McCourt.. and he will be the main owner... saying Magic was the leader of Guggenheim is inaccurate. Spanneraol (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Magic more than fronted itt.  He interviewed potential investors and put the group together.  The various media are speculating on who is expected to run the team and who will be GM, but none of that has been confirmed yet, nor is it likely to be until after the bankruptcy court approves the sale in a couple weeks.  Meanwhile, the side purchase of property does or doesn't include the stadium, depending on which media source you believe.  It probably needs some more conditional wording in the article, but is part of the purchase, and should be mentioned.  Meanwhile, please review WP:BRD and refrain from editing the article until we have consensus as to the right wording.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does your inaccurate version get to stay while consensus is decided?  The stadium was NEVER part of the parking lot/land issues... The official press release says Walter will be the controlling owner.. that is not unconfirmed.  And I dont know why you insist that Kasten's name not be linked. You stop reverting my attempts to make the article factual. Spanneraol (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to read BRD.  As soon as an edit is reverted, it's time to discuss.  You made several unexplained edits which I reverted.  At that point, rather than revert, you should have opened the discussion.  Instead, you reverted again (and have done so twice since), which can be perceived as edit warring.  Based on your willingness to discuss and what you've said here, I'm not sure that's your intent, but you need to stop reverting and start talking.  We've got a third party in this who isn't discussing, and needs to join the discussion as well.  We can come to some sort of consensus on what needs to go in the article pretty quickly, and it will get fixed.  But for now, what you see as the erroneous version needs to stay until we do or the endless reverts will be just that: endless.  Just be patient.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  My edit was 'minor' to change $2.1 billion, to $2.15 billion; and start the section, "2012 Los Angeles Dodgers". Other than that, both of you have much greater depth of understanding and wisdom in editing.  PS: 95 editors are 'watching' this important page. Signed, third editor, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with the current language for now.... but dont think we need the extra header... I've been trying to keep this article from having year by year listings. Spanneraol (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, note that the sources I used answered several of Drmargi's concerns. It has been confirmed that the sale includes Dodgers Stadium and the CEO/President have also been confirmed. In my opinion, the section could use player and fan reactions. --PlasmaTwa2 02:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather like the new version you came up with... still need to combine and rewrite the two headings but cant think of what to make them right now.Spanneraol (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, 2012 is a major restart. Take this with a ‘grain-of-salt’ if you like, but:  the Dodgers official website says "Dodgers sold to Magic's group. The Dodgers will be sold for $2 billion to a group that includes Magic Johnson and Stan Kasten."  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Dodgers 2012 Ownership/Mgt. 

message: We have a paragraph mentioning the Brooklyn Dodgers-NY Giants rivalry, and that both teams moved after the 1957 season.  Then I see:
"The Brooklyn Dodgers and Los Angeles Dodgers have collectively appeared in the World Series 18 times, while the New York Giants and San Francisco Giants have collectively appeared 19 times and have been invited 20 times."
Please explain "invited".  Does it have something to do with there being no World Series in 1904 after the 1st World Series had taken place in 1903?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  what do you mean, "invited"? 

message: Please update your page on the Dodgers.  Owner is no longer Frank Mccourt.  Owner is Guggenheim group  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.141.225 (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong owner still listed on your page for Dodgers.   

message: The Dodgers are selling the naming rights to Dodger Stadium's field for $12 million
https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/07/18/dodgers-field-naming-rights-dodger-stadium
Suggestions? DOR (HK) (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the money but if you do, go ahead. Spanneraol (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodger (field) naming rights 

message: The article states that Jackie Robinson was a player for the Dodgers who was the first African American player in the Major Leagues, but that's not true. He was the first player to break the color barrier, but not the first African American to play. The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame recognizes a different player as the first African American to play, being Moses Fleetwood Walker. 
Not a very major edit but just for clarification as it's very widespread Robinson was the first African American player when he was not. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He IS mentioned in the lede. Spanneraol (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First African American to play in the MLB 

message: Mike Brito, who was a scout for the Dodgers for nearly 45 years, has died. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mike Brito]], Dodgers scout

message: According to the wiki page, the LA dodgers won their lone playoff meeting with the san diego padres in 2020. However, Just this year they met again and this time the padres won. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/mlb/2022-mlb-playoffs-how-the-padres-beat-the-dodgers-and-moved-on-to-nlcs
I'm hoping the wiki page can be updated because I'm a newer editor and the page is semi-protected. Jfinnell123 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to update rivalry with Padres 

message: I realized the fanbase of the Dodgers rivals very few, with the exception of the Yankees. They most likely will need their own page however; I'm in a bit of a bind to come up with a name for it as the Dodgers' fanbase doesn't have a widely accepted name PontiacAurora (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of fan page 

message: Shohei Ohtani has joined the Los Angeles Dodgers 70.244.242.172 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not completed yet, but not something that would be mentioned on this page anyway. Spanneraol (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2023 

message: There are two items in the lede that I believe should be corrected.
”they are widely seen as the most dominant team in the National League in the present day.”
should be changed to “seen as one of the most dominant teams in the National League in the present day”.
While they’re undoubtedly very successful, neither of the two sources provide a definitive reason why they would be considered more successful than the Atlanta Braves, for example. It’d be a very difficult thing to prove anyway.
“as well as a more recent rivalry with the American League's Houston Astros due to their role as the victims of the Astros' sign stealing scandal in the 2017 World Series”
The term “victims” here seems very NPOV as Manfred himself has said there’s conflicting evidence as to whether the sign stealing continued into the postseason, with the team itself denying it. I don’t believe them personally but it shouldn’t be our role at Wikipedia to take sides. Additionally from my perspective at least “victims” makes it sound like they definitively would have won otherwise, which can’t be proven.
I think something like “due to doubts surrounding the legitimacy of their defeat to the team during the 2017 World Series” would be more neutral, with a link to the sign stealing article under “legitimacy of their defeat” perhaps. Savlanut (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your first point and have adjusted the section... as to your second point..  I don't think there is really any doubt about the Astros stealing signs in the World Series... just watch game 5... but I made the section more neutral. Spanneraol (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on December 29th 2023 

message: I think the rivalry section on this page, as with a lot of other team pages, has gotten way too long. I've deleted the Astros rivalry because its non-existent outside of the cheating scandal, which is better covered in the 2017 World Series and Houston Astros sign stealing scandal, both of which are already mentioned and linked to in the lede. I would also suggest deleting the Cardinals "rivalry" which apparently is premised upon six postseason meetings over a 130 year period. Likewise, the Yankees haven't been a rival of the Dodgers since 1981, though that might still be worth mentioning simply due to the record number of World Series they've played against one another. TempDog123 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yankees are a historical rival..that is definitely worth mentioning. Spanneraol (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivalries