Talk:Pittsburgh Pirates: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:45, 22 June 2009

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Baseball B‑class High‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pittsburgh B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive One: May 2006 → Feb 2008

Fair use rationale for Image:Piratelogo6786.gif

Image:Piratelogo6786.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 ensure 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) 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Legs?

I never heard of it before today either, but I don't live anywhere near Pittsburgh. But a Google search indicates it's pretty common on the internet, so maybe it's an internet thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that's vandalism, so far I can tell. It's going. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I'm seeing it in use on the internet. Maybe it's being sarcastic, though, for the punchless Pittsburghers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a lifelong Pirates' fan and living pretty close to Pittsburgh, I've never heard it used. Unless a legit source can be found for it, I think it should be removed. Black ngold29 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear on their website. It only seems to be used in blogs. So there's no question it's legitimate, the issue is whether its use is widespread enough (at this point) to be worthy of listing among the nicknames. I'm thinking NOT. I might compare it with the "lovable losers" tag on the Cubs. I doubt very much that the Cubs use that one, either. But its use is very widespread and easily sourced (and I don't much care for it, but that's not relevant, as I don't like "Cubbies" either). "Peg Legs" appears to be an internet nickname that does not have a very wide following at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see 214 hits, few of which refer to this team. Until a source can be provided on mainstream media or team website usage, I vote no. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely not vandalism, it is definitely in use, but its only use that I can find appears to be in blogs. Hence, it's not widespread enough to be included in the infobox. The barometers would seem to be MLB.com and ESPN. It is apparently not used in either place. I could see MLB not using it, as it doesn't exactly have a positive sound to it, but ESPN would have no such qualms, and since they apparently haven't picked up on it, it can't be very widespread (yet). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PA Sports

I know that it would be easy to add 1,000,000 templates at the end of any article, but this one, PA Sports teams, seems relevant. Any objections? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None from me, as they're in the template I'm surprised that it's not already there. Black ngold29 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

founding of the PBC

I see that the Pirates are in the category "Sports clubs established in 1887". I realize that the Alleghenys joined the National League in that year, but they were in the American Association for 5 season first. Since they were indeed founded before 1887 should that be adjusted? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Pirate's website they were not officially the franchise of the Pirates until they joined the NL. So 1887 would be correct. Black ngold29 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All they did was move from one league to the other. They weren't Pittsburg(h) until they joined the NL - prior to that they were "Allegheny". But they were the same team, as far as I know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't they still the "Alleghenies", then the "Inoocents" and then the "Pirates"? I'll do some digging and see what I can find. Black ngold29 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find The "Pittsburgh Alleghenys", sometimes "Alleghenies" (that's what the book says) were in the American Association, and then another team formed (under the same name to confuse us all, however, the would sometimes be referred to as the "Nationals" or the "Innocents") in the Players League. Some player's "jumped ship" to the Player's League team, which lead to a fight over Louis Bierbauer due to a clerical error. The PL team signed him and the AA team complained, claiming, "The action of the Pittsburgh Club is piratical" which lead to the "Pirates". Black ngold29 22:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The PL club wasn't called the Pirates, it was the NL club when they signed Bierbauer after the demise of the PL. The Athletics of the AA had failed to protect their rights to him. The Athletics called the Pittsburgh club "pirates" for that action, and that led to a rift between the AA and the NL and helped speed the demise of the AA. Newspapers would have called the NL club "Nationals" in 1890 to distinguish them from the PL club. "Innocents" was another media invention. One joke was that the team was so weak that they were "innocent of winning", but I don't know what the real source of that short-lived nickname was. It would certainly not have been something the team embraced. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Other notable former players" section

I think this section should be removed. While there are a few interesting inclusions it has no criteria, and has basically become a list of favorite players. I can't see how it contributes to making the article any better. Are there any objections to its removal? Black ngold29 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no opposition for a few days, I have gone ahead and removed the list. Black ngold29 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Streak

Having already tied for the record of longest losing streak in all of professional sports (not just baseball), I feel that this is already lead-worthy. If there's major disagreement, however, I'll wait until the end of the season... I hope the Bucs don't make it 17!

The Philadelphia Phillies articles doesn't mention it in the lead; it's lower in the article. If you want it in the article, put it there or in the History article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article, mentioned in the post-1992 "Leland Era" section, and has been cited. I get your point, though. If they lose another season, however, I feel that this will be undoubtedly lead-worthy. Perhaps that's a conversation for post-season...