Talk:Cincinnati Reds/Archive 1

message: should this be a seperate section, theres only one name
: I agree, this seems pointless. 63.84.231.3 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is this really information that should be included in the team page?  technically there are many players who aren't eligible for the HOF due to playing time requirements so if this section is going to be correct it should be ineligible for the HOF due to gambling.  regardless, this is about pete rose and not the cincinnati reds MikeChasti 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ineligible HOF 

message: One of the things that have become a major part of the baseball articles has been the nicknames.  They've ben added to the leads as well as the infoboxes.  However, the Reds are one of the notables not to have one, at least not one mentioned in the article.  What nicknames do the Reds go by?  I'm sure they are not known only as "The Reds".  I wasn't sure if "Redlegs" or "Red Stockings" were used (typically former variations of the name are used as nicknames), so I figured I'd ask you, the people who probably know them most. - Silent Wind of Doom 18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the source (which is rather dubious in itself), they are former nicknames, so I'm removing them.  --Chancemichaels 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: That section had to be removed unless there is some sourcing.  I am sure some are fans in a very loose sense of the word.  But the Michael Rosenbaum picture has him in an NY Giants jersey and the article talks about how much he loves the NY Ranges.  What evidence is there that any of those people are fans other than some of them having grown up within 20 miles of Riverfront stadium?  If someone can find an article that just says that any of those people has attended a Reds game, then it would at least clear the most basic threshold.Montco 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Fans 

message: I now have completed my task of making an article for every individual Cincinnati Reds season. jj137Talk 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual season articles 

message: The 1961-1966 logo with the point on the "C" is WRONG. Please see the discussion above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous 1961 Logo Reappears 

message: :Image:Nl 1972 cincinnati.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Nl 1972 cincinnati.gif 

message: :Image:Cincinnati Reds Cap (1967 - 1998).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 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Cincinnati Reds Cap (1967 - 1998).png 

message: I set up archiving on this talk page because there are some pretty old comments.   jj137 ♠ 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: :Image:Reds 2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images 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) 12:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Reds 2.gif 

message: :Image:Reds 3.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images 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) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Reds 3.gif 

message: As noted in the citations, and in the Cincinnati article, the current team dates from 1882. In fact, even if a connection could be proven to the 1869-70 professional team, that year would also be wrong, as that team began as an amateur team several years earlier. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of founding 

message: The article had George Wright as being the one that took the Reds Stocking players (5 of the original 9) to Boston, but it was Harry that did it.  George was merely a player at the time and came along with Harry, but it was Harry that did it.  I did a research paper on it, and my resources included historical local newspaper articles, Harry Ellards "Baseball in Cincinnati" book published in 1907, and John Erardi and Greg Rhodes' "They Boys of Summer" 1994.  I corrected the error.
I know that Ellard states the Red Stockings won 130 consecutive matches but the season totals in his own book puts the number in question. Do you have another source for the 130 claim? 
:That's correct, Harry was the team leader. I've seen different figures for the number of consecutive games, and 130 is probably the high-water-mark of those. What's probably needed is for someone to find a source that actually lists the games. I would guess that a lot of them were against local teams that didn't provide much in the way of competition, and might have been disregarded by some historians. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The team was founded in 1869. It is the oldest team in All of baseball. Reds stats go back to 1869 and all of the shirts hats and other memoribela say the team was founded in 1869  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohio state buckeyes football68 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the history and the discussion. The current club dates to 1882. The 1869-70 club dissolved after 1870. There is no direct connection, only the connection of the city's legacy. The Reds themselves, in their history museum, acknowledge that their club only dates to 1882. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the contents of T-shirts and caps do not qualify as authoritative sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1869 

message: This seems pretty wordy with all of the play-by-play - can it be cleaned up at all?--Thunderbolt2002 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Red Machine Section 

message: Someone may want to mention these in the uniform section. See http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/COL03/807090379/1007/SPT . --Nick (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 4th, 2008 commemorative camouflage jerseys 

message: Recent history needs major pruning. You may want to split off articles to detail each season as other club pages have done. There's no earthly reason for Wily Mo Pena or Gary Majewski to be mentioned in a franchise history. 169.137.151.131 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZOMG 

message: The image :Image:Mrredleg2007.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Mrredleg2007.gif 

message: There's an article 1999 National League Wild-Card tie-breaker game which has no links to it. It seems to be something to do with your team. Perhaps someone could figure out how to get a link to it. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan article: 1999 National League Wild-Card tie-breaker game 

message: A new page was created entitled Cincinnati Reds (American Association - 1891).  I think it should probably be merged into the history section of this page.  Just an FYI. OlYellerTalktome 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Different club. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is that this info was already covered in Cincinnati Kelly's Killers. The new article should redirect to the old one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I have now done. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is paralleling the issue with the park in which this team played, which now exists at both Pendleton Park and East End Park (Cincinnati). -Dewelar (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cincinnati Reds (American Association - 1891)]] 

message: In the top right corner of this article, where it lists all of the details of this franchise, can someone add the American Association to "Major League Affiliations"? The Reds played in the Association from 1882 to 1889. I've tried to add it but can't seem to figure out how. SCSRdotorg (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major League Affilation ? 

message: I recently reverted a change that claimed that the current Reds franchise was founded in 1869 as the Cincinnati Red Stockings. The history is clear that if any current franchise can be considered the direct descendant of the 1869 Red Stockings, it is the Atlanta Braves. The current Reds franchise was established in 1882 as a member of the American Association. Any dispute on this question should be discussed here. Acsenray (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the first time this has come up, and it's not helped by the fact that the Reds own website associates themselves with the 1869-70 team. But that team broke up and its best players re-assembled in Boston, taking the nickname with them. That team, as you note, became the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves - who still wear some red trim in their uniforms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Baseball Bugs is correct. I check this article once in awhile and some person or persons keep changing the origins of this franchise back to 1869. It is incorrect. No matter what the Reds claim, this club began in 1882. The current Reds club is the third club known by that name. I have done some pretty extensive research on the 19th century baseball clubs in Cincy and newspapers of the time never referred to any of the clubs as being one in the same. SCSRdotorg (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Stockings of 1869 

message: I noticed this book about the 1975 season: The Machine: The Story of the 1975 Cincinnati Reds by Joe Posnanski via  an excerpt from the author-- possibly useful here Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  book about 1975 season 

message: Under the section 'Ballpark,' the article lists the site of Spring Training as 'Goodyear Park.' This link redirects to a completely unrelated cricket stadium in South Africa. This should be changed to connect directly to the 'Goodyear Ballpark' article instead, the location where the Reds' and Indians' spring training actually occurs. I would fix this myself, but I have no idea what I'm doing and would probably screw it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.84.121 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring Training Location Error 

message: The statement that the mid-50s to mid-60s Reds wore all red caps is mostly incorrect - during the sleeveless era the Reds famously wore white caps with red bills - the home hat sporting pinstripes like the uniform. The white caps were worn from 1957 through 1966. They did however wear red caps in the first years of the sleeveless uniforms, 1956. Antimatter33 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms 

message: Is it time to do something about the repeated reverting introducing the "1869" error? Acsenray (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Acsenray...
"someone who doesn't want to except the facts" 'accept' ;) you probably did it subliminally, I touchtype and find myself worrying because just earlier I meant to type 'biggest' and hammered out 'gibbe-' before I caught myself. But that's just my mind jumping from segue to segue, I often find myself typing 'role' when I mean 'roll,' others I can't think of at the moment. I don't have any problems with the their triplets or your twins though.
The reason I originally came here though was to make sure someone added (not me, I am only a casual Wiki user and I don't feel comfortable editing others' pages) that the Reds changed their name during the Korean War. (I think it was the Korean War, but I know they changed their name for *some* war to distance themselves from 'the commie reds.' Dave 05:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The closest thing to a descendant of the 1869 club would be the Atlanta Braves, who still wear some red in their uniforms. Semi-protection of this article could be requested, but the vandalism would have to be constant in order for the admins to take that action. The article indicates 1953-1958 for the name change to "Redlegs", which sounds about right. It was a ridiculous political-correctness overreaction to the "red scare" of the McCarthy era. It would have made more sense to go with "Red Sox", but of course that was already taken. They never actually had the word "Redlegs" on their uniforms, they simply erased the word "Reds" from inside the "C" logo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The current club began in 1882. They have no connection to the 1869-70 club, which disbanded and moved to Boston. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

text: There have been several distinct Cincinnati franchises, of which the 1869-70 club was one. The current franchise was founded in 1882. The current franchise is just the current franchise. It's not an "iteration" of anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with all historians on this subject. The original "Red Stockings" disbanded after the 1870 season, with Harry Wright and many other players moving to Boston to create a new franchise, which of course is now the Braves. A new "Red Stockings" franchise was created for the newly formed National League, then was thrown out of the league for violating certain rules. The newly formed American Association then created another "Red Stockings" franchise for the 1882 season, and joined the National League in 1890. Three different Red Stockings/Reds franchises. As for why the Reds wore patches comemorating the "original" Reds? I think it has more to do with marketing the history of baseball in Cincinnati, than any franchise connection.Neonblak talk -  10:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got it right. Lee Allen's history of the Reds, from ca. 1950, makes all of that abundantly clear. And he should know, as he was a Cincinnati-born writer and historian of the game. The last time I looked at the Reds' MLB page, it seemed like they were "associating" themselves with the 1869-70 team, while not actually coming right out and saying that they were the same team, probably because they know it's factually untrue. I think a lot of this has to do with placing exaggerated importance on a team's nickname. Had the original team been called the Porkers or something like that, there wouldn't be this discussion. It's fair to say that both the 1876 and 1882 teams were named for the 1869 team. Just like the Chicago White Sox, Boston Red Sox, and St. Louis Browns picked up their nicknames from names discarded by the old National League clubs. And then there's Baltimore, which has had several teams named "Orioles", none of them directly connected with each other except for the totally obvious choice of a nickname. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inexplicable '1882' reverts becoming annoying 

message: Considering 1941 to be preparatory for the Big Red Machine doesn't pass the common sense test. Thirty years of the franchise cannot be devoted to the Big Red Machine. The section needs to be renamed, or at least split. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Beginnings of the Machine (1941–1969)"... Thirty years to start the Big Red Machine? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Pete Rose.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: I hate to bring this up but should the Reds birth actually be listed as 1881 instead of 1882 ? The club was actually organized as an independent professional club during the summer of 1881. They played their first game on June 20th 1881. Here is a link to my website where I have the game posted. http://www.scsr.org/19CCBB/Teams/CR3/1881/BS/06/20.htm This independent club went on to join the new American Association in 1882. SCSRdotorg (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1881 or 1882 as the birth or the Reds ? 

message: WHY is Louise Nippert redirected to this article? That's a horrible over-use of redirection, and a waste of the readers's time. It's also a failure to understand and use the benefit of the Wikilink. If I wanted to read about Louise Nippert, I don't want to waste time searching in an overly-long article about something else. Individual biographies deserve respect. Knowing where someone came from and how they came to achieve the life goals they reached is important. Owning a ML baseball team and living to 100 should deserve an individual article.69.15.219.71 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louise Nippert 

message: At the very beginning of this article it states that "the Reds are the oldest major league club to have played continuously in one city"...That's not true. The Cubs are. 
SCSRdotorg (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect info on the club's early years? 

message: Under Hall of Famers who played for the Reds - "Players listed in bold are depicted on their Hall of Fame plaques wearing a Reds cap insignia."
Neither of these players have caps on their plaques or played for this version of the Cincinnati Reds. The Red Stockings were dissolved after the 1870 season. Also, neither of them have Red Stockings listed as their primary team on the National Baseball Hall of Fame's website.
I removed their names just to give whomever heads up.
SCSRdotorg (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your removal and for the most part why. Just one note- There are other players listed whose primary team wasn't t he Reds but they are in the BHOF. Seems like the consensus for these articles though I have reservations. Cheers!...William 23:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry and George Wright