Talk:Philadelphia Phillies

message: Discussion of rivalries, which may change over time and may be perceived as opinion, do not belong in the lede. I removed these sentences; perhaps someone wants to place them elsewhere in the article.Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily disagree with this change. It should have been discussed first. The rivalry between the Phillies and the Mets is perhaps one of the biggest elements of the team's recent history and should be discussed in the article and mentioned in the lead. The others, which are added by an IP, are a POV push that's been discussed and discarded by WP:BASEBALL. Only rivalries that have their own articles should be mentioned and discussed in articles or in navboxes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern is the ebb and flow of such rivalries. As the sentence states, the rivaly "has been an issue of contention within the division in recent seasons".  Will this always be the case? Why then the qualifier "in recent seasons"? While it is worth noting the rivalry in the article, I'm not sure it is important enough to be placed in the lede.Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The qualifier is because the rivalry has become more intense recently than it was in the Mets' early history.  The article explains all of that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a section on the rivalry to this article, with a link to the main article, as it should have been done before (my fault for not catching it). Now the statement in the lead is also referenced later in the article, and it gives the reader somewhere to go. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is not with the rivaly per se but about the philosopy of the time frames of articles. Should article be a cold, "looking back" voice like a true encyclopedia or is it OK to assume that articles will be updated when current infomration changes? Unfortunatley, these updates don't always happen. I know I've stumbled across many unmaintained articles that say things like "so-and-so is planned to start in 2008". Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that concern, but I'm not going anywhere, and I do most of the updating to this article. Wikipedia is not paper, and so things do change as information is updated and becomes newly available. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just make sure you don't get hit by an errent hot dog from the Phanatic's Hot Dog Gun! [grin]Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the hot dog gun... now I want a Kunzler hot dog on a Stroehman roll... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The relevant article has been destroyed, and I don't really care anymore, so do whatever... — KV5 • Talk • — Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivalries and the lede

message: This sentence just doesn't sound right:
On December 16, 2009, they acquired starting pitcher Roy Halladay, who pitched a perfect game against the Florida Marlins in his first season as a Phillie, from the Toronto Blue Jays, and traded Cliff Lee to the Seattle Mariners for three prospects.
Mentioning the perfect game, which occurred six months after the trade, seems out of place in this sentence. I suggested putting the feat in another paragraph, but that was reverted. Any ideas to make the flow paragraph better?Wkharrisjr (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote it to be a bit less awkward.. Doesn't need its own paragraph. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that it was the first time a designated hitter was used in a NL park for regular season is incorrect.  The Indians played a home game at Milwaukee two years prior due to snow storms, that was the first instance of the DH used in a NL park for Regular season.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.107.225 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Roy Halladay and Recent History

message: From comments on the reverts of my edits, it sounds like this topic was discussed previously to my reading these pages. I apologize for editing out comments that were previously discussed. The intent of my edits was to try to make the section read less disjointedly and to remove trivial matter. The Phillies had gimmicks to attract fans? which teams in the 1970's and 1980's didn't? The "Hot Pants Patrol" and "Philadelphia Phil and Phyliis" were introduced as marketing tools when the Vet opened, but were qucikly de-emphasized and eventually abandoned. Are these trivial events worth mentioning in an encyclopedic article? If there are to be kept, I think the section needs to be rewritten and other promotions to attract fans should be included- how about the infamous Kiteman or Karl Walenda's walk across the top of the stadium? I think those events are as much part of Phillies lore as Phil and Phylis.
Likewise the section about the ruliness of the Phillies fans needs serious editing- definitley divided into sections about the fans relationship to the home team but also its reactions to opposing players. Both subjects are worthy of expansion and referencing.Wkharrisjr (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fan support" eidts

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:RaulIbanez.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The Philadelphia Phillies had the name of the Philadelphia Blue Jays for a year or two in the 1940's.  At that time the Chicago Cubs were still the Cubs.  I am a Phillies Fan and was a Blue Jays fan then.Jackmcg17055 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in the article, the Blue Jays name was never officially adopted. It was suggested by the team, and the players wore a blue jay patch on the sleeve of their uniforms, but the name of the team always officially remained Phillies, and the Blue Jay moniker was dropped after objections from Johns Hopkins University. — KV5 • Talk •  00:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Philadelphia Phillies 

message: Based on the remarkable and historic season that the Philadelphia Phillies are having (2011), who is the better pitcher and who is more likely to win the NL CY: Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee? Also, who believes the Phils will break their regular season record in 2011? Matthew.sniscak (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt really a forum for general discussion... but I'm hoping for Clayton Kershaw to win it.. he has better #s than those two this season and heck.. they already have theres. Spanneraol (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 CY young and regular season 

message: For the section on team uniforms, batting practice should be its own separate category.  It causes confusion and looks sloppy and lazy. (Dwade11 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then instead of insulting the work of others, fix it. — KV5 • Talk •  02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Batting practice

message: You have to be careful about how to characterize their championship drought. They had already been in the league for 20 years before 1903, and had never won a league championship, and obviously not any of the 1880s version of the World Series. By the time of the 1915 league pennant, it was their 33rd year of existence, but winning the league no longer meant you were the major league champion. So their "ultimate championship" drought can be considered as 97 just as well as 77. In the case of the Red Sox (85) and the White Sox (87), those were the number of championless years between World Series titles. The Phils didn't win a Series at all until their 98th season. The Cubs, of course haven't won one in 114 years now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Droughts 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Philadelphia Phillies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080915115741/http://www.alsphiladelphia.org:80/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183 to http://www.alsphiladelphia.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Your edit to  § ‎Controversial uniform changes doesn't quite make sense. Originally the sentence was
: A different blue cap was introduced in 2008 as part of the alternate home uniform for day games, a throwback to the late 1940s.
You changed the date expression to "the late 1969's". Did you mean "1969", "the late Sixties", or what? Please fix it and provide a reference for it. 
I see that this is your first edit. If you have a reference but aren't sure how to cite it, I'll be glad to help. Probably the simplest way for you to reach me is to put a message on  my Talk page, using the "Add new section" tab at the top. --Thnidu (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different blue cap 

message: In  you've reverted 's edit. As far as I can see, this addition —
:In 2015 Sandberg resigned as manager and bench coach Pete Mackanin was brought in as interim manager. Also in 2015 general manager Ruben Amaro JR. was fired and Andy McPhale was brought in as the interim GM.
— is perfectly valid. You gave no edit summary, and there's no obvious reason in the edit itself. 
I see that this user has just been indefinitely blocked by  as a vandalism-only account, with just four contributions, two yesterday and two today. The first ("yo wassup") and second (" aed") were certainly just graffiti, which we count as vandalism here, though they were not otherwise harmful (unlike, say, massive deletions, or insertions of hate propaganda). But this one, the third looks reasonable and useful, and the fourth, in Poly(methyl methacrylate) (aka Acrylic glass and 27 other redirects)—
: It is fairly common
—while minor and arguably redundant with "often used" in the same paragraph, seems by itself to deserve WP:GOODFAITH.
I can easily envision a new user (such as this one), unfamiliar with our policies and customs, putting a couple of minor scrawls on our walls, then settling in to do some useful work. Instead of banning this user indefinitely, I think we should assume good faith on a somewhat larger scale, end the ban, and invite them back, explaining just what's wrong with those "scrawls on the wall". Please  me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the edit, without issuing a warning, because it didn't cite any source and it added what seemed to be personal opinion ("This was a little less than a week after Hamels pitched a no hitter against the Cubs. A great parting gift for Phillies fans to remind him by").  16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense, but an edit summary by you would have been helpful, to explain and to teach a novice editor instead of brushing them off. And is there any problem with the other paragraph that a cn tag wouldn't cover? --Thnidu (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, in hindsight I should have included an edit summary when I did the revert. Feel free to restore the other content with a cn tag.  16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Also the non-POV content of the Hamels deal paragraph. --Thnidu (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013-present: Recent years 

message: I am undoing 's  of  in this section. I noted "C/e" in my edit memo; he reverted with no explanation. 
Instead of discussing "openly" here on the article talk page, I thought it would be considerate to start on his talk page instead. There I wrote:
:I  in Philadelphia Phillies, taking out some redundancy and other wordiness, and documented the reason in the edit comment with the abbreviation "C/e". I introduced no "grammar mistakes or typos", yet you  my edit with no explanation. What were your reasons, please? Please  me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please pay attention to your edits. Your contributions to the Phillies' page were very careless. Also, there was no need to bring other people into our most recent disagreement. Also, I undid your other edits because, they did, indeed, have many grammar mistakes. Jordandlee (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 World Series Champions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Philadelphia Phillies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120113062511/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2006/05/24/2006-05-24_despite_long_game__rivalry_l.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2006/05/24/2006-05-24_despite_long_game__rivalry_l.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725000342/http://www.alsphiladelphia.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=283 to http://www.alsphiladelphia.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=283
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: changed "are" to "is" in the first sentence: 
: The Philadelphia Phillies are an American professional baseball team based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
with the comment
: "The Philadelphia Phillies" is singular. Even though there are multiple people on the team, it is one single team as a whole. You wouldn't say "The team are good." This rule applies to bands and any other group.
 reverted it with the comment
: Undid revision 712119293 by Jordandlee (talk) team is singular in American English, but the sentence's subject is not team here
I agree with EricEnfermero. Number agreement in English depends on the words more than what they refer to. Look at the whole paragraph: 
: The Philadelphia Phillies are an American professional baseball team based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They are the oldest continuous, one-name, one-city franchise in all of professional American sports, dating to 1883.[2] The Phillies are a member of the Eastern Division of Major League Baseball's National League (NL). Since 2004, the team's home has been Citizens Bank Park which is located in South Philadelphia.
When "the Phillies" is the subject of a verb, the verb is plural. When a pronoun refers back to "the Phillies", the pronoun is "they", not "it". Of course we don't say "The team are good", because "the team" is a singular expression. For exactly the same reason, we don't say "the Phillies is good", because "the Phillies" is a plural expression.  
--Thnidu (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will leave it the way you have it. Jordandlee (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular vs. plural 

message: § Philadelphia Phillies#2009–2012 said 
: In Game 1 of the 2010 National League Division Series, Halladay threw the second no-hitter in Major League baseball postseason history, leading the Phillies over the Cincinnati Reds, 4–0.
The underlined text  by IP user 50.205.174.10, with no citation. There is no record of such a player in Baseball-Reference.com or the Baseball Hall of Fame. 
That IP address has a record containing many non-constructive or outright vandalistic edits, and a  Talk page consisting entirely of notices of reversion, reproofs, and warnings. I have removed the addition. --Thnidu (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Barnett?? 

message: , why did you ?  WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSTUFF are about Wikipedia procedures; they have nothing to do with content, including the content you deleted. Please explain. Thnidu (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no rivalry. I referenced BRD because the user was bold, I reverted, and there should have been discussion. OTHERSTUFF because the user referenced the existence of a section on another page as a reason to keep it.  agreed with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   That's reasonable for the reversion, but it was not at all evident or discernible. Your edit summary would have been much more useful if it had included the reason, "there is no rivalry", as well as or instead of citing those two WP pages;.don't you agree? --Thnidu (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgers rivalry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2011/04/07/if-braves-send-message-to-phillies-it-will-be-done-nicely/?cxntfid=blogs_jeff_schultz_blog
*Added  tag to http://www.zimbio.com/Major%20League%20Baseball/articles/sXdA_1ke14O/Philadelphia%20Phillies%20Lead%20MLB%20Attendance
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605232211/http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/ to http://philadelphia.comcastsportsnet.com/
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) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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/20151222100149/http://philadelphialocalbuzz.com/sports/phillies/who-is-andy-macphail/ to http://philadelphialocalbuzz.com/sports/phillies/who-is-andy-macphail/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070625163516/http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/jddrew.htm to http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/jddrew.htm
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) 23:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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/20160221035348/http://www.historyofphilly.com/media/ to http://www.historyofphilly.com/media/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220115157/http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091215&content_id=7814772&vkey=news_phi&fext=.jsp&c_id=phi to http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091215&content_id=7814772&vkey=news_phi&fext=.jsp&c_id=phi
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609012308/http://phillies.scout.com/2/706704.html to http://phillies.scout.com/2/706704.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714103810/http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050707&content_id=1119893&vkey=news_phi&fext=.jsp&c_id=phi to http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050707&content_id=1119893&vkey=news_phi&fext=.jsp&c_id=phi
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) 05:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The second most recent edit, by an IP editor, added Jim Salisbury to the list of owners, with no source cited. But the ref at the end of that list, https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/philadelphia-phillies/no-longer-team-owner-bill-giles-still-has-phillies-opinions, was an article with Jim Salisbury as author. I've reverted that edit as vandalism. --Thnidu (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism: Jim Salisbury 

message: I am as excited as any Phillies fan for the way the 2019 season has kicked off, but talking about the results of the first regular season series feels like way too myopic a detail given the overall purpose of a Wiki entry like this.  Individual season entries exist for this reason.  And I would say it's an issue with the team history section as a whole; the concise narrative style used for the franchise's early years is lost once it gets into the 21st century.  The section "Rebuilding Years (2013-2018)," for example, honestly doesn't need to be more than three or four sentences long, whereas now it reads like some sort of fantasy baseball transaction ticker.  I put this out to the general style & content stewards of this article as something to consider.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.47.36 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019-present (and general style) 

message: Since the Phillies have phased out their red alternate jerseys (and haven’t worn them since 2017) should they be removed from the uniform image? I don’t know how to do it, but I feel like they should be removed. TardisSixteen (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms 

message: The Phillies were never referred to as the "Red Pinstripes" (the articles referencing this are actually referring to the uniform rather than the team).  It seems like a stretch to use that in the "Other Nicknames" category.  It would be more acceptable to list "Blue Jays" here from '44 - '46.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "... a victim of many disappointing campaigns from the red pinstripes pointed out the high number of one-run victories in 2016 ..."  It sure sounds like "the red pinstripes" is "a familiar or humorous name given to a person or thing instead of or as well as the real name", which is the definition of a nickname. While it may refer to the uniform, if frequently recognized in the context used as a reference to the Phillies, it qualifies as a nickname. General Ization Talk   15:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

text: As far as "Blue Jays" ... from '44 - '46", according to the article "Bluejays" was apparently not a nickname but briefly the actual name of the team. General Ization Talk   15:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other Nicknames" 

message: The Phillies do not claim that the Worcester Brown Stockings moved to Philadelphia.  They only claim that the National League transferred the "Franchise Rights" to Al Reach and John Rogers, who placed the team in Philadelphia.  The Phillies claim that their franchised entity started in 1883.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Phillies 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* Phillies board.JPG
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Is there a way to merge the page with the History of the Philadelphia Phillies page by any chance? I see no reason why there are two pages of Phillies history. Both pages have information that the other does not have, so we should combine them instead of keeping them separate.SBLII (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , it was split to keep this page from becoming too long. More information from the History section here should be relocated to that article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Makes sense. Eventually when most/all info has been relocated, there should be no significant history section on this page, yes? SBLII (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section here should have a "Main article" link and should be a summary of what is found at History of the Philadelphia Phillies, summarizing the most important parts of the team's history (foundation, major milestones, etc.) as opposed to details. You basically have three levels of detail: the history section here is the most general, the History of the Philadelphia Phillies article has more detail, followed by the individual season articles with the most details specific to that season. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with the History of the Philadelphia Phillies page 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Tugger45.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why is the team logo missing at the top of the page?  Only the cap insignia is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Logo 

message: What do you call a single member of the Philadelphia Phillies? The Schwarber article calls him a "Phillie" which just seems wrong. Wouldn't he be a Philly or a Phil? ―Buster7 ☎  04:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious question