Talk:Tampa Bay Rays

message: 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.  Win777 18:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fake "rivalries" keep on coming. Win777 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They posted a "Disco Demolition Rivalry" between the White Sox and Tigers.  They are really getting desparate. Wahkeenah 17:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citrus Derby

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

message: 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)
thread_title: "Devil"?

message: 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)
thread_title: Single Season Records

message: 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. Yanksox 04:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: It isn't? It seems perfectly fine to me, though sorely lacking in refs. —BorgHunter  (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before the Devil Rays 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delete: Prominent Major Leaguers from Tampa Bay 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "famous" fans 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TampaBayDevilRays 1001.png

message: :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.
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) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Draysunis.PNG

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

message: :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.
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 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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rays trio.jpg

message: Though I'm not losing any sleep because the Raymond picture is now considered "old," this 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)
replies: text: Done.  Let's try to get a non-fair use one once Spring Training starts, though. EaglesFanInTampa 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Raymond

message: 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)
replies: text: Uh, the soccer ball pic is not actually an image directly placed on this or anyother baseball page. It is part of the  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)
thread_title: Soccerball

message: 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)
replies: text:  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. EaglesFanInTampa 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Ongoing Yankee Issue

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Colors Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. EaglesFanInTampa 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cowbell 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, like "former names." There could be "former nicknames" I guess. Tampabay721 (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Really?  When'd that happen?  That's really cool! phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 

message: "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)
thread_title: The English Language

message: 15:44, July 4, 2008 Pats1 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tampa Bay Rays" ‎ (R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link, or misnomer)
I must be missing something here. Why was this article deleted, exactly? Presumably it can be restored, but it looks awfully strange on navboxes and the like to have a redlink where a current MLB team should be. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like an explanation too, since I have no idea wtf "R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link, or misnomer" means in layman's terms... Tampabay721 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, Pats1 went to delete the redirect ("Tampa Bay Rays") but ended up deleting the whole article. I'm sure it was a mistake and I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation. I've restored the article now, so it's fine :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: ROFL, I would expect a few vandals now, but a frequent user to delete the whole thing days after his team was swept? I was like "Damn, someone seriously needs a hug." haha Tampabay721 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, like I just mentioned on his talk, he must've been really upset about the sweep. Enigma message 01:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ???????? 

message: I have edited the page a few times adding other various nicknames. THEY KEEP GETTING DELETED Numerous times, Not only are they known as the "d-rays" They are also known as the Rebellion and they are also known as the Alliance. Heard in person at rays games, hear on espn and even seen on shirts SOLD at the Trop. As the terms Alliance and Rebellion are A Star Wars reference ala the YANKEES being KNOWN as the "evil empire" and the Rays being in the same division and doing so good.
:Then you need to come up with some references to back that up, and please explain to me how the team no longer known as the Devil Rays can still be nicknamed the "D-Rays" when the letter "D" is no longer present anywhere in the city or team name. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps because there are fans of the team that don't care that Devil Rays is no longer the official name, and thus still call their team the "D-Rays" whether the owner likes it or not? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: wow, Ive also heard of them being called the rebellion... i bought one of those shirts for my daughter. and if theyre not known as the drays as you put it than why is it on the page under other nicknames???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.186.213 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought it up before and we didn't come up with a good decision to figure that out. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following site refers to the rays as the rebellion: http://raysrenegade.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/07/rays_win_round_1ding_ding.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.39.205 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just a fan blog site. This website refers to Rays fans as "Raysheads" but that's not an official nickname for the fans. I wouldn't call it a reliable source in this context. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: So we should keep "D-Rays" as a nickname because some fans are too stubborn to call them what they really are? Tampabay721 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's exaclty what should be done. That's what nicknames all about. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: But "D-Rays" being a nickname anymore is not fact. A person in the organization, members of the media, or even blog sites can get fined by the team by refferring to the old name. That's a fact. The Marlins are the fish, the Yankees are the evil empire, the Angels are the halos. The Rays are not the D-Rays anymore. These fans that refuse to acknowledge that shouldn't be the reason why we should list D-Rays as a nickname on this article. "D-Rays" is a former nickname, and that's why (and I brought this up in the other section) it should be mentioned under a "former nicknames" area, despite it already being present in the opening paragraph of the article anyway so wtf is anyone really arguing about? It's there! Tampabay721 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's still used by a substantial portion of the fanbase, it's still a nickname. Nicknames don't need to be official. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames Continued 

message: Is there really any reason to keep the section on this article, now that I see there's the Tampa Bay Rays seasons article? Just slip in a main article template under that section on this article to lead to the seasons article, and maybe replace the one here with records by manager? Tampabay721 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: on the season records section shouldnt we add the manager that managed that season  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.186.213 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season records 

message: I found vandalism in the New Names, New Uniform section. For why the team eliminated the word "devil" from their name it said "They no longer worship master satan in Florida so the name change was a need. mostly cause rape is now outlawed."
How did no one notice this? I removed it.
Ingridjames (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been LOTS of vandalism on this article (and every Rays-related article) since the team won the AL pennant, so it's hard to keep up. Good job spotting that one. Zeng8r (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got Semi-protection approved and it will last until October 30. Tampabay721 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Wow, tone down the passion a little.  I see your points, but instead of complaining about it, if you see something that you think should be changed, be bold and do it.  That's the beauty of Wikipedia.  Just make sure you can back up everything you say with reliable sources, or it may be deleted.  Happy editing! EaglesFanInTampa 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  new name, new uniforms 

message: I had this same issue over on the Phillies page... I don't see the relevance or notability of the Rays' environmental record.  When people go to an encyclopedia to find out about a baseball team, they're generally unconcerned with carbon credits.  Furthermore, the section sounds more like a press release than an encyclopedia article -- way too peacock-y for my taste.  And finally, "planning" to seek LEED certification is a far cry from actually completing a LEED certified building.  The Rays also "planned" to field a competitive team since 1998, but that didn't exactly work out until 2008.  :-)
I'd like to cut this section completely as simply irrelevant.  If anyone -- at least, anyone not associated with the Rays PR office -- has a serious objection, may I at least ask that we move the section to a page about the proposed new stadium, where there might be a logical connection?
Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and that's why I just cut it loose.  It doesn't even go in the New Rays Ballpark article, as it's more promoting what they do now.  The only place that would be remotely relevant would be an article about their work in the community, and since no other team has that, let's not start that precedent, shall we? ;-)  Great catch, though! EaglesFanInTampa 16:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Environmental Record" 

message: Did you know that "Tampa Bay Devil Rays" had been the first four word team name in major league baseball since the St. Louis Brown Stockings of the 1880s? WHPratt (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting the Devil out of here 

message: I just removed some promotional text for a group claiming to be a "movement" for a downtown stadium. With only 10 members and little other support, this is not a movement. However, there has been steady discussion about a stadium, with numerous proposals. These warrant coverage in a new section about "facilities" or the "stadium" itself. I'm sure there are plenty of sources for this. Mindmatrix 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already an article about the proposed stadium, Rays Ballpark.  All discussion pertaining to a new stadium - cited, of course - probably should go there, since it has nothing to do with the team per se and more as to where they may play in the future. EaglesFanInTampa 20:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stadium

message: There is a new slogan for 2010 ... GTMI "Get The Man In"  Check it out:  http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/rays-mantra-gtmi/1093239  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbbfan (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tampabay721 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to Team Slogans 

message: Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that.  If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons.  I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page.  However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team.  yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
:Sure, sounds like a good idea. It'll take some time and effort to get it started, tho. Zeng8r (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality of Players 

message: Does anyone know the story behind the running ESPN/Sportscenter joke? It's usually where one person is segue-ing into something Rays-related, and this joke will just get thrown in. IE:
"See the third baseman, Evan Longoria, make a catch all the way in Left Field. Where? Tampa!" etc Ijmitchell (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where? Tampa! 

message: It is ironic that both league Wild Cards were monumental collapses. However, after the 130 games played mark, the Rays were closer to the Wild Card than the St Louis Cardinals were. After game 130, the Rays were 9 back, the Cardinals 10.5 back. Before September, the Cardinals made up 2 games, to be 8.5 back. Their comeback is the largest for the final month, but NOT the largest overall after game 130. FOX originally reported this as the largest comeback in MLB history after game 130, when only 32 games remain. I added the clarification, since it's not the largest overall, only the largest over the final month.--75.0.33.178 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 Comeback 

message: A lone editor insists upon changing the lead sentence to say the team is based on St. Petersburg instead of the Tamp Bay Area. Even though one sentence later, it is noted that the stadium is no St. Petersburg. It's clear that this does not not to be mentioned twice in the lead, nor wikilinked twice in the lead. Bringing this here to talk for consensus, to give that editor a chance to respond. (That editor having gone beyond the 3RR rule notwithstanding.) I believe that stating the team is based on the Tampa Bay Area, with the later statement that the stadium is in St. Petersburg, is the most appropriate. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not say "based in St. Petersburg, Florida, part of the Tampa Bay Area"? That combined both into one. Then we can leave off the exact location of Tropicana Field, as it's obvious from the first sentence. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

text: PS, the lead sentence said St. Pete until last week. It was a bad edit to change the longstanding wording for no reason.oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird, I missed that change. I agree that your phrasing is better than what was happening recently. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Team based in... 

message: The Rays updated their primary logo prior to the 2018 season. They discontinued the baseball diamond logo that is currently listed on the Wikipedia article and instead promoted the Rays wordmark to primary status.
DampFrijoles (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up, the logo has now been updated. Tampabay721 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

text: My pleasure. Glad that I was able to help out. DampFrijoles (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated primary logo 

message: In the lede it says "The Rays are owned by Randal Grichuk, the greatest player of all time." I don't personally know who the Rays owner is, but Randal Grichuk is currently in the MLB (Blue Jays) and there is no source for the claim that he is the owner. I think this could be vandalism of the Tampa Bay Rays article, and would like an experienced editor (I am not) to revert or delete this.  MEEPBUD (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism that's already been reverted. Happens all the time in sports article when one player has a strong showing against a team. Revert it as the childish nonsense to is. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owner? 

message: These two sections feel woefully outdated, particularly the "Mohawks" subsection and the entire team slogans section. Those elements of the team came from Joe Maddon, primarily, and haven't transcended him to become facets of the team itself. Perhaps the team slogan section could be condensed down into a single section rather than broken out for three separate years, with more of a historical angle - that the slogans were used at the time, but that the team doesn't really do that kind of thing any more. Would anyone be opposed to a restructuring of these sections, to make them a little more timeless and not so reactionary to the team's first taste of success? Hello2112 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. They reeked of WP:RECENTISM when they were added anyway, and slogans are not particularly encyclopedic unless they're used for decades. oknazevad (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of Rays fandom section/removal of team slogans? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion