Talk:Milwaukee Brewers

message: This article is really shaping up nicely - I agree that the Milwaukee Braves stuff more properly belongs in the Atlanta Braves' entry, and the Seattle Pilots information belongs here.  I have added some information about the post-Braves, pre-Pilots era, including Bud Selig's attempts to draw an expansion franchise, the White Sox games played at County Stadium and Selig's deal to move the White Sox because they all relate directly to the founding of the Milwaukee Brewers.Chancemichaels 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  post-Braves, pre-Pilots 

message: I'm reverting to the original wording - "the road cap was eliminated" is, I believe, more appropriate than "the yellow panel on the front of the cap turned blue".  
First of all, the new sentence is clunky.  The front of the cap "turned blue"?  Second of all, MLB describes uniform changes using the original words  - uniform elements such as alternate caps and uniforms are "added" and "eliminated."   -- Chancemichaels 13:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform Changes 1978-1993 

message: I changed the all-time record back to 2,761 wins, 3,100 losses (.471 winning percentage), to reflect the record at the end of the 2005 season. WP is not a news service. --mtz206 (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, WP is not a news service, and we should not introduce content that requires daily updates in order to remain accurate. I don't see the utility in constantly updating their "all-time record" as each game occurs. --mtz206 (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mtz206. Readers can go elsewhere to find daily statistics.  Royalbroil 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All time record 

message: Just wondering what the point of "Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" is.  I believe "We're Taking This Thing National" was actually the team's slogan the year they changed leagues, so there is actually significance to that. Unless there's some significance here that I'm missing, I'd propose that "Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" be removed.  It comes off as being a bit frivolous. Dhmachine31 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Yes! Yes! A Pennant!" was the headline in the Milwaukee Sentinel the day after the Brewers won the ALCS.  We should include the graphic to justify the headline.  --Chancemichaels 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it again, there is a graphic to justify the headline.  Prominently displayed in the "1982 memorabilia" photo is a copy of the newspaper.  What do you all think about adding the headline back in?  --38.117.200.131 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic headers 

message: In the section "Going National", the writer suggests that the only necessity for having an even-number of teams in each league (and thus necessitating the move of Milwaukee to the National League) is that Major League Baseball was interested in interleague play.  This doesn't make sense... interleague play would actually work just fine if each league had 15 teams... all 15 teams would play each section of the schedule with in-league games only and there were an odd number of teams then one team would always have an off day, or, actually,  an off-series.  The odd team out would have to have 3 days off in a row while the other teams played their 3-game series!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.142.191 (talk • contribs) 16:04, July 9, 2006
I read that and found it other, and no one would be left out of the schedule.  Each league needs an even number of teams regardless of the presence or absence of interleague play, because when a league is playing a odd too. I think the original writer meant intraleague play. MLB would need an interleague series all season long if each division had 15 teams and they still wanted off days primarily only Monday and Thursday. I'm going to change it. If anyone feels it is more correct the old way, by all means fix it.Failureofafriend 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going National 

message: Regarding my edit here , there is an on-going discussion at my talk page. In general, this section opines using weasel words. If these concerns are valid, they should be presented as encyclopedic facts with citations to reliable sources expressing such concerns, not just innuendos.  --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully it looks better at least my part of it. Smith03 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see little encyclopedic utility in this statement: "MLB had other options besided moving the Brewers to the National League. MLB could have put both Arizona and Tampa Bay in one league or moved a National League team to the American League." Of course MLB had other options. They had 30 options. Mentioning two of them is not informative. We should present what happened, and only present controversy if it existed to such an extent that it was discussed by reliable sources. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I change it back to your last edit after I realized you had made some changes so it is better than it was when I first saw it . I do however think that  "MLB had other options besided moving the Brewers to the National League. MLB could have put both Arizona and Tampa Bay in one league or moved a National League team to the American League." is encyclopedic because it puts out that MLB had more options than just moving an AL team, when I first read the article today the way it was wrtitten it  the article impleaded that the only option was to move an AL team to the NL. It is also certainly reasonable to point out or remind readers that Selig both owned the Brewers at this time and was the commissioner that is a fact. No problem letting readers draw their own conclusions from that. Sorry if you feel that I am attacking your team or your work on the article but it certainly is reasonable to raise points about motives behind way this team was moved to the NL (yes it needs to be sourced) yes baseball had 30 options so why did they pick this one?Smith03 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not "attacking my team or my work on the article" - no one owns anything around here. Just trying to ensure encyclopedic quality. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National League move 

message: I am very hesitant about having 2007 listed in the season-by-season results, requiring daily maintenance.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Shouldn't we let the dust settle?  --Chancemichaels 01:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and for that matter, the blow-by-blow account of the 2006 is far too detailed in comparison to other years. In my opinion, the article should focus on events of historical significance that someone reading in ten years would likely care about. As for the 2007 record, there's no real stopping dedicated fans from doing what they will. --Beaker342 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there is - we reach a consensus here, and editors will honor it.  I think your criteria is a solid one, if we can get a few more people to chime in then we can apply it to the article.  --Chancemichaels 16:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I just don't see the harm in the record changing every day. What would a consensus look like? You can't enter the 2007 record until October? I don't see it working, though I'd go either way. I think the ten year criteria, though I just pulled it out of thin air, is actually a Wikipedia guideline WP:RECENT. Thus, events like the bullpen blowing a game in the 2006 season don't matter. If it was game 7 of the NLCS, it would be a different story. As for the 2006 season summary, I'll say this, it's a lot better than some of the garbage on other team articles. For example, take a look at the disaster that is the Toronto Blue Jays. --Beaker342 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - that's a mess.  As for this page, I don't know exactly what we need for a consensus, but we can wait and see.  As for changing it every day, that's contrary to Wikipedia policy - this site isn't a place for current news.  I don't think the 2007 season record should be included until it is complete.  --Chancemichaels 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Season Results?

message: The Throwback uniform has been included, which is good.  I, however, am not sure where to find out what teams use throwback uniforms and which do not, as well as which throwback is used.  I know the Nationals wear the old "Grays" uniforms as well.  Is this practice just among these two teams, or can someone tell me where to find what they wear, or give me a good list with an inclusion of what it looks like so I can pick which one off the MLB shop site is used.  Silent Wind of Doom 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are regular throwbacks, and then there are one-offs (like the Milwaukee Braves and Milwaukee Bears uniforms this team wears).  I think the regular alternates should be included in the box, while one-offs should be excluded - though mentioned in the text if warranted on a case-by-case basis.  As to the complete list, MLB does have a comprehensive list of approved uniforms, but I don't believe it is made public any more.  --Chancemichaels 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Throwback 

message: I too agree the untucking of the jerseys should be mentioned. It is something Wisconsin can be proud of, something similar to the Lambeau Leap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.80.4 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  untuckem 

message: Was just reading a white sox history book and it mentioned Connie Mack managing the Milwaukee Brewers.  Went to look it up on wikipedia and see no mention of this.  Would be nice to know more about it ......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.181.181 (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn of the century Minor League Brewers ? 

message: On the Unifroms Image, The pants with the Navy Blue Milwaukee Jersey should be Grey not White. That Uniform combo is for wearing on the road only not at home. Please change White to Grey.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.215.172 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unifrom Image 

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)
:I agree that it is a good idea to do since other sports with players from many different countries use that format.  I think it would be best to decide for all MLB teams though, and not on a team-by-team basis. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality of Players 

message: Propose that Seattle Pilots be merged to 1969 Seattle Pilots season for reasons of common sense. The Brewers article has enough on the Pilots and it would be quite easy to merge the other two articles.  Spanneraol (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is enough material here for a standalone article. No point in merging that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
*Oppose, this article should be RM'd to History of the Seattle Pilots. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text: If season articles are essentially spinout articles from the team article, then in the case of the Pilots, it may be more logical for a consolidation or reverse-split to bring the season article into the team article. isaacl (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually the season articles need to stay as they are consistent with every team across evert sport.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule that every name of every article has to be consistent. All that matters is that the season information is covered. And it would be if it was merged in the Seattle Pilots article. This sort of thing is done often for things like Lists of Coaches or the like when the list is too small to be its own article, they are just redirected to the main article section that covers it. This would be no different. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm just making a point that a merge of 1969 Seattle Pilots season into Seattle Pilots, would not go down well with the Baseball wikiproject and would be inconsistent with every other professional team in just about every sport. Would seem odd that this teams season wouldn't have a season article.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But it would have a season article is my point....that is where that argument falls down. The season article would be the Seattle Pilots article. -DJSasso (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But that season article would differ from all the other existing articles.. making an exception in this case is just silly. Spanneraol (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Merge Proposal 

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) 03:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of colour names in team infoboxes 

message: In the retired numbers section, the retired #1 image in honor of Bud Selig is missing.
Megacheez 05:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bud Selig's retired #1 image 

message: Milwaukee has changed their primary logo to the one found on their hats.  Their current one has now been relegated to their secondary logo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.37 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we have a source on it, since sportslogos.net doesn't qualify, ESPN's uniform column has confirmed it.  SixFourThree (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Logo for 2018 Season 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

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) 09:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion