Jump to content

Talk:Philadelphia Phillies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SBLII (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 19 August 2020 (→Merge with the History of the Philadelphia Phillies page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 14, 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Rivalries and the lede

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Considering the sad state of the Mets, their recent irrelevance to the division title, and the general apathy amongst their fans, perhaps its time to re-vist the "Mets rivalry" issue. I'd argue that as of July 2011, the Phillies' main rivals, based on fan intensity at games and vitriol, are the Braves, Giants, and perhaps even the Marlins.Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article has been destroyed, and I don't really care anymore, so do whatever... — KV5 • Talk •

Roy Halladay and Recent History

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)[reply]

I rewrote it to be a bit less awkward.. Doesn't need its own paragraph. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Fan support" eidts

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)[reply]

Nationality of Players

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

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)

Mets-Phillies Rivalry redux

The article section on the Mets-Phillies rivalry presently has the sentence: The two National League East divisional rivals have met each other frequently in playoff, division, and Wild Card races. Besides being an awkward sentence, this is contradicted by the rest of the section which notes that there have only been a few times when both teams were contending for post-season play. I removed the sentence but another editor replaced it. I'd like some consensus as to whether the sentence should stay, go, or be modified. (For the record, I don't think there is as much a Phillies-Mets rivalry as a Philadelphia-New York rivalry, and that is much stronger in hockey and football.)Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that Wikipedia's article on the rivalry is a GA heartily supports the fact that the rivalry exists; that being said, this is still one of the few holdovers left from the original article before its overhaul. I'd support rewording rather than removal, as long as concurrent changes are made in the main rivalry article. — KV5 • Talk • 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wkharrisjr, I strongly agree that the sentence be kept. Because the article on the rivalry is a GA and the rivalry exists and it's there, yes, the sentence will be kept. At both New York Mets and Major League Baseball rivalries articles, I have kept the sentence in the section that discusses the rivalry. Also know that throughout Mets' franchise history, the Mets and the Phillies have always been together, even if the two teams are not equally good at the same time. There have been times the Phillies tried to play spoiler on the Mets (for example, when the Mets won the 1999 National League Wild Card) and vice-versa (for example, in 2005, when the Mets' late season surge helped them eliminate teams from playoff contention.). Also, the two teams have always tried to play tough against each other due to the regional proximity. – SNIyer12, (talk), 17:02 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize, but I don't know what a "GA" is. I also don't see a link, so could someone direct me to the information? Thanks. Next, I don't see how you can reword the sentence and yet keep the central assertion; namely, that the Phillies and Mets have met frequently in the playoffs. That's either a true statement or it's not. As far as I can see, 2007 and 2008 were the only years they actually had close playoff races. (If they're are more, please correct me.) Finally, SNlyer12: I don't think your "spoiler argument" holds up only half the time. The Phillies didn't play spoiler in 1999, as the Mets won the division. In 2005 you are correct, though.Ultimahero (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first, a GA is a good article, meaning that that article has passed the GA review process. The sentence does not claim that the teams have met frequently in the playoffs. It says "playoff races", which means, more likely than not, that one of those teams (or both) will not/did not make the postseason. The 2007 and 2008 races were the closest, and SNIyer is right in his claims of one team playing spoiler on the other, as indicated in the rivalry article. — KV5 • Talk • 11:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out what a GA is. And you're right, it doesn't say that the two teams met in the playoffs, but rather had frequent playoff races. I simply misspoke (or mistyped, I guess). As far as having "close playoff races", I only see 2007 and 2008. I went through the Mets history season by season finishes and those are the only close finishes that I see. As far as I can tell it's not really a matter of these two seasons being the closest; those are literally the only two out there. The two teams have only finished 1st and 2nd 2 other times in their histories: 1986, when the Mets finished 21.5 ahead of the Phillies, and 2006, when the Mets finished 12 games ahead of the Phillies. Are those really close playoff races if they finish with a double digit number of games between them? I don't think so. (If someone would like to submit another year as being close I'm more than happy to hear it, of course.)
I agreed with SNlyer about the "spoiler argument" in one exmaple, 2005. He was right, the Phillies were eliminated by the Mets. However, he is incorrect about 1999, as the Mets won the Wild Card. So how did the Phillies play spoilers? They may have tried, but so what? That means nothing if they don't succeed. So I don't see how they've "met frequently" in playoff races. I think that needs to be taken out as it is not accurate.Ultimahero (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then change it to "met recently" instead of "met frequently", if you think it's necessary. Like I said above, I'd support re-wording rather than removal, but if you do make the change, ensure that you change it here, in List of Major League Baseball rivalries, and in the main rivalry article. — KV5 • Talk • 11:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. I'm fine with rewording it. It's what I perceive to be a false assertion that I dislike. So this sounds like a reasonable solution to me.Ultimahero (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RaulIbanez.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RaulIbanez.jpg, 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)[reply]

The Philadelphia Phillies

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2011 CY young and regular season

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Then instead of insulting the work of others, fix it. — KV5 • Talk • 02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Droughts

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philadelphia Phillies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

section titles

@Thealfredprice: I admire the work and care you're putting into this page, and adding year spans to section headings is an excellent improvement; I wonder why no one did it before?

But article and section titles are not like book titles. See WP:MOS § Capital letters: "Sentence case – rather than title case – is used in Wikipedia article titles and section headings." Would you please adjust the headings accordingly? Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the heading "Another Chance For Glory and Returning to The Bottom" should be reworded to be less flowery. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To: Thealfredprice; Cc: Muboshgu and EricEnfermero:  You added dates to the subheads, which was good, and I thanked you for it (see above). But you capitalized them as if they were book titles, which was bad, and I told you why (see above).
I brought them into conformance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters (see above)... and you edited them back to caps. Did you not see above at the time? Did you just not care? That was a step into edit warring.
Now EricEnfermero has reverted your caps again, referencing Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, which is the full version of the policy that my link gives a shortened version of. I hope you will not try to impose your preferred style over Wikipedia's established style again. That would be flat-out edit warring and a Bad Thing. --Thnidu (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different blue cap

@Andrewsnyder26345: 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)[reply]

2013-present: Recent years

@RA0808: In Philadelphia Phillies § 2013-present: Recent years you've reverted 360mlgnoscoper420'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 Materialscientist 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 {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: 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"). RA0808 talkcontribs 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RA0808: 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)[reply]
@Thnidu: 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. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RA0808:  Done Also the non-POV content of the Hamels deal paragraph. --Thnidu (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2008 World Series Champions

I am undoing Jordandlee's reversion of my copyedits 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 copyedited a couple of sentences 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 reverted my edit with no explanation. What were your reasons, please? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and quoted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: Follow the normal protocol. (The phrase "grammar mistakes or typos" is a quote from his user page about what he focuses on in his editing.)

Seeing that he was a very new user, I requested advice from a senior editor who had had talks with him before. That is what he refers to below as "bring[ing] other people into our most recent [and only!] disagreement".

In reply, he wrote on my talk page:

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)[reply]

I don't see what "carelessness" he's talking about, and I don't see any grammatical mistakes, let alone "many". I have been editing Wikipedia for over ten years with about 10,000 edits, and have been thanked more often than reprimanded (see my Talk page and its archive). I hold a doctorate in linguistics from the University of California at Berkeley, and until I retired two years ago was a Research Administrator at the Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania; I'm pretty sure my grammar is at least as good as his.

I see that contrary to what I told the senior editor, I did not undo Jordandlee's revert at the time; I think I was interrupted and forgot to get back to it. I have just done so, and I'm notifying Jordandlee on my talk page.

--Thnidu (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1980 World Series

Thnidu recently added and took out a couple of paragraphs to the 1980 World Series section of this article–and I undid them using my second account, Jorduf. The problem with his/her edits is that they were not about that subject and what was taken out was. Yet, for some reason Materialscientist undid my revisions. If anyone can explain to me why they are doing that, it would be very much appreciated. Jordandlee (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordandlee and Jorduf: There's your first mistake.
Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed. (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry)
You're not playing by the rules. You joined this community less than two months ago and are clearly massively unaware of its rules and customs, but you're acting as though everything you're doing is right and proper. Sir Joseph tried to tell you what you were doing wrong, but you apparently ignored him. You've been posting content without citing the sources,[1][2] which goes flat against one of Wikipedia's basic principles.[3][4]
This is why people keep undoing your revisions. You can learn how to do it right. You can ask for help at the Help Desk; don't hesitate.
Regards, Thnidu (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ User_talk:Jordandlee#December 2015
  2. ^ User_talk:Jordandlee#December_2015_2
  3. ^ Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Gathering_references
  4. ^ Wikipedia:Citing_sources

First of all, Thnidu, it says MISUSE of multiple accounts (Pretending to be another person to vandalize, start controversy, side w/ yourself in a disagreement, etc.), which I am not doing. In fact, I make it quite obvious I am the same person by stating so, and VERY similar usernames. Secondly, I was not "not citing my sources". I was undoing your revisions to previous revisions, which ARE cited. Also, most of the content that YOU added was NOT cited. Most importantly, that wasn't what I was asking. I wanted to know why you took out good information and added paragraphs completely unrelated to the section that they were in. Jordandlee (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Jordandlee: Let's see about that.

  1. "In fact, I make it quite obvious I am the same person by stating so, and VERY similar usernames."
    • "stating so": Let's look at both your user pages and both your talk pages:
      • User:Jorduf: "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name." 404.
      • User talk:Jorduf has nothing about this.
      • User:Jordandlee doesn't mention it. That page says, in its entirety,
        Hello,
        My name is Jordan. I usually make edits on pages related to baseball, but I also will fix grammar mistakes or typos I may come across.
      • User talk:Jordandlee doesn't have a single word of yours. It has sections by, let's see: Sir Joseph; Sir Joseph; Sir Joseph; Sir Joseph; Sir Joseph, Spike-from-NH, and Muboshgu; Muboshgu; Muboshgu; and me. No content by you.
      • In addition, you have never mentioned this in our exchanges until now.
      Conclusion: You haven't "stated so" in any way that matters. If you write your secret identity only on your own bathroom wall, it's still secret.
    • "VERY similar usernames". Gee, I parsed "Jordandlee" as "Jordan D. Lee" and "Jorduf" as "Jorduf"; what is "uf"? English Wikipedia has 27,072,883 registered users (as of 00:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)). If there were an accessible list of usernames I'd be able to find out how many of them begin with "Jord". But the US Census Bureau says that "Jordan" ranked 105 among last names in 2000 (Frequently Occurring Surnames from the Census 2000: File A: Top 1000 Names), with 197,212 bearers, making about 73 per 100,000 in the US population. So I would guess that there are easily at least 80 Wikipedians surnamed "Jordan", and that at least 15 of them have usernames beginning with "Jord".
    • Evaluation: NOT TRUE IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY.
  2. "MISUSE of multiple accounts (Pretending to be another person to vandalize, start controversy, side w/ yourself in a disagreement, etc.), which I am not doing"
    • Given that, as far as could be told, you were concealing the duplicate account, I had every reason to assume bad intent.
    • Evaluation: UNTRUSTWORTHY.
  3. "Secondly, I was not "not citing my sources". I was undoing your revisions to previous revisions, which ARE cited. Also, most of the content that YOU added was NOT cited."
    • As a matter of fact, you reverted only the last of my four successive edits (20:03, 23 December 2015‎ (UTC); see Philadelphia Phillies: Revision history), for which I am grateful to the gods of chance and inattention. And that copyedit comprised just two changes, both for readability, neither of them needing citation:
      1. 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 first no-hitter in postseason history was New York Yankee pitcher Don Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series.) [I removed some redundancy, and I parenthesized the sentence about the 1956 WS, which had no direct bearing on the 2010 NLDS.]
      2. However, a A hot start in the second half of the season put the Phillies back on the postseason hunt, though but any hope was eventually extinguished with a loss to the Washington Nationals on September 28, thus costing the Phillies missed the postseason for the first time since 2006.
    • Nothing involving citations. Where have I added anything here that needs citations?
    • Evaluation: FALSE.

Be more careful and more polite. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And while I've been writing this, I see that you've also undone Materialscientist's earlier revision, again without leaving a revision comment. --Thnidu (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, you honestly sound like one of those kids trying to prove that the illuminati is real Jordandlee (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordandlee: Meanwhile, you have kindly provided more evidence of your sock-puppetry: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserProfile/Jordandlee currently says
Jordandlee
Recent activity
Edited the page Talk:Philadelphia Phillies, earlier today.
Last thanked by Jorduf.
If that's not acting as though those accounts belonged to different users, I don't know what is. --Thnidu (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked myself when I first made my second account to see what it did. If there is anyway to check, you will see that I did that a while ago and it was the only time. Jordandlee (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordandlee: I believe you. Unfortunately, no one can tell that you were testing it out to see how it worked. Rather, it looks as if you were trying to make it look like two different people. It certainly doesn't "make it quite obvious" you are the same person.
Do you see why your two accounts looked suspicious? As far as anyone could tell, you were trying to make them look like two different people. --Thnidu (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thnidu: Yes, I understand, now I see how you may have been suspicious. Since I know all of this stuff about what I was thinking when I made the accounts, it seemed very clear to me. But I wasn't considering that nobody else would have known that. Do you see how it may have seemed obviously harmless to me? Jordandlee (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Jordandlee (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jordandlee: Yes, I do. I'm satisfied that you meant no wrong in having two accounts.
Have you looked at any of the informational and help material? Here I particularly recommend Wikipedia:Edit warring and its section What to do if you see edit-warring behavior, about how to handle disagreements. --Thnidu (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring three references in this section that were replaced with simple unlinked markers ([14],[15],[16]) in the course of the edit wars discussed above. --Thnidu (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singular vs. plural

Jordandlee 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.

EricEnfermero 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)[reply]

Okay, I will leave it the way you have it. Jordandlee (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barnett??

§ 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, caught by future Hall of Fame catcher Tom Barnett.

The underlined text was added 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)[reply]

Dodgers rivalry

Muboshgu, why did you delete this section? 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)[reply]

@Thnidu: 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. Spanneraol agreed with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: 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)[reply]


@Muboshgu: The rivalry was notable before the Dodgers moved to L.A. How would you feel about restoring the section, appropriately edited and probably reduced in size, as a historical rivalry? After all, Wikipedia is not limited to the present. --Thnidu (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism: Jim Salisbury

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)[reply]

2019-present (and general style)

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)[reply]

Uniforms

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)[reply]

"Other Nicknames"

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)[reply]

"... a victim of many disappointing campaigns from the red pinstripes pointed out the high number of one-run victories in 2016 ..."[1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

You're referring to poetic license in an article saying "Red Pinstripes". As a lifelong Philadelphian, Phillies historian and Phillies fan, I can honestly say that nobody in this area refers to them as the "Red Pinstripes". My point about "Blue Jays" was that it NEVER was an official nickname of the team, and would be better off in that section than "The Red Pinstripes" (Blue Jays was an attempt to change the nickname by the owner by showing it in public, hoping it would catch on. The team never officially changed the name from Phillies (they still wore Phillies on their jerseys the entire time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Phillies

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the History of the Philadelphia Phillies page

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philadelphia_Phillies&oldid=973844098"